I have another inquiry related the recent Dapim on Beitza 12b, 14a, and 17b. The question is whether a Stam Mishna has automatically greater authority than a Tosefta as per the Klal of Rav Yochanan that Halacha K'stam Mishna.
(a) On 12b the gemara says that the stam Mishna b'sem Bais Hillel is not like the shita of Rav Yosi And yet Shmuel Paskens like Rav Yosi in the Tosefta, with regards to Matnos Truma on Yom Tov.
(b) On 14a Shmuel Paskens like Rav Meir with regard to grinding salt on tom Tov Against our stam Mishna shita of Bais Hillel.
(c) On 17b Rava must tell us that the Halacha is like our stam Mishna with regard To eirus Tavshilin as opposed to the shita of Rav Shimon ben Elazar in the Tosefta.
Why does the principle of Halacha K'stam Mishna not apply in all these cases?
All the best,
Jack, Kew Gardens Hills, New York
(a) The Gemara says in many places, including Yevamos 16b, that Rabbi Yochanan said that the Halacha follows the Stam Mishna. However the Gemara states there in Yevamos that there is a dispute amongst the Amoraim whether R. Yochanan did indeed say this rule. I suggest that if even according to R. Yochanan, who according to some is the champion of the rule "the Halacha follows the Stam Mishna" but according to others he never said this, then we can certainly say that Shmuel does not agree with this rule.
In fact, I found that Nachalas Dovid Bava Metzia 8b page 177 DH veIlulei writes that it is possible that Shmuel does not subscribe to the rule " the Halacha follows a Stam Mishnah".
(b) Indeed we have now from Beitzah 14a another source for the above Nachalas Dovid that Shmuel does not agree with "Halacha keStam Mishnah".
(c) Upon further thought, it may be possible to answer this question with the help of the Milchemes Hash-m, by the Ramban, on Bava Kama 96b (page 34b [68] in the Rif pages) that we only find that Rabbi Yochanan is concerned about a Stam Mishnah, but Rav does not agree to R. Yochanan on this. According to Milchemes we can suggest that Rava does not agree to the principle that the Halacha follows a Stam Mishneh.
(d) A further answer to question (a) -
1)Tosfos Avoda Zara 7a DH Pshita seems to hold clearly that Shmuel does not agree with the rule "Halacha k'Stam Mishnah". He cites the Gemara Avodah Zara 21a where; just like in Beitzah 12b; Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that the Halacha follows Rabbi Yosi. Tosfos writes that Shmuel said this even though later on there is a Stam Mishnah that follows Rabbi Meir who disagrees with R. Yosi, so we have to conclude that Shmuel disagrees with the rule that the Halacha follows a Stam Mishnah (this fits in with the Ramban that I cited in my second reply, who seems to say that it is only R. Yochanan who says this rule).
2) I want to suggest that this is consistent with Chidushei Rashba Shabbos 37b DH uMihu, who writes that just as Kesubos 8a states that Rav is a "Tana uPalig"; Rav (even though he is generally considered as being an Amora) still has the power to disagree with the Mishnah; so too Shmuel is a "Tana uPalig". According to the Rashba, Shmuel is also almost like a Tana so that can help us to understand why Shmuel is not bound to ruling like a Stam Mishnah, since he is capable of disagreeing with a Mishnah and paskening how he wants.
3) However there is a Tosfos in Kesubos 73a DH veTiyuvta which seems to disagree with Tosfos Avodah Zara 7a DH Pshita. Tosfos Kesubos writes that even though Shmuel holds like his teacher, Rabbi Yishmael, he still should not have abandoned a Stam Mishnah because of R. Yishmael. Tosfos Kesubos seems to say that Shmuel also agrees with the rule that the Halacha follows a Stam Mishnah.
4) To understand how Tosfos Kesubos will learn Beitzah 12b; where Shmuel seems to abandon the Stam Mishnah; I want to suggest that Beitzah 12b is not a Stam Mishnah, since it contains the opinion of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. I argue that a Stam Mishnah is specifically one where no names are mentioned at all.
[see also Mitzpeh Eitan Yevamos 42b]
Jack, thank you for sending such interesting questions!
Dovid Bloom
Further answer to question (b):
1) I must correct what I wrote in my last answer; in item 4); that Beitzah 12b is not a Stam Mishnah; because I saw that Tosfos Beitzah 2b Mokim understands that a Mishnah that contains both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is considered a Stam Mishnah. See Maginei Shlomo, in the first chapter of Yevamos page 219 DH VeHaElokim, that this is because "Beis Shamai when in the place of Beis Hillel is not considered a Mishnah" (see Beitzah 11b) so a Mishnah containing both BH and BS is considered as only containing BH and is therefore a Stam Mishnah. This is also stated by Rashi Shabbos 157a DH Stama; that a Mishnah containing Beis Hillel is considered a Stama; and by Rashi Kidushin 54b DH Ella that Beis Hillel is considered as a Stam Mishnah because the Halacha follows them.
2) So I cannot use that wrong approach of mine to answer the question on 14a. However we can now use the Ramban Milchemes Bava Kama that I cited in the 2nd reply (that Shmuel does not agree with the rule that Halacha k'Stam Mishnah) to answer the question and we have also seen that Tosfos Avoda Zara 7a DH Pshita clearly seems to say that Shmuel does not agree with the rule.
3) But what are we going to do about Tosfos Kesubos 73a (last line of page) that I cited above, that Shmuel should not have abandoned a Stam Mishnah merely because he wants to pasken like his teacher, Rabbi Yishmael?! This Tosfos seems to maintain that Shmuel also agrees with the rule "Halacha k'Stam Mishah"?!
4) To answer this question I wil try and suggest that there is a distinction between Shmuel ruling according to a certain Tana because he believes independently that the Halacha follows him and between ruling according to him merely because he is his teacher. It seems that Tosfos Kesubos understood that Shmuel only paskened like R. Yishmael because the latter was his teacher. If so, the rule that the Halacha follows a Stam Mishnah is more powerful than a particular Amora paskening according to his teacher. In contrast, in Beitzah 14a Shmuel ruled like Rabbi Meir because he believed this was the correct opinion amongst the Tanaim, and Shmuel possesses the power to decide between the Tanaim, since Shmuel was a "Tana uPalig", as I wrote in my 3rd answer, item 2). in the name of the Rashba Shabbos 37b .
Good Shabbos
Dovid Bloom
Further support for above answer to question (c):-
1) I found, bs'd, that the Ritva Bava Metzia 51a DH Rava also writes (in a similar way to the Ramban in Milchemes Bava Kama 96b that I cited above) that it is only Rabbi Yochanan who holds as a hard and fast rule that the Halacha follows a Stam Mishnah. On 51a, Rava stated that the Mishnah there follows Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi. However there on 50b the Gemara stated that Rava rules according to Rabbi Nossan, who disagrees withj R. Yehuda Hanasi. Since the Mishnah 51a is a Stam Mishnah this means that Rava is ruling against a Stam Mishnah. Ritva writes that, with the exception of R. Yochanan, the Amoraim sometimes pasken against a Stam Mishnah.
2) I also found, bs'd, that in the Gemara Moed Katan 20a Rava said that the Halacha follows our Tana (in the Mishnah 19a) even though this is a Stam Mishnah, so again we see that Rava does not automatically pasken like a Stam Mishnah if he does not say so explicitly.
3) The Gemara Shabbos 81b states that Rava asked a contradiction in the words of Rabbi Yochanan, based partly on the fact that R. Yochanan holds that the Halacha follows a Stam Mishnah. However, Rava there is not saying that he himself maintains that the Halacha follows a Stam Mishnah but rather that this is the opinion of R. Yochanan, buit one can say that Rava disputes him on this.
Dovid Bloom
The answer of one of the Rishonim; Rabeinu Yehuda beRebbe Kalonimus (the teacher of the Rokeach):-
I found, bs'd, that the question on Beitzah 12b is asked in the sefer "Erkai Tanaim vaAmoraim" by Rabeinu Yehuda beRebbe Kalonimus (page 230 DH uDekavaseih).
He answers (page 231 DH veNireh) that whenever there is a dispute between 2 individual Tanaim and Rebbe writes a Stam Mishnah like one of them; or alternatively there is a dispute between one group of Tanaim and another group, and Rebbe writes a Stam Mishnah like one side; the Halacha follows the Stam Mishnah. However, when there is a dispute involving an individual Tana against a group of Tanaim, even though this suggests that Rebbe agrees with the individual against the majority, the Amoraim do not rely on the Mishnah, but rather rule according to the majority opinion.
The Gemara Beitzah 12b states that the Mishnah there does not follow Rabbi Yehudah or Rabbi Yosi, but in fact only follows Acherim, which means Rabbi Meir. In the course of the sugya we learn that the Mishnah could be either R. Yehuda or R. Meir but not both. This means that the Mishnah is a sole opinion. This is why Shmuel does not have to pasken like the Mishnah but instead paskens like R. Yosi.
Dovid Bloom
Dear Reb Dovid,
Thank you so much for the time and effort which you put into your reply to me. Shlomo Hamelech in Mishlei 2:4 suggests that we should pursue Torah like a hidden treasure; I feel like I have struck gold!
Please advise me how I can send a donation to the Kollel in your honour in appreciation.
One Heara regarding Tos. Kesubos 73a in which he seems to say that Rav Yishmael was the Rebbi of Shmuel based on 74a: "Amar Shmuel Mishum Rebbi Yishmael"
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that "Mishum" means it was passed down to him by word of mouth as opposed to B'shem which means he heard it directly from his Rebbi. As we find many times Rav Yochanan mishum Rav Shimon ben Yochai.
Similarly here, historically, I do not believe that Shmuel could have heard it directly from Rabi Yishmael who lived many generations earlier. It would seem that perhaps hearing something by word of mouth from generation to generation makes the original source the Rebbi of the final recipient. As you say however, this is still different from citing the statement of Tanna in a Mishna.
Shavua Tov,
Yaakov
Reb Yaakov, thank you for your very kind comments. I have told Rabbi Kornfeld about your generous offer. Many thanks.
1) Indeed, Rashi Chulin 113b DH Ha writes that whenever the word Mishum is used this means that the Talmid did not hear the Halacha directly from the Rebbe.
2) However Tosfos Kesubos end 73a does write that Rabbi Yishmael was Shmuel's Rebbe.
3) Possibly we can explain with the help of Gemara Moed Katan 25a, and Rashi DH Shmatatei, that if the Talmidim say Halachos in the name of the Rebbe frequently this is like they learnt directly from the Rebbe. Rosh there #59 writes that they are considered as his Talmidim.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Additional thoughts:
1) I read once that the Rogitchover Gaon sometimes used to say; when he was having difficulty understanding a sugya; "Let us see what the Rebbe says!". He meant that we should see how the Rambam learns the sugya. The Rogitchover lived hundreds of years after the Rambam but he called him his Rebbe because he learnt his sefer. We now have a source for this idea from Tosfos Kesubos 73a; that R. Yishmael is described as the Rebbe of Shmuel even though it seems unlikely that Shmuel ever saw R. Yishmael.
2) More recently, I read that after Rav Moshe Feinstein zt'l was niftar, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l was asked to deliver a hesped. He replied "How can I be fit to maspid Rav Moshe?! I am a talmid of his. I learnt his seforim!".
Behatzlochoh Rabah
Dovid Bloom