I first want to apologize for asking a question on something not currently
under study. I am clearly not a Daf Yomi learner but I thought one of the
chavrei kollel might be able to answer my questions nonetheless...
(a) I thought I understood the Gem. until I read the Rabeinu Yonah in the back.
First it seems from him that from "me da'me" is actually Rav Nachman
responding to Rova. Am I understanding that correctly? Is that possible?
It seemed to me that the the Gemarra itself was refuting Rova's position,
concluding that Shmuel actually sides with Rav Nachman...
(b) The R"Y also gives a teretz to his kasha on the Rif which I simply don't understand (it
seems that the teretz is the pashut way of reading the "me da'me" itself).
Finally, how would this help the Rif - if Rova is "basrai," why would it
matter that the Rif has his own s'vara, wouldn't he be compelled to pasken
like Rova? Does this question make any sense?
(c) Thanks so much for your time. The website is fantastic. When I finish
mishnayos, I intend to start Daf Yomi and I will certainly order your
material. Also, let me know to whom I can send a donation.
Thanks once again,
Matt
Matthew Solomson, Silver Spring, MD USA
(a) Rabeinu Yonah learns the words "Mi Dami" in the Gemara in the normal way (the same way as Rashi (DH Hacha Is) learns). Rav Nachman is responding to Rava's proof against Rav Nachman's opinion. It could also be that the Gemara itself is defending Rav Nachman's position. Whether it is Rav Nachman himself or the Gemara itself, we have no proof as to what Shmuel will hold in a case of Kimcha d'Chiti. The Gemara is merely refuting the comparison between Shemen Zayis and Kimcha d'Chiti. Rava (and Rav Yehudah) will assert that Shmuel follows their opinion, while Rav Nachman will assert that Shmuel follows his opinion.
(b) Rabeinu Yonah's question on the Rif's ruling is that Rav Nachman does not give the reason that the Rif gives, and that Rava, the "Basra'i," rules not like Rav Nachman.
Rabeinu Yonah suggests an explanation for the Rif's ruling as follows. Perhaps the Rif learned that when Rav Nachman says that we cannot compare the case of Shemen Zayis to the case of Kimcha d'Chiti because the former has no further modification, while the latter has a further modification, Rav Nachman is actually saying the reason of the Rif. When he says that Kimcha d'Chiti has a further modification, he means that it is not yet in a state fit to be eaten (because it has to undergo further modification in order to be fit). Since it is not fit for regular consumption, it does not have a "Chashuv" Berachah, but rather "She'hakol." Shemen Zayis, on the other hand, is fit for regular consumption, and thus it has no further modification.
Your question, though, remains -- how could the Rif rule like Rav Nachman if Rava, the "Basra'i," does not rule like Rav Nachman?
The answer is that we do not follow the "Basra'i" when the Gemara itself refutes his opinion. Here, it seems that Rav Nachman is refuting Rava's rejection of his opinion. Indeed, Rabeinu Yonah himself needs to write that "even though Rav Nachman answered [Rava's refutation]," and thus we might not be able to follow Rava's opinion, nevertheless -- says Rabeinu Yonah -- we still do not follow Rav Nachman because his answer was mi'Svara, and not from a Mishnah or Beraisa, and thus we do not accept it as an answer to Rava's refutation. This point, though, is subject to dispute, for perhaps Rava did accept Rav Nachman's answer. Because of this uncertainty, Rabeinu Yonah adds an additional reason why the Rif's ruling is not correct -- because Rav Nachman himself gives a different reason than the reason of the Rif!
However, when Rabeinu Yonah offers an answer to the latter question (that the Rif's reason is different than Rav Nachman's), then we are back to the uncertainty -- perhaps Rava accepted Rav Nachman's answer (even though it is only mi'Svara).
(The Rosh, by the way, has an entirely different Mehalech to explain the Rif.)
(c) Many people use our material for whatever Masechta they happen to be learning, even if they are not learning Dafyomi. That is one of the benefits of our service. Donation information is below.
I hope this was helpful.
Yisrael Shaw
D.A.F.
Thank you for the wonderful and detailed response. I have just two further questions. When you said that "we have no proof as to what Shmuel will hold in a case of Kimcha d'Chiti" - this is how I wanted to learn the Gemara, although my esteemed chevrusas disagreed and eventually I capitulated. Except, I have a problem - I think you (and I) are correct if it is simply Rav Nachman's response to Rava. However, if it is the Gemara itself, why can't the Gemara be read as taking a position beyond merely rejecting the comparison - after all, it states "Lo; d'chitei nami shehakol n'hiyeh bidvaro..." Or, is the definitive understanding of this section simply that Rav Shmuel's position simply isn't clear? And, if the Gemara is talking (and not Rav Nachman), then as you stated below, Rava's status as "basrai" isn't controlling (indeed, it is not at all clear that Rava per-se agrees with Rav Yehuda; Rava merely indicates that Rav Shmuel is decisive). In that case, where Rava's conclusion about what Rav Shmuel holds is refuted by the Gemara itself, would the p'sak be "up for grabs," i.e., would the Rishonim would be free to go either way? If so, could that explain why the Rif adds his own s'vara - exactly because Rava's status as basrai is not a factor and then he's left with an undecided machlokes?
A sincere thanks,
Matt Solomson
The answer to your Chavrusas' point of view is that neither way of understanding is Muchrach (i.e. it does not have to be the way your Chavrusas explain it to be; it easily could be Rav Nachman's response which Rava does not accept), and, consequently, we indeed find that there is a Machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Gemara. (This is the case with just about every Machlokes Rishonim in the Gemara.) You were learning like Rabeinu Yonah (until you capitulated), and your Chavrusas were learning like the Rif. Actually, your Chavrusas were learning the way they do because it seems pretty evident that Rashi also learns like that -- that Rava's statement was a "Havah Amina b'Alma," and that Havah Amina was completely refuted by Rav Nachman (or the Stam Gemara, if you like). Rabeinu Yonah, on the other hand, asks his questions on the Rif because he learns that Rava's statement was not a "Havah Amina b'Alma," but rather this is Rava's definitive understanding of Shmuel's opinion. (You can find the Svara's for each approach in the Acharonim. See, for example, Sefer "Razei Berachah.")
Regarding your second point, the Halachic ruling depends on how to learn the Gemara, as described above, and since there are different ways to learn the Gemara, we find differing Halachic rulings in the Rishonim. The Rif, though, would not add his own Svara when Rav Nachman gives a different reason (as Rabeinu Yonah asks on the Rif). That is why it is more likely that the Rif understood Rav Nachman in this way, as, indeed, Rabeinu Yonah suggests.
All the best,
Yisrael Shaw
D.A.F.
By the way, Shemayisrael.com actually does host a Yoreh Deah program and a Choshen Mishpat program. The Yoreh Deah program is run privately by a Rav here, while the Choshen Mishpat program is operated by Kollel Choshen Mishpat of Jerusalem, under the auspices of Rav Yosef Fleischman. While his e-mail program is new, for a number of years Rav Fleischman's Kollel has been training Dayanim to serve in Jewish communities throughout the world. When Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu sends you much material success, I might suggest adding his Kollel to your list of beneficiaries as well.