I wanted to say over again the argument between Rav Shach and Rav Isaac Soloveitchik. What I want to make clear is the fact that Rav Soloveitchik has mainly two things in the Rambam which indicate that he is right.
The actual argument between them is about what is the area of the Land Of Israel obligated in in those areas that were not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. To Rav I.S. those areas are obligated in all obligations of the land of Israel. Rav Shach agrees with that but adds those areas are also obligated in tithes to the poor.
The proof of Rav I.S. is that the Rambam says Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor. And he is clear that Amon and Moav are not the same thing as the area of the Land Of Israel that was not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. [That means we can't use Rashi nor Tosphot to answer this Rambam. ] The other proof of Rav IS is when he says what obligations those areas of Israel are obligated in he says they did not "patur" (make not obligated) them from Trumot and maasrot. This is in clear relation to areas that they did "Patur". So from the straight reading of the Rambam it looks like Rav IS is right. But when you trace things back to the Gemara it looks like Rav Shach is right.
The Gemara brings the statement that is a halacha le'Moshe MiSinai that Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor on the seventh year. But then as a proof it brings this statement דאמר מר הרבה כרכים כיבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשו עולי בבל שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית. To the way of Rav IS this does not seem to make any sense. How do you know Amon Moav give maasar ani? Because some cities in other areas give ספיחים. Not only is there no connection but the the sense of it is why is there a decree to give in place X? Because they did not make a decree in place Y! To Rav Shach the connection is simple. In both place one gives tithes to the poor.
The actual argument between them is about what is the area of the Land Of Israel obligated in in those areas that were not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. To Rav I.S. those areas are obligated in all obligations of the land of Israel. Rav Shach agrees with that but adds those areas are also obligated in tithes to the poor.
The proof of Rav I.S. is that the Rambam says Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor. And he is clear that Amon and Moav are not the same thing as the area of the Land Of Israel that was not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. [That means we can't use Rashi nor Tosphot to answer this Rambam. ] The other proof of Rav IS is when he says what obligations those areas of Israel are obligated in he says they did not "patur" (make not obligated) them from Trumot and maasrot. This is in clear relation to areas that they did "Patur". So from the straight reading of the Rambam it looks like Rav IS is right. But when you trace things back to the Gemara it looks like Rav Shach is right.
The Gemara brings the statement that is a halacha le'Moshe MiSinai that Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor on the seventh year. But then as a proof it brings this statement דאמר מר הרבה כרכים כיבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשו עולי בבל שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית. To the way of Rav IS this does not seem to make any sense. How do you know Amon Moav give maasar ani? Because some cities in other areas give ספיחים. Not only is there no connection but the the sense of it is why is there a decree to give in place X? Because they did not make a decree in place Y! To Rav Shach the connection is simple. In both place one gives tithes to the poor.
