[Avodah] Amora Differing with Tanna

[Zvi Lampel]

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 4:49 PM Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:19:30AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 3:12AM Marty Bluke <marty.bluke at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>


> >> The Kesef Mishna there gives a much simpler answer. He says that even
> >> though technically they could argue they felt that they were on a lower
> >> level and therefore agreed not to argue on the Tannaim.
>
> ZL: > How then did the Amora Rebbi Yochanan argue with the Tanna Rebbi
> Oshiya?
>
> RMBerger: According to the KM, the question isn't "how", because it was
> "merely" a
> convention not to be choleiq. They always had the authority for such
> machloqesin to be possible.
> Rebbi
> The question is more like "why?" Why did R Yochanan violate the convention?
>
> Part of it could be that the convention was still new, and not necessarily
> taken as seriously as it would be once it was the norm for decades
> or generations.


ZL: ...and then the kushyos the Gemara asks on these early Amoraim would be
based on a restriction first taken seriously after their time, And that
would explain why the early Amoraim felt free to create "hybrid"
pesakim (paskening like one Tanna in one case but like an arguing Tanna in
another case). Maybe.

But as I cited in my original theory, it was Rebbi Yochanan himself who
introduced the convention. (Thus my rhetorical, "How (or why) then did the
Amora Rebbi Yochanan violate the convention?") That's why I like my
answer better. Remember, the Kessef Mishna's question was on the Rambam,
who allows lesser Batei Din to overturn pesakim of earlier ones exclusively
concerning interpretations and drashos of pesukim. The Rambam agrees that
with any other kind of official pesak of Beis Din Gadol, the ability to
overturn it, whether by a Tanna or an Amora-- is extremely limited. That
convention always existed. My theory calls attention to the fact that
Rebbi Yochanan's chiddush was that even regarding d'oraissa matters,
despite the Rambam;s principle, it was no longer acceptable to overturn any
Tannaitic position in the Mishna, because it may be  a halacha mekubal
miSinai. My explanation: the same vicissitudes that created the fear of
forgetfulness, requiring the writing of the oral law, created actual losing
track of which halachos associated with pesukim were actually generated by
darshonning the pesukim (which would allow later and lesser Batei Din to
overturn them) and which were really part of the oral law, the drashos only
supporting them--which would make them uncontestable.

This also explains passages where we see even later Amoraim (with their
Batei Din Gedolim) disagreeing with Tannaitic pesak where they knew drash
the pesak was based upon was a generating drash, thus obviating Rebbi
Yochanan's fear and complying with the Rambam's principle. It also explains
why the early Amoraim felt free to create hybrid halachos not infringing
upon matters agreed to by both disputing Tannaim.

All this, although there was of course reluctance to dispute earlier
authorities even within all eras in all matters, even if not officially
poskened. But Rebbi Yochanan made it prohibited to do so even regarding
halachos in the Mishna that are not known to be dinei derabanan such as
gezeyros and takanos.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20231119/6a393662/attachment-0003.htm>