Q&A: A Question on R. Chaim
A Question on R. Chaim
Question
Hello, honored Rabbi,
R. Chaim, on the laws of tefillin, chapter 1, halakha 11, explains according to the second understanding in Ba'al HaMaor and Nachmanides that according to Abaye, the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in tractate Sanhedrin is about the law of designation, whereas according to Rava it is mainly about the basic law of requiring specific intent for its sake.
A. How is it possible to set up the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel according to Abaye alone or according to Rava alone? The Talmud presents this dispute straightforwardly as "shall we say that this is parallel to a tannaitic dispute," and in the wording of Rabbeinu Chananel: "Abaye follows the first tanna, and Rava follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel."
B. What does "they disagree about the basic law of requiring specific intent for its sake" mean, in R. Chaim’s wording?
Thank you very much.
Answer
I don’t have time right now to get into this topic. In principle, I’d say there is no problem with saying that according to Abaye the dispute is about X, and according to Rava it is about Y, and now Abaye follows one tanna (in the dispute as he understands it) while Rava follows another tanna (in the dispute as he understands it). Especially if there is a dispute between different Talmudic passages (or between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud), then it is possible that one of them does not accept the "shall we say that this is parallel to a tannaitic dispute" framing. Or there can be such a framing even though each amora interprets the tannaitic dispute differently.
Incidentally, I looked quickly and didn’t find there the phrase "the basic law of requiring specific intent for its sake."