1,988
edits
Klalei HaTalmud: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
→Talmudic Phraseology (Lehonot HaGemara): tpoy
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) |
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Over the centuries, various works, such as Mevo HaTalmud, Halichot Olam, and their commentaries were compiled summarizing the rules and weighing them against one another. Often, their discussions consist of a deluge of citations proving or disproving a point by referencing sugyot spanning the entire corpus of Talmudic literature. Though adding all of those citations to this page would be heplful, thanks to the Sefaria plugin, due to the tediousness of the endeavor, as a minimum, we will suffice by quoting the Klalim Sefer at hand and leave it to the reader to do the rest of the groundwork. Most of these Sefarim are readily available and portions of many of them are printed in the back of the standard Masechet Berachot.<ref>As an aside, Rav Hershel Schachter ([http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/852308/rabbi-hershel-schachter/sanhedrin-73-psulei-edus-chiddush-of-edim-zomemim-yedias-hataaroves-tumat-yimei-leidah/ Sanhedrin 5775 #73]) is of the opinion that Klalim are ''postscriptive,'' not prescriptive, meaning the later generations voted on each issue and the results indicated that in certain situations a specific Tanna's position was usually followed. Thus they established the Klal as a Siman, not a Sibah, for deciding a Machaloket, but, of course, there are exceptions. This is just the ''general'' rule. This position is based on the writings of [https://www.yu.edu/riets/about/mission-history/historic-roshei/elazar-meir-preil Rav Elazar Meir Preil] in [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=943&st=&pgnum=354 HaMaor (vol. 1 Shu"t Siman 78:6)]</ref> | Over the centuries, various works, such as Mevo HaTalmud, Halichot Olam, and their commentaries were compiled summarizing the rules and weighing them against one another. Often, their discussions consist of a deluge of citations proving or disproving a point by referencing sugyot spanning the entire corpus of Talmudic literature. Though adding all of those citations to this page would be heplful, thanks to the Sefaria plugin, due to the tediousness of the endeavor, as a minimum, we will suffice by quoting the Klalim Sefer at hand and leave it to the reader to do the rest of the groundwork. Most of these Sefarim are readily available and portions of many of them are printed in the back of the standard Masechet Berachot.<ref>As an aside, Rav Hershel Schachter ([http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/852308/rabbi-hershel-schachter/sanhedrin-73-psulei-edus-chiddush-of-edim-zomemim-yedias-hataaroves-tumat-yimei-leidah/ Sanhedrin 5775 #73]) is of the opinion that Klalim are ''postscriptive,'' not prescriptive, meaning the later generations voted on each issue and the results indicated that in certain situations a specific Tanna's position was usually followed. Thus they established the Klal as a Siman, not a Sibah, for deciding a Machaloket, but, of course, there are exceptions. This is just the ''general'' rule. This position is based on the writings of [https://www.yu.edu/riets/about/mission-history/historic-roshei/elazar-meir-preil Rav Elazar Meir Preil] in [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=943&st=&pgnum=354 HaMaor (vol. 1 Shu"t Siman 78:6)]</ref> | ||
== Talmudic | ==History of the Talmud== | ||
# According to some, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi condensed Shas into six Sedarim, but others content that was done already by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Gedolim, Kuntress Acharon, Resh 2)</ref> | |||
== Talmudic Phraseology (Leshonot HaGemara)== | |||
# Sometimes, the Gemara will use the same phrase in different places but refer to totally different concepts, while, other times, it will use different phrases in different places to refer to the same concept.<ref>Numerous Rishonim cited in Halichot Olam 3:8, Yad Malachi Klalei HaTalmud 374</ref> | # Sometimes, the Gemara will use the same phrase in different places but refer to totally different concepts, while, other times, it will use different phrases in different places to refer to the same concept.<ref>Numerous Rishonim cited in Halichot Olam 3:8, Yad Malachi Klalei HaTalmud 374</ref> | ||
# Sometimes, two parts of a Tannaitic statement, such as in a Mishnah or Baraita, will have contradictory implications, i.e. the Reisha will imply that changing a parameter will result in -X, while the Seifah says that the Halacha is -X only with a different parameter, implying that changing the second parameter already results in X, without the first parameter.<ref>see Kiddushin 5b and Bava Kamma 48b</ref>. There are a number of possible means of resolving the difficulty, of varying levels of plausibility. | |||
## "'''Na'aseh KeMi She...'''" (נעשה כמי ש...) - The first half if the main point, and the second is just detailing how the middle case is essentially the same as the case two parameter changes away. According to the some, this is only a viable resolution when both parameters and results are functions of the same driving Halacha/logic.<ref>See Kiddushin 5b. Tosafot Chullin 16a s.v. Amar Ribbi Elazar, Halichot Olam 3:2:14 and Klalei HaGemara ad loc.</ref> Some say Na'aseh is not applicable when the Seifah begins with "Aval," but many disagree.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 488). See Matnat Yado ad loc.</ref> Also, if there are two points made together in the Reishah and then the parallel points are separated in the Seifah, the implications are too vague to apply Na'aseh.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 489)</ref> Certainly Na'aseh cannot be applied to teach the opposite of what it says in a different source.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 490). See also Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmjud 491)</ref> | |||
## "'''Tavra, Mi Sheshana Zo Lo Shanah Zo'''" (תברא, מי ששנה זו לא זנה זו) - ''Break'' the statement, the one who said this one didn't say the other one. Meaning, it's a Machaloket Tannaim and each half of the statement should be attributed to a different Tanna.<ref>Halichot Olam 3:2:16. The Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 630) translates Tavra as "By a Shevuah," meaning "I swear to you that..."</ref> Albeit a difficult resolution, this one is better than "Na'aseh..." as it doesn't force us to reinterpret the words of the Tannaim to say something they didn't actually say, so if it or a better answer is available, we will avoid resolving the issue with "Na'aseh..."<ref>Tosafot Bava Kamma 48b s.v. Eimah Seifah, Shitah Mekubetzet Bava Kamma 48b at the end quoting Shitah, Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 632). See also the Rosh's answer in the Shita ad loc. and Devash LeFi (Taf, 40)</ref> The Yad Malachi notes how the Gemara is willing to apply this even to two contradictory statements of a Tanna between a Mishnah and a Baraita.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 630)</ref> Some say the Gemara is willing to do it even if it doesn't know for certain that there is another view, but the Gemara will sometime attempt to ascertain that afterwards.<ref>Ramban Yevamot 108b, Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 631)</ref> However, some point out that the Gemara will only do that if it can't apply Na'aseh. Meaning, Na'aseh is preferred rather than Tavra when the Gemara doesn't know for sure that there are actually two positions among the Tannaim, unless Na'aseh is not applicable, such as if there's more than one driving factor.<ref>Yavin Shemua ad loc.</ref> | |||
## "'''Kedi Nesavah'''" (כדי נסבה) Or "Aidi de..." (איידי ד...) - Really, the first half is the main point, but the second one mentions it for nothing, in haste.<ref>Halichot Olam 3:2:13</ref> Since the first half mentioned the parameter, then we'll mention the inverse, as well.<ref>Halichot Olam 3:2:13</ref> (Bava Kamma 48b).<ref>This may be the strongest argument, as it maintains the singularity of authorship of the Mishnah, which may be a value depending on a Machaloket Amoraim in Beitzah.</ref> | |||
== Names and Titles of Tannaim and Amoraim == | |||
# Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi is also known as "Rebbi," "Rabbi Yudan HaNassi," and "Rabbeinu," but he is not known as "Rabban," even though he was a Nasi, possibly because he refrained from referring to himself as such in the Mishnayot out of humility.<ref>Shem HaGedolim (Gedolim, Kuntress Acharon, Resh 2)</ref> | |||
== Deciding Machloket == | == Deciding Machloket == | ||
The Gemara provides a few examples and general guidelines about how to decide debates between individuals mentioned in Shas. | The Gemara provides a few examples and general guidelines about how to decide debates between individuals mentioned in Shas. | ||
=== General === | |||
# "Ein Halacha KeShitah" (אין הלכה כשיטה) - In Torah literature, brevity is an oft used tool. As such, when the Gemara lists Tannaim or Amoraim who espose a similar view, it is indicating that they are the minority and their opinion is not accepted. Some say that this is only true when it's formulated as "פלוני ופלוני אמרו דבר אחד" and not "פלוני ופלוני כולהו סבירא להו כך וכך," while others argue the opposite.<ref>Halichot Olam 5:3:7 and Klalei HaGemara ad loc.</ref> | |||
=== Tannaim === | === Tannaim === | ||
==== Talmidei Rabbi Akiva (R' Meir, R' Yehudah, R' Shimon, and R' Yose) ==== | ==== Talmidei Rabbi Akiva (R' Meir, R' Yehudah, R' Shimon, and R' Yose) ==== | ||
# Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yehuda, the Halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda. <ref>Eruvin 45a</ref> | # Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yehuda, the Halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda. <ref>Eruvin 45a</ref> | ||
# "רבי יוסי נמוקו עמו" - R' Yose's reasoning is with him,<ref>Gittin 67b</ref> meaning the Halacha follows him when he disagrees with other Tannaim. Many assume this is only when R' Yose is disagreeing with an individual Tanna, not a majority, while others think that's not so obvious.<ref>Halichot Olam (5:1:1). Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 430) thinks that all the Rishonim clearly state or assume that the rule is not true by a majority, but many Acharonim, such as the Chida disagreed with him.</ref> For these purposes, a Stam Mishnah would be considered a majority.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 431)</ref> | |||
==== Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ==== | ==== Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ==== | ||
| Line 39: | Line 52: | ||
==== Rav Yochanan and Other Amoraim ==== | ==== Rav Yochanan and Other Amoraim ==== | ||
# Rav Yochanan vs. R' Yose bar Chanina is a Machaloket, the [[Rosh]]<ref>Rosh Bava Kamma 4:4. The Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 570) discusses the contradiction in the Rosh: in Bava Kamma he considers R' Yose bar Chanina to be Rav Yochanan's student, while elsewhere he considers R' Yose bar Chanina to be older than Rav Yochanan. Some suggest there were two R' Yose bar Chanina's, but he's not convinced. See Maharitz Chayut Bava Kamma 39a.</ref> and many others claim one should follow Rav Yochanan, as he was the latter's rebbe, while the [[Rambam]]<ref>Rambam (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:3)</ref> follows R' Yose bar Chanina, because he was "lan be'umka dedina" (very deeply engrossed in Din).<ref>Bava Kamma 39a</ref> | # Rav Yochanan vs. R' Yose bar Chanina is a Machaloket, the [[Rosh]]<ref>Rosh Bava Kamma 4:4. The Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 570) discusses the contradiction in the Rosh: in Bava Kamma he considers R' Yose bar Chanina to be Rav Yochanan's student, while elsewhere he considers R' Yose bar Chanina to be older than Rav Yochanan. Some suggest there were two R' Yose bar Chanina's, but he's not convinced. See Maharitz Chayut Bava Kamma 39a.</ref> and many others claim one should follow Rav Yochanan, as he was the latter's rebbe, while the [[Rambam]]<ref>Rambam (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:3)</ref> follows R' Yose bar Chanina, because he was "lan be'umka dedina" (very deeply engrossed in Din).<ref>Bava Kamma 39a</ref> | ||
==== Rav Acha and Ravina ==== | |||
# In Kol HaTorah Kullah, whenever the Gemara presents a dispute between Rav Acha and Ravina, it won't match the names to the opinions but rather say "Chad Amar X veChad Amar Y" (one says X and the other says Y). We assume that Ravina is always the identifiable with the lenient view except for three cases discussed in Chullin Perek Gif HaNasheh, where Rav Acha takes the lenient position. In all instances, the Halacha follows the lenient view, unless stated otherwise explicitly.<ref>Pesachim 74b, Chullin 93b, Gilyon HaShas ad loc, Halichot Olam 5:2:6. Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 561) points out how almost all Rishonim agree, but the Mordechai says that Rav Acha is usually the lenient one and Ravina the stringent one. He surmises it's either a copyists error or the Mordechai had a different girsa of our gemara. Note Matnat Yado footnote 97 that this was also the Raavan and Raavayah's girsa.</ref> | |||
# According to some, this rule only applies when only Rav Acha and Ravina are mentioned. If other Amoraim weigh in, this rule is inapplicable,<ref>Halichot Olam 5:2:6 and Klalei HaGemara ad loc. See Yavin Shemua ad loc for additional interpretations of this caveat.</ref> whereas others disagree.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 562)</ref> | |||
# In monetary matters, the borrower's benefit is considered the lenient view.<ref>Klalei HaGemara 5:2:6. Note Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 563 might be disagreeing with this based on a Ran.</ref> | |||
# Some consider is distasteful to rely on this for prohibitions related to food.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 564).</ref> | |||
==== Double Machaloket ==== | ==== Double Machaloket ==== | ||
# When Rav Yochanan and Resh Lakish dispute Rami Bar Chammah and Rav Yirmiyah, the Halacha follows the former group.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 301)</ref> | # When Rav Yochanan and Resh Lakish dispute Rami Bar Chammah and Rav Yirmiyah, the Halacha follows the former group.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 301)</ref> | ||
