[Avodah] Who Brings the Chatos? Who may argue with BD?

[Meir Rabi]

R Zvi references ther Maharatz Chayos, who suggests that a Dayan may have
been absent from the BD deliberations. He accordingly explains "Rav tanna
hu u-Pallig." Rav reserved the right to continue disagreeing with the
majority of Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi's Beis Din when he was absent and felt his
arguments would have been persuasive.

The KesefM explains that the notion of AmoRaIm not arguig against TaNaIm is
just a convention, a non binding convention. He is compelled to say this
because of the Halacha that a Dayan and a BD must not bow to their
predecessors who were without doubt greater than they, if this BD's
analysis of the Halacha leads them to a different conclusion. That being
the case the KMishneh explains that AmoRaIm can certainly disagree with
TaNaIm and the RULE is not a RULE but a non-binding convention. Its not a
Chiddush that Rav may argue, the Chiddush is that the others did NOT.

The problem with this is that this is not an option it is a DUTY. THEY MUST
NOT AGREE just because of who they are disagreeing with. So how can such a
convention be introduced?

Perhaps the KM means that they did not explore the Sugya but just accepted
the ruling of the TaNaIm. Had they exlored the Halacha and concluded with a
decided conclusion, they would not be entitled to bow to senior authority.

Anyway, the Mharatz Chayos offers an explanation that is a little difficult
to accept. After all, if R Yehuda HaNasi is confident that his arguments
are persuasive, let them be taken to BD for debate.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130314/3bd877ee/attachment.htm>