0

Do any poskim hold that there isn't shmita now days?
I ask this because

  1. There is a machloket rishonim if the yovel counts towards shmita or not.
  2. There are opinions that say only when we have the Beit Hamikdash is shmita deorita.

Therefore it seems like a safek sefka (doubt within a doubt).

Improve this question
21
  • 4
    I don't understand the question. Everyone says it's either deoraita or derabanan. What's the second safek?
    – Double AA ♦
    Sep 16, 2014 at 21:36
  • 2
    "safek sefka" does not mean 2 doubts, but "a doubt within a doubt". You have given us 2 parallel (if not identical) doubts.
    – Danny Schoemann
    Sep 17, 2014 at 7:12
  • For one widely accepted poseq's view, see Yalqut Yosef's Qitzur Shulhhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 331:9 that "most posqim consider Shemitah today to be Mi'De'Rabbanan"
    – Lee
    Sep 17, 2014 at 7:21
  • 2
    The s'fek s'feka seems, @DannySchoemann, DoubleAA, to be that even if sh'mita is a divinely imposed obligation nowadays, we're unsure what year it is (because of the other safek). Seems reasonable to me (especially if the asker can source his/her s'fekos), at least on the face of it.
    – msh210 ♦
    Sep 17, 2014 at 11:40
  • 1
    @DoubleAA: The Tur does NOT say that the Safek of the year is the reason for the machlokes if you need a prozbul before the end of the 6th or 7ht year.The ROSH, Rabbeinu Yerucham and Ba'al HaItur are of the opinion that you transgress Lo Yigoth during the 7th year already - even though the loan only expires at the end of the 7th. A Prozbul solves the לא יגוש issue. Note that the TUR mentions the date issue after the above issue. hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40383&st=&pgnum=222 .
    – Danny Schoemann
    Sep 18, 2014 at 7:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

The Remo mentions it in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat סימן סז - דין שמטה ופרוזבול.

To quote:

אֲבָל יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּאֵין שְׁמִטָּה נוֹהֶגֶת בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה; וְנִרְאֶה שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶם סָמְכוּ בִּמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ, שֶׁאֵין נוֹהֲגִים דִּין שְׁמִטָּה כְּלָל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה, וְהַמִּנְהָג הָיוּ נוֹהֲגִים עֲדַיִן בִּזְמַן הָרֹא''שׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּתְשׁוּבָה (הַטּוּר ס''ה הֵבִיאוֹ), שֶׁהָיָה צוֹוֵחַ כִּכְרוּכְיָא לְבַטֵּל הַמִּנְהָג, וְלֹא אַשְׁגָּחוּ בֵהּ, וּכְבָר כָּתְבוּ גַם כֵּן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים ז''ל (בד''מ ס''ה הֵבִיאוֹ) טַעַם לַמִּנְהָג שֶׁאֵין נוֹהֲגִין שְׁמִטָּה כַּמְבֹאָר בְּדִבְרֵי מַהֲרִי''ק שֹׁרֶשׁ צ''ב וּמהר''ר אִיסֶרְלָן בְּת''ה סִימָן ד''ש וּבַמַּהֲרִי''ל, וְאֵין לְדַקְדֵּק אַחֲרֵיהֶם.‏

It's not 100% clear to me if he's only referring to Shmitath Kesafim - or to land-related Shmita as well. The language דְּאֵין שְׁמִטָּה נוֹהֶגֶת בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה seems rather general, but the issue at hand is monetary as this is part of הלכות הלוואה and the Siman start with אֵין שְׁמִטַּת כְּסָפִים נוֹהֶגֶת מִן הַתּוֹרָה. The באר היטב also seems to assume we're dealing with monetary issues:

טעם. גם בתשובת הרא''ש כתב טעם על שהניחם במנהגם ז''ל כיון שפשט המנהג שלא להשמיט והכל יודעים זה ה''ל כאילו התנה המלו' ע''מ שלא תשמט בשביעית עכ''ל. סמ''ע:

That said, the Remo doesn't agree with this view, as you can see from the context - to quote from the beginning of the Siman:

א אֵין שְׁמִטַּת כְּסָפִים נוֹהֶגֶת מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁמִטַּת כְּסָפִים נוֹהֶגֶת בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. הגה: (רַמְבַּ''ם פ''ט מֵה' שְׁמִטָּה בעה''ת שַׁעַר מ''ה וְהָרַ''ן בְּשֵׁם יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים) כֵּן הוּא הַסְכָּמַת הַפּוֹסְקִים ‏

"All Poskim agree there is Shmita nowadays."

Improve this answer
1
  • "כֵּן הוּא הַסְכָּמַת הַפּוֹסְקִים" does not translate to "All Poskim agree there is Shmita nowadays." And I agree with you that the first Rama you quote is only referring to Shemitat Kesafim.
    – Double AA ♦
    Sep 17, 2014 at 15:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .