Ruling rules
Good night Rabbi:
We find several ways of ruling that are ostensibly intended to “spare” a logical decision in a dispute, such as the rule that was followed by a rabbi other than Yael Kagam, and the halachah of a rabbi in Issurii and Shmuel in Mamuna.
A. Why doesn’t the Gemara delve into the matter and decide on the opinion that seems more logical? Did the Gemara investigate, and these rules are just a sign to remember when the halakha was as to whom, or are the Amoraim unable to decide between the divided, and therefore determine that the halakha is always as to one of them (because he was an expert in the field, more wise, [more respected?]…)?
on. If this is indeed a solution to situations in which the Gemara fails to decide, how does the Gemara decide who to go with?
Of course, there are many rules and the rabbi cannot address all of them, but I would be happy for him to address the rules that I brought up at the beginning of the question.
There are such rules and there are such rules. When there are exceptions, it is probably a summary rule, and when there are not, it is probably a guiding rule (a priori). As I think I dealt with this briefly in the third book of the trilogy (and there I quoted from the Kush that discussed this, and proved from the Erubin that the rules for deciding between conditions are not summary).
It should be known that even when there are rules (especially if they are guiding, but also summarizing) in the Talmud, the early ones deviate from them from time to time (Rambam ruled more than once in my opinion, and Amoraim ruled in the same way as Kabbai and others). In my opinion, this means that these rules are a recommendation for those who do not have their own position. But those who do have a position can go against them.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
