[Avodah] ukimtas

[Zvi Lampel]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM Zvi Lampel <zvilampel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:19:06 -0400  Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
>> wrote:
>>> When Rishonim read ukimtas into the gemara (e.g. the gemara really was
>>> dealing with a specific case even though it didn't mention it) how often
>>> were they stating a tradition vs. using their own logic?

>> I'm going to cut-n-past RETurkel's post from 28-Feb-2017, "ukimtahs":
>> The rest of the thread is titled "Farfetched Ukimtas" and is available
>> at http://aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=F#FARFETCHED%20UKIMTAS

My response defending the plausibility of a given ukimta did not really
address the question asked. The question is phrased assuming that
sometimes an ukimta is
A. a preserved fact, and sometimes it is
B. a creative attempt to keep the text in question in line with other
known facts. (And I agree with that assumption.)
The question was, how often was it A and how often was it B?

I don't think anyone answered that question, yet, and I cannot, either.

However, I would like to make another observation.

In principle, it is quite possible that an Amora, in defending his
position, is actually asserting something that is dochuk, not squaring
well with the language of the text to which he is trying to conform
another statement. And if the poskim consider that text a determining
factor for the halacha, and the Amora's response to be dochuk, they may
on that basis reject that Amora's position.

I learned this from a wonderful sefer, HaRamabm L-lo Setiah min haTalmud,
by R. Binyamin Zev Benedict (Mossad HaRav Kook, 1985) p. 16), which
brilliantly presents this as one of several explanations for where the
Rambam seems to posken against the "maskana" of the Gemora. He quotes from
the Teshuvos HaGeonim Harkavi, Berlin, 1887, https://hebrewbooks.org/21195
Teshuvah 157, attributed to the Rif.

This principle is factored into his pesakim, among other factors (such as
that elsewhere the sugya is presented assuming one of two shittos) and even
trumps the fact that, as the Gemora reads, the answer is given as the last
word.

I previously though that the halacha should follow Rav Huna, and not Rav
Chisda, since he was the mentor of Rav Chisda. But this was only until I
examined the Gemara with my seichel, and I found that the true examination
makes this remote....Even though normally the halacha follows the mentor
when disputed by the student, here the halacha should follow Rav Chisda,
the student....for Rav Huna's answer to the challenge brought against
him is a sheenuya udechusa b-alma, a farfetched one.

Zvi Lampel