Date and Place: 19 Sivan 5670 (1910), Yafo
Recipient and Background: Rav Yaakov David Wilovsky (Ridbaz), a leading rabbi who moved to Eretz Yisrael and was known for being, among other things, a strong opponent of leniencies on Shemitta.
Body: I now respond to your argument that I have no reason to fight (promote halachic arguments) because I have already published [my book on the laws of Shemitta,] Shabbat Ha’aretz. I already told my illustrious friend that I purposely did not set out [the halachic analysis] in a fully clear manner, organized and sufficiently deep. There are certain angles and clear reasons that I totally omitted. The reason behind this is that I did not want the leniency to be too entrenched. In that way, it would always be considered a ruling for exceptional times and a matter that was permitted only due to pressing circumstances.
When one broadens the discussion along the approach of Torah analysis, in the way it has always been practiced in Jewish scholarship, the prohibition would be weakened too much, which I do not want to do under any circumstances. Although if there was an absolute need to present the matter in the clearest manner, I still would not stop pointing out on a regular basis that the leniency is for difficult circumstances to be considered anew based on the times. But still, I prefer to not get to that point, and I would leave the matter with the flimsy presentation that I gave it in the introduction [to Shabbat Ha’aretz].
In truth, one cannot talk, in regard to the matter of Shemitta in Eretz Yisrael, about the customary practice. After all, as long as there was little Jewish-owned [agricultural] land, there was no set custom, because there was, for a long time, a consensus that Shemitta does not apply to non-Jewish fields. It turns out, then, that the present Yishuv created the question, which was born together with the very difficult circumstances. When you deal with a new question, you need to include all of the levels of halachic doubt.
The doubts include the following – A. the basic obligation of Shemitta, whether it is from the Torah or Rabbinic [in our times]; B. The doubt about which year Shemitta is. (Although there is a consensus on which year to observe, it has not been clarified in a manner that there is no doubt. It is clear only that we should not observe more than one year, whereas the year was chosen based on the approach of the Rambam. That does not mean that there is no longer doubt about the year, and the doubt can be combined with other doubts [to arise at leniency]). C. Also, the fact that there is a land tax and the nature of the [Turkish] laws of land regarding ownership, which treat all the land as the property of the kingdom, making the farmer just a renter who receives 90% of the produce according to the law, and probably only 6 or 7 portions, are among the points that lead to leniency in the proper manner.
When we compare [the present situation] to the strict rulings on matters that used to be assumed to be permitted or were recently ruled on for leniency, there should not be any room whatsoever to complain about the leniencies.
Recipient and Background: Rav Yaakov David Wilovsky (Ridbaz), a leading rabbi who moved to Eretz Yisrael and was known for being, among other things, a strong opponent of leniencies on Shemitta.
Body: I now respond to your argument that I have no reason to fight (promote halachic arguments) because I have already published [my book on the laws of Shemitta,] Shabbat Ha’aretz. I already told my illustrious friend that I purposely did not set out [the halachic analysis] in a fully clear manner, organized and sufficiently deep. There are certain angles and clear reasons that I totally omitted. The reason behind this is that I did not want the leniency to be too entrenched. In that way, it would always be considered a ruling for exceptional times and a matter that was permitted only due to pressing circumstances.
When one broadens the discussion along the approach of Torah analysis, in the way it has always been practiced in Jewish scholarship, the prohibition would be weakened too much, which I do not want to do under any circumstances. Although if there was an absolute need to present the matter in the clearest manner, I still would not stop pointing out on a regular basis that the leniency is for difficult circumstances to be considered anew based on the times. But still, I prefer to not get to that point, and I would leave the matter with the flimsy presentation that I gave it in the introduction [to Shabbat Ha’aretz].
In truth, one cannot talk, in regard to the matter of Shemitta in Eretz Yisrael, about the customary practice. After all, as long as there was little Jewish-owned [agricultural] land, there was no set custom, because there was, for a long time, a consensus that Shemitta does not apply to non-Jewish fields. It turns out, then, that the present Yishuv created the question, which was born together with the very difficult circumstances. When you deal with a new question, you need to include all of the levels of halachic doubt.
The doubts include the following – A. the basic obligation of Shemitta, whether it is from the Torah or Rabbinic [in our times]; B. The doubt about which year Shemitta is. (Although there is a consensus on which year to observe, it has not been clarified in a manner that there is no doubt. It is clear only that we should not observe more than one year, whereas the year was chosen based on the approach of the Rambam. That does not mean that there is no longer doubt about the year, and the doubt can be combined with other doubts [to arise at leniency]). C. Also, the fact that there is a land tax and the nature of the [Turkish] laws of land regarding ownership, which treat all the land as the property of the kingdom, making the farmer just a renter who receives 90% of the produce according to the law, and probably only 6 or 7 portions, are among the points that lead to leniency in the proper manner.
When we compare [the present situation] to the strict rulings on matters that used to be assumed to be permitted or were recently ruled on for leniency, there should not be any room whatsoever to complain about the leniencies.
No comments:
Post a Comment