|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Overview == | | ==General Guidelines== |
| The Talmud is laden with extrapolations of the Torah and controversies between Tannaim and Amoraim. In order to understand the mechanisms at play and the means of deciding a Machaloket, it's incumbent to study the rules. Some are explicit in the Gemara, but their applications can get tricky, especially when competing with other rules and considerations.
| | # A cooked or baked dish made from any other flour other than flour of the 5 grains or rice is [[Shehakol]]. Therefore, the bracha on a cooked or baked dish, which is primarily made from corn or potato flour and does not include the 5 grains, is [[Shehakol]].<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>
| | * Gemara: Rav and Shmuel (Gemara [[Brachot]] 37a-b) hold that mixtures made from orez or dochen are not [[mezonot]]. The gemara finally rejects their opinion and concludes that the bracha rishona on orez bread is [[mezonot]] and bracha achrona is [[Boreh Nefashot]]. |
| | * Dispute amongst the rishonim about dochen: The Rif ([[Brachot]] 26a) rules that cooked orez is [[mezonot]], while bread made from dochen is [[shehakol]]. The Rambam ([[Brachot]] 3:10) agrees that orez that’s cooked or baked into bread is [[mezonot]], but dochen bread is [[shehakol]]. |
| | * One anonymous gaon (quoted by Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah Berachot 26a s.v. VePat), Rabbenu Yonah (Berachot 26a), and the Rosh ([[Brachot]] 6:8) argue that the bracha on dochen bread is [[mezonot]] since dochen is filling just like orez. |
| | * Identifying orez and dochen: Tosfot 37a s.v. Rashi explain that orez is rice and dochen is millet. Bet Yosef 208:8 sides with the opinion of Tosfot. |
| | * Halachic ruling: S”A 208:7-8 rules like the Rif and Rambam that cooked rice or rice bread is [[mezonot]], but dochen bread is [[shehakol]]. Beiur Halacha s.v. Al Pat asks why Shulchan Aruch ruled like the Rif and Rambam against the majority of rishonim. He concludes that one who wants to make [[mezonot]] on dochen bread may do so. |
| | * Other satiating grains: The Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah ([[Brachot]] 26a s.v. VePat) quotes one Goan and Rabbenu Yonah as having ruled that any grain, which we know provides sustenance is [[mezonot]]. Tur 208:8 agrees. Beiur Halacha s.v. Al Pat quotes the Tosfot HaRosh as agreeing as well. |
| | * Halachic ruling: The Beiur Halacha points out that Shulchan Aruch who ruled that dochen bread and panisu bread was [[Shehakol]], clearly ruled against the Rabbenu Yonah. Accordingly, Chatom Sofer (responsa O.C. #50) originally assumes that bread made from born flour can not be [[mezonot]] considering that we hold like the Rif and Rambam as opposed to the Rabbenu Yonah. |
| | * Corn products: The Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah ([[Brachot]] 26a s.v. VeHaPat) offers two explanations as to why the bracha on bread made from lentils is [[shehakol]] and not haadama. First, the baked product is a complete change from the lentils themselves and does not warrant boreh pri haadama. Second, lentils are not usually eaten in the form of bread. The Chatom Sofer O.C. 50 applies these two answers to bread made from corn flour. According to the first one, the bracha is [[shehakol]], but according to the second, since the primary way to eat corn is in this way, the bracha is haadama. See there for his other arguments. |
| | * Bottom line about corn products: The Laws of [[Brachos]] (p. 304) and Halachos of [[Brachos]] (p. 405) rule that foods made from corn flour are [[shehakol]] since the flour is ground to the extent that it is not recognizable as corn. Their rulings are based on the Rama 202:7. Vezot HaBracha (p. 200), Badatz Yerushalayim (Madrich [[Kashrut]] 5771 p. 130), and Rav Yisrael Belsky in Shulchan HaLevi (3:13 p. 37) agree. |
| | * Potato products: Badatz Yerushalayim (Madrich [[Kashrut]] 5771 p. 130) writes that foods which are primarily made from potato flour is [[Shehakol]] based on the Rama 202:7. Sefer Yemei HaPesach (p. 157) writes that cakes made from potato starch are [[Shehakol]]. </ref> |
| | # If one grinds a vegetable or grain not from the five grains and cook it, if the vegetable is still recognizable in the product then the Bracha is the same the vegetable, however if it’s ground and unrecognizable then the Bracha is [[shehakol]] unless it’s still intact. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 202:42 writes that the halacha is if the vegetables were crushed but still it’s intact then it retains the original Bracha, whereas if it’s crushed and unrecognizable the Bracha is [[Shehakol]]. This is also the opinion of Vezot HaBracha (pg 100, chapter 12) and Veten Bracha (Halachos of Brochos by Rabbi Bodner pg 403-4, chapter 22) </ref> |
|
| |
|
| ==History of the Talmud== | | ==Popcorn== |
| # 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> | | # Popcorn is HaAdama either because the seed is considered to be recognizable<ref> Vezot HaBracha (pg 100, chapter 12) and Or Letzion (vol 2, 14:11)</ref> or even though the seed has changed to the point that it’s unrecognizable as corn, but nonetheless the seed is still intact.<ref> Veten Bracha (Halachos of Brochos by Rabbi Bodner pg 409, chapter 22) in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalman. Yalkut Yosef (Brachot, 5751, p. 422) quotes his father as holding that popcorn is haadama. Halacha Brurah 202:29 agrees.</ref> However, some consider it [[Shehakol]]. <Ref> Vezot HaBracha (pg 100, chapter 12) quotes Rav Mordechai Eliyahu who says that the Bracha on popcorn is [[Shehakol]]. </Ref> |
| | ==Corn flakes== |
| | # Corn flakes can either be [[shehakol]] or haadoma depending on how they are made. If made from flour – then [[shehakol]]. If made from rolled grits – then haadoma.<ref>Rav Yisrael Belsky in Shulchan HaLevi (3:13 p. 37) rules that cornflakes which are made from corn flour is [[Shehakol]], while if it is made from corn that was ground into grits, the bracha is HaAdama. He adds that if it is made from a combination of flour and grits, the bracha is HaAdama. Vezot Habracha p. 200 quotes Rav Moshe that cornflakes are haadama if they're made from pieces of corn. But if they're made from corn flour, he quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman, that the bracha is shehakol.</ref> The way it is made depends on the company. Kellogs and Post are haadama, while Total and General Mills is shehakol.<ref>Vezot Habracha p. 200</ref> |
| | # Some say that the bracha for Sephardim on cornflakes is shehakol.<ref>Halacha Brurah 202:29</ref> Others say that it is haadama.<ref>Yalkut Yosef (Brachot, 5751, p. 422, and Brachot, 5767, p. 214). However, in Yalkut Yosef (Brachot, 5771, p. 144) he suggests that it should be shehakol since it is mixed with other ingredients and is similar to falafel. </ref> |
|
| |
|
| == Talmudic Phraseology (Leshonot HaGemara)== | | ==Corn chips== |
| # 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> | | # Corn tortillas and corn chips would be [[shehakol]] since both are processed to the point where they loose their ideal brocha. <Ref>Veten Bracha (Halachos of Brochos by Rabbi Bodner pg 410, chapter 22) writes that corn tortillas and corn chips would be [[shehakol]] since both are processed to the point where they loose their ideal brocha. Rav Yisrael Belsky in Shulchan HaLevi (3:13 p. 37) rules that corn chips or corn tortillas are [[Shehakol]] in America or any country in which the majority of the corn isn't planted in order to be eaten as corn chips or tortillas. He explains that corn chips are made from cornmeal (corn flour) and so the bracha is [[Shehakol]]. </ref> For Sephardim the bracha is Haadama.<ref>[http://www.moreshet.co.il/web/shut/print.asp?id=134503&kod=&modul=15&codeClient=58 Rav Avraham Yosef] writes that corn chips made only from corn are haadama for Sephardim.</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 == | | ==Corn Bread== |
| # 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> | | # Corn bread is mezonot since it has wheat flour in it.<ref>Halachos of Brachos Handbook (p. 31) writes that corn bread which are really primarily made from wheat flour are hamotzei like regular bread. Laws of Brachos (Rabbi Forst, pg 386, n. 2) agrees that if it is fit to be eaten as bread, the bracha is hamotzei. However, he concludes that if the corn bread is more like cake than bread because of its distinct corn (and sweet cakey) taste, the bracha is mezonot, unless one is Koveh Seudah on it.</ref> |
| | # Gluten free cornbread is shehakol.<ref>The Mishna Brurah 208:33 cites the Pri Megadim that cornbread made without wheat is haadama since the corn is planted for that reason. However, he also cites the Chatom Sofer OC 1:50 who argues that it is shehakol since it is primarily planted for animal food. See there where he entertains the idea that corn is included in rice. Laws of Brachos (p. 365) concludes that gluten free corn bread is shehakol.</ref> |
|
| |
|
| == Deciding Machloket == | | ==Potato chips== |
| The Gemara provides a few examples and general guidelines about how to decide debates between individuals mentioned in Shas.
| | # Potato chips are HaAdama because it’s recognizably a thin slice of a potato that was fried. <Ref>Veten Bracha (Halachos of Brochos by Rabbi Bodner pg 407, chapter 22) in name of Rav Shlomo Zalman</ref> |
| === General === | | ===Pringles=== |
| # "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> | | # Some say that pringles are HaAdama since the result retains a resemblance of the original vegetable. <Ref>Veten Bracha (Halachos of Brochos by Rabbi Bodner pg 407, chapter 22) in name of Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Moshe Feinstein, Vezot haberacha pg. 239 in the name of Rav Elyashiv. See [http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/64/Q1/ Rav Meir Bransdorfer] who is quoted as saying that pringles are [[shehakol]] and [https://oukosher.org/publications/whats-the-bracha-on-pringles/ the OU's article] which relays Rav Belsky's discussion of Rav Moshe's original opinion and retraction. </ref> Some hold that it is Shehakol.<ref>Yalkut Yosef (Brachot 5767 edition p. 213) wrote that Pringles are shehakol.</ref> |
| | ==Potato Kugel and Latkes== |
| | # Potato Kugel according to many poskim is haadama.<ref>Yalkut Yosef (Brachot 5767, p. 213) writes that potato kugel is shehakol. On p. 188 he explains that since the ground potatoes are mixed with egg and other ingredients the minhag is to make haadama. Similarly, felafal are shehakol since they’re made with other ingredients. He distinguishes between kugel or falafel and sugar or chocolate between sugar and chocolate were cooked and totally changed. </ref> |
| | # Latkes are haadama if made with ground potatoes.<ref>Laws of Brachos (Rabbi Forst, pg 359-384), Yalkut Yosef (Klalei Sefer Brachot pg 208-214), Rav Schachter (Brachot Shiur 77 min 20)</ref> |
|
| |
|
| === Tannaim === | | ==Mashed potatoes== |
| ==== Talmidei Rabbi Akiva (R' Meir, R' Yehudah, R' Shimon, and R' Yose) ====
| | # Mashed potatoes are HaAdama.<ref> Rav Yakov Emden [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42759&st=&pgnum=217 (Sidur Bet Yakov Birchat Hanehenin Kuf n. 19)] writes that mashed potatoes are haadama even if they are mashed well with a spoon. The Mishna Brurah 202:40-2 writes that mashed potatoes are like the case of mashed dates which we follow Shulchan Aruch and only in the case of jam do we follow the Rama. Vezot HaBracha (chap 12, pg 99) writes that mashed potatoes are HaAdama and explains (pg 251) that since the texture and color are the same as the original vegetable the Bracha is the HaAdama. Halachos of [[Brachos]] (pg 406) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Sheinburg, and Rav Elyashiv who agree that mashed potatoes are HaAdama. Halacha Brurah 202:25 and Yalkut Yosef 202:22 rule that mashed potatoes are HaAdama. See also Sh"t Yabia Omer 7:29. </ref> |
| # Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yehuda, the Halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda.<ref>Eruvin 45a</ref> | | # Many say that instant mashed potatoes are HaAdama since the result retains a resemblance of the original vegetable. <Ref> Veten Bracha (Halachos of Brochos by Rabbi Bodner pg 407, chapter 22) in name of Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinburg, and Rav Elyashiv. Rav Yisrael Belsky in Shulchan HaLevi (3:12 p. 37) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as saying that instant mashed potatoes are HaAdama. Halacha Brurah 202:25 agrees. Vezot Habracha (Birur Halahca 16 p. 251) also quotes poskim who say it is haadama and then adds that it isn't a clear cut question. He concludes that if someone made shehakol he fulfilled his obligation according to everyone. </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 ==== | | ==Bamba== |
| # The Rif does not accept the rule of following Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's positions mentioned in Mishnayot unless it's very logical, but the Rosh does regardless.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 12)</ref> | | #Many are of the opinion that since the corn flour is totally unrecognizable, Bamba is Shehakol.<Ref>Vezot Habracha pg. 389, Birkhot Eliyahu pg. 100</ref> However, some claim that since the corn is grown specifically for Bamba, and there are few ingredients but the puffed corn flour itself, the Beracha remains Haadama.<Ref>Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef (Yalkut Yosef Kitzur Shulchan Aruch vol. 1 Siman 203 Seif 6), where he testifies that he saw his father (Chacham Ovadia Yosef) make a Haadama on Bamba publicly on Pesach. The gist of Rav Yitzchak Yosef's argument is that the species of corn used in all the different Bamba recipes is different from the standard corn eaten worldwide, in shape, color, and edibility. Since it is only grown for Bamba and popcorn, it remains discernible throughout the cooking process (he went to the factory to see for himself), and, according to Rabbenu Yerucham 16:2 regarding hearts of palm that something that is only edible when ground up retains its Beracha, the Beracha on Bamba is Haadama. He claims that he has received his father's support numerous times in writing and in the context of his father's shiurim. See further Yalkut Yosef vol. 3 on Berachot (page 422 and in the Miluim at the end of the volume), Ein Yitzchak (Vol. 2, pg 577), Yated HaMeir journal (Tamuz 5765), Shulchan HaMaarechet (Vol. 1, pg 428), Yalkut Yosef Berachot (5771, articles in the end of the Sefer, Siman 6, found in Otzar HaChochma). See Rabbi David Yosef (Halacha Brurahh vol. 8 pg 222) who claims like the first opinion in the name of his father that anything that undergoes a change of shape and taste becomes Shehakol. Though he doesn't explicitly reference Bamba, he is widely quoted to disagree with the Yalkut Yosef on this matter by [http://matzav.com/bamba-bracha-blitz popular media outlets] specifically because the corn for Bamba is not grown just for Bamba and such parameters are likely to change. See Haskama in introduction to the 10th volume, where his father seems to support his opinion of saying shehakol. In "Maran Meor Yisrael" weekly pamphlet (Emor 5778), a letter from Rav Yitzchak Yosef was published restating his opinion and adding that his father related that when he wrote that Haskama he had been told that the reason why Rav Yitzchak Yosef posits the Beracha is Haadamah is that the taste of the corn is still discernible. When it was proven that that was not the case, Rav Ovadia wrote in the Haskama that the Beracha should be Shehakol. Afterwards, Rav Ovadia read what Rav Yitzchak wrote and agreed that it should be Ha'adamah and even recited Haadamah on bamba twice in Rav Yitzchak's presence. The letter also points out that he only knows first hand regarding the Osem Bambas and was told that all Bamba from other brands is made the same way. One should find out in Chut LaAretz what the reality is. [http://www.ykr.org.il/modules/Ask/answer/4841 Rabbi Meir Mazuz ] also says to say shehakol on Bamba. [http://shut.moreshet.co.il/shut2.asp?id=129580 Rabbi Avraham Yosef] agrees but adds that if one says haadama that is good too. Most recently, Rav Yitzchak Yosef reviewed the issue at length in his Motzei Shabbat Shiur ([http://maran.hug.co.il/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=70&icid=52&mode=s Beshalach 5775, about 50:00]). He tells the story about how originally everyone thought the Beracha was Shehakol, until he chanced upon touring the Bamba factory in Migdal HaEmek, was showed the entire process from start to finish, and discussed it with his father, who agreed that it should be Haadamah. That very year, his father made a Haadama on Bamba at the Seder and instructed the rest of the family to do the same. He added that this species of corn can only be used for popcorn, Bamba, and tortillas.</ref> |
| | |
| ==== Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ====
| |
| # The Halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi, colloquially known as "Rebbi," against another Tanna, but not against a group of them.<ref>Eruvin 46b</ref>
| |
| # The Rif and Rosh point out that this is not true when Rebbi disagrees with his father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 11)</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==== Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar ====
| |
| # [[Yerushalmi]] that states that the Halacha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in "Shabbat," "Avodah Zarah," and "Avel," and there are different levels of specificity given when listing them - the general categories, specific sections of those categories, or a particular case in each of them.<ref>Ba'al Halachot Gedolot (Siman 21 s.v. Amar Rav Menashya) specifies the Perakim "Klal Gadol" and "Lifnei Eideihem" in Shabbat and Avodah Zarah, respectively. With respect to Shabbat, the Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 88) finds many difficulties with accepting this Bahag's limitation, as a number of Stam Mishnayot are opposed to R' Shimon ben Elazar in that Perek. He suggests, therefore, that it really should read perek "HaMotzi Yayin," but it can't be correct, because the Ramban and Nimukei Yosef in Moed Kattan weren't bothered by this when they quoted the Bahag. He and Rav David Pardo ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21642&st=&pgnum=182 Chasdei David, Avodah Zarah 1:2]) identify Avodah Zarah to refer to the specific Tosefta Avodah Zarah 1:2.</ref> The [[Ramban]]<ref>Milchemet Hashem, Moed Kattan 16a s.v. u'mah</ref> questions why the [[Geonim]] would cite this klal when they generally don't follow the rulings of the [[Yerushalmi]] and concludes they must have had a tradition regarding the matter (they don't quote the source outright). Yad Malachi<ref>Klalei HaTalmud 88</ref> points out that the [[Rif]], [[Rambam]], [[Rosh]], and [[Samag]] also seem to accept it, while [[Tosafot]] and the [[Baal HaMaor]] do not.
| |
| | |
| === 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>
| |
| # 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 ====
| |
| # When Rav and Shmuel debate, the Halacha follows Rav in ritual law ([[Issur veHetter]]) and Shmuel in monetary matters ([[Dinei Mammonot]]).<ref>Menachot 41b</ref>
| |
| # According to the [[Rosh]], this is true only if the majority of Amoraim don't side with either Rav or Shmuel, in which case, we would just follow the majority, while Tosafot believe it to be true in any case.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 16)</ref>
| |
| # If Shmuel himself elucidates the Mishnah according to Rav's position in a case of monetary matters, then the Halacha follows Rav even in that case.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 14)</ref>
| |
| # If a later Amora elucidates Shmuel's opinion in a matter of Issur veHetter, the [[Rif]] takes it to mean we pasken like Shmuel, while the [[Rosh]] argues that there's no proof. It's normal for later Amoraim to elucidate the words of earlier ones, so it's not a test for whose position is accepted.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 17)</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==== Rav and Rabbi Yochanan ==== | |
| # Rav vs. Rabbi Yochanan, the Halacha follows Rabbi Yochanan.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 556)</ref>
| |
| # According to the [[Rif]], this rule only applies with Rabbi Yochanan only disputes Rav's position, but if he's disputing both Rav and Shmuel, then the Halacha follows Rav and Shmuel, whereas the [[Rosh]] rules that the rule is true in any case.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 15), Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 556)</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==== 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 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 ====
| |
| # 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>
| |
| | |
| ==== Maaseh Rav ====
| |
| # The [[Rif]] follows a Stam Mishnah over a Maaseh Rav, while the [[Rosh]] argues the Halacha follows a Maaseh Rav over Klalim like Stam Mishnah, R' Yochanan vs. Rav, and Halacha keRabban Shimon Ben Gamliel BeMishnatenu.<ref>Korban Netanel (Klalim 8)</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==== Hilcheta KeVatrai ====
| |
| # The [[Rambam]] rules like the later Amora even if the earlier one's are the majority.<ref>Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud 169)</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Further Reading==
| |
| # Mevo HaTalmud attributed to Rav Shmuel HaNaggid with the Kitzur Klalei HaTalmud commentary
| |
| # [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/הליכות_עולם_(כללים) Halichot Olam] with commentaries Klalei HaGemara by Rav Yosef Karo and Yavin Shmua by Rav Shlomo Algazi
| |
| # Kenesset HaGedolah (Klalei HaTalmud)
| |
| # Yad Malachi (Klalei HaTalmud)
| |
| # [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ספר_הכריתות Sefer HaKeritut]
| |
| # Shem HaGedolim vol. 2 Seder Tannaim veAmoraim
| |
| # Mevo HaTalmud by Maharitz Chayus
| |
| # [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/56802 Ein Yitzchak vol. 1], by Rav Yitzchak Yosef
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Sources== | | ==Sources== |
| {{Reflist|30em}}
| | <references/> |
| [[Category:Rules for Determining Halacha]] | | [[Category:Brachot]] |
