Klalei HaTalmud: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Deciding Machloket: maharik's klal
(→Amoraim: arguing on history) |
(→Deciding Machloket: maharik's klal) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== 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. Many assume these guidelines apply to every instance in Shas, while a some argue that they only apply to cases that have practical application as a means to allow for confident Halachic observance, whereas the Halacha about debates in topics like Kodashim and Tahorot remain to be determined.<ref>The [[Maharik]] (Shoresh 165) argues that the Klalim were never meant to decide every single case in Kol HaTorah Kullah but, rather, to enable us to actually figure out what to do when it mattered. In cases where the issue is of no practical relevance, the Klalim do not apply. Others argue that there is no indication of this from the [[Rambam]], [[Rosh]], or other poskim until his day, except for maybe on Tosafot in Shabbat 70. The [[Maharik]]'s view has been accepted by some Acharonim, as listed in Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 234), but rejected by many, as well. See Chavot Yair 94:1, Yad Malachi ibid, Ezrat Nashim (Shemot Anashim, Avshalom), the [[Chida]] in a number of places (Sha'ar Yosef Horayot 2a, Achorei Tara ad loc, Heseg Yad ad loc 40, Chaim She'al 2:31:5 s.v. atah, Ein Zocher (Heh 13)), Divrei Malkiel 2:108, and Rav Kook's letter Rehita DeChalkaei printed in Sdei Chemed vol. 10 pg 1960b and Otzrot HaReiyah vol. 6 pg. 33.</ref> | ||
=== General === | === 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> | # "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> | ||
| Line 38: | 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> 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)</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 ==== | ||
