Klalei HaTalmud: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Amoraim
MordechaiD (talk | contribs) (organize history and names) |
|||
| (12 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> | ||
=History of the Talmud= | ==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> | # 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 == | == 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 == | == Names and Titles of Tannaim and Amoraim == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 18: | ||
== 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 31: | Line 38: | ||
=== Amoraim === | === Amoraim === | ||
# Amoraim often elucidate the shitot of Tannaim in Mishnayot even if the Halacha doesn't follow them, so there's no proof to be brought from the fact that the view of a certain Tanna in a Mishnah is elucidated to prove which the Halacha should follow. However, proof may be brought from such an instance with respect to a Tanna in a Baraita or another Amora.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 13). See Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 23, 355) who seems to disagree about elucidating against one's own position.</ref> | # Amoraim often elucidate the shitot of Tannaim in Mishnayot even if the Halacha doesn't follow them, so there's no proof to be brought from the fact that the view of a certain Tanna in a Mishnah is elucidated to prove which the Halacha should follow. However, proof may be brought from such an instance with respect to a Tanna in a Baraita or another Amora.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 13). See Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 23, 355) who seems to disagree about elucidating against one's own position.</ref> | ||
# It's usually assumed that Amoraim cannot argue on Tannaim,<ref>Kessef Mishneh (Hilchot Mamrim 2:1), Klalei HaGemara on Halichot Olam (2:2:10), Chazon Ish (Kovetz Iggerot vol. 2 Iggeret 24, Orchot Ish page 186)</ref> but some say it's merely an honorary non Halachic distinction.<ref>Biur HaGra (Choshen Mishpat 25:6), See Tosafot (Ketubot 8a s.v. Rav Tanna Hu uPalig) and Kovetz Shiurim (Bava Batra 633) who says similarly in the name of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/891586/rabbi-hershel-schachter/berachos-54-23b-24a-sitting-next-to-tefillin-amoraim-vs-tannaim-libo-roeh-es-haervah-hafrashas-terumah-mitzvah-or-mattir-ervas-tinok-and-akum/ Rav Hershel Schachter] (Nefesh HaRav page 36) takes this stance, as well. Rav Elchanan Wasserman also engaged the Chazon Ish in correspondence on this issue, after he wrote in Kuntress Divrei Sofrim (Siman 2, see Da'at Sofrim ad loc) that Chatimat HaMishnah and HaTalmud were enabled by the gathering of all the Chachmei HaDor (Kibutz Chachamim), which gave them the status of Beit Din HaGadol. The latter took an opposing view, as it discounted the inherent loftiness of the individual Chachamim and implied there was little different between them and later generations. (Kovetz Iggerot ibid). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIjFgOCG1s Rav Asher Weiss] finds grounding for Reb Chaim in the Meiri, but he believes that given the Rambam says one cannot disagree without confidently understanding the difficult opinion at hand, there are just some generations that were so far from the previous one that a line must be drawn. See also Rav Asher Weiss's ([http://www.kolhalashon.com/New/Media/PlayShiur.aspx?FileName=0007-20171227-120625-כללי_הפסיקה_בדברי_הראשונים_והאחרונים-פרק_א.mp3&ShiurNum=22 I], [http://www.kolhalashon.com/New/Media/PlayShiur.aspx?FileName=0007-20180101-120625-כללי_הפסיקה_ב.mp3&ShiurNum=21 II], [http://www.kolhalashon.com/New/Media/PlayShiur.aspx?FileName=0007-20180104-120550-כללי_הפסיקה-חלק_ג.mp3&ShiurNum=20 III] and [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/873470/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/intergenerational-debate-r-asher-weiss-on-disagreements-between-tannaim-amoraim-rishonim-acharonim/ Rav Aryeh Lebowitz's] shiurim on the topic.</ref> | # It's usually assumed that Amoraim cannot argue on Tannaim,<ref>Kessef Mishneh (Hilchot Mamrim 2:1), Klalei HaGemara on Halichot Olam (2:2:10), Chazon Ish (Kovetz Iggerot vol. 2 Iggeret 24, Orchot Ish page 186)</ref> but some say it's merely an honorary non Halachic distinction.<ref>Biur HaGra (Choshen Mishpat 25:6), See Tosafot (Ketubot 8a s.v. Rav Tanna Hu uPalig) and Kovetz Shiurim (Bava Batra 633) who says similarly in the name of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/891586/rabbi-hershel-schachter/berachos-54-23b-24a-sitting-next-to-tefillin-amoraim-vs-tannaim-libo-roeh-es-haervah-hafrashas-terumah-mitzvah-or-mattir-ervas-tinok-and-akum/ Rav Hershel Schachter] (Nefesh HaRav page 36) takes this stance, as well. Rav Elchanan Wasserman also engaged the Chazon Ish in correspondence on this issue, after he wrote in Kuntress Divrei Sofrim (Siman 2, see Da'at Sofrim ad loc) that Chatimat HaMishnah and HaTalmud were enabled by the gathering of all the Chachmei HaDor (Kibutz Chachamim), which gave them the status of Beit Din HaGadol. The latter took an opposing view, as it discounted the inherent loftiness of the individual Chachamim and implied there was little different between them and later generations. (Kovetz Iggerot ibid). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIjFgOCG1s Rav Asher Weiss] finds grounding for Reb Chaim in the Meiri, but he believes that given the Rambam says one cannot disagree without confidently understanding the difficult opinion at hand, there are just some generations that were so far from the previous one that a line must be drawn. See also Rav Asher Weiss's ([http://www.kolhalashon.com/New/Media/PlayShiur.aspx?FileName=0007-20171227-120625-כללי_הפסיקה_בדברי_הראשונים_והאחרונים-פרק_א.mp3&ShiurNum=22 I], [http://www.kolhalashon.com/New/Media/PlayShiur.aspx?FileName=0007-20180101-120625-כללי_הפסיקה_ב.mp3&ShiurNum=21 II], [http://www.kolhalashon.com/New/Media/PlayShiur.aspx?FileName=0007-20180104-120550-כללי_הפסיקה-חלק_ג.mp3&ShiurNum=20 III] and [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/873470/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/intergenerational-debate-r-asher-weiss-on-disagreements-between-tannaim-amoraim-rishonim-acharonim/ Rav Aryeh Lebowitz's] shiurim on the topic.</ref> Some say that anybody, an Amora, or anybody else can argue about non-Halachic issues, such as history or the source for a Derasha, with Tannaim.<ref>Chochmat Shlomo (Maharshal) Sanhedrin 52b s.v. Gemara Ta'ah, Shoshanim LeDavid (Yoma 8:6 s.v. vekhol). See [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/agadot/hagada1-2.htm Rabbi Avraham Ben HaRambam (Introduction to Aggadot ch. 2 s.v. da ki)] writes that for passages of midrash one shouldn't believe opinions purely based on the one who said it without understanding whether it is right or wrong. He adds that with respect to statement of chazal regarding medicine and science one is not obligated to believed them as we are indeed obligated to follow and believe them with respect to their interpretation of Torah and halacha.</ref> | ||
==== Rav and Shmuel ==== | ==== Rav and Shmuel ==== | ||
| Line 45: | 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> | ||
| Line 66: | Line 79: | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
{{Reflist|30em}} | {{Reflist|30em}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Rules for Determining Halacha]] | ||
