The Gemara on 62a towards the end tries to figure out what the phrase of "ki yafli"="shall clearly utter" that is written by nezirus what it is used for.So the gemara suggests 1st "yadayim sheinam mochichot" as invalid declarations and brings the machloket about it between rava and abaya and then the Gemara rejects this answer because it is a machloket which is only good according to rava but how will you explain abaya?.Then the Gemara suggests "Ki Yafli" teaches like Rebbi Tarfon that "ein echad mehem nazir-lfi shelo nitna torah nezirus ele lihaflaah."But then the Gemara rejects this too since it is a machloket in that thats fine according to R'Tarfon but what about rabanan.So then the gemeara answers "ki yafli" is needed for this baraisa which states "Heter nedarim have no smach from the torah" and R' Eliezer argues on this tana kama and says that they do have a smach from the torah from the pasuk of "ki yafli" 2 times to teach haflaa lissur and liheter.
My Kashe is why doesnt the Gemara reject this too on the basis that its a machloket and say that good according to R' Eliezer but how will you explain the Tana Kama!Just as it rejected the other 2 suggestions the same way!????
Daniel Fishman, Lawrence, America
Dear Daniel,
The Gemara does not reject the first two suggestions.
1) According to Rava we know what Yafli is used for Yadayim, and that remains true.
2) According to Abaye what is Yafli used for? The Gemara answered that Rebbi Tarfon needs Yafli, but why is it written for those who argue with Rebbi Tarfon?
They need it for Heter Nedarim. So Abaye explains that Yafli is used either for Rebbi Tarfon or for Heter Nedarim. It comes out that Abaye understands that if you hold Porchim ba'Avir (without Yafli) then you hold like Rebbi Tarfon.
All the best
Reuven Weiner
Ok but then according to youre logic that the Gemara was not rejecting the answers before when it stated "ele" just finding what a certain the other man diamar would use "yafli" for, and also according to youre logic it emerges as you stated "It comes out that Abaye understands that if you hold Porchim ba'Avir (without Yafli) then you hold like Rebbi Tarfon."
Then if so when the Gemara asked "That's fine according to R' Tarfon what about the rabanan what do they use yafli for then why didn't the Gemara answer Abaye was just holding like R' Tarfon and it would emerge if you held like the Rabanan you would hold that Yadayim she-einan mochichot lo haviyan yadayim like Rava that's what ki yafli would be used for so no kashe.But the Gemara does not say that and states "ele mibaei lei" =rather it is needed for...??
Dear Daniel,
The Gemara always brings this Abaye arguing with Rava. It can't be that Abaye is only with R' Tarfon and Rava is with the Rabanan - that's not a Machlokes. Abaye needs his opinion to line up with all Tana'im, especially with the Rabanan! (Only when there is no choice does an Amora say that I hold like Tana A and not Tana B. Abaye must show according to his Shitah what each Tana will do with Yafli. He gives 2 reasonable uses - or Heter Nedarim or R' Tarfon's reason - which takes care of all Tana'im. If so no question remains on him.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Thankyou i think i understand now. But as you stated "Abaye needs his opinion to line up with all Tana'im" if so then the same thing should apply to Rava who held yadayim sheeinan mochichot lo haviyan yadayim would have to go like all tannaim too.But it emerges that Rava can not be like R' Tarfon who uses "ki yafli" to teach "ein echad mehem nazir.." and can not be like R' Elazar who uses ki "yafli" to teach heter nedarim yesh laahem al ma sheyismichu.
Thus Rava can not be in line with these tannaim only with Rabanan who argued with R Tarfon and the Tana kama who argued with R' Elazar. So we should end up with a kashe on Rava he is not inline with all tannaim yet abaya is. And since abaya can explain his shita according to all tannaim we should therefore hold like Abaya! ? ?
Dear Daniel,
Good point. Rava uses Yafli for his Din and therefore can only be with the Rabanan and not with Rebbi Tarfon and also will hold Heter Nedarim Porchim ba'Avir.
However, that's not enough of a reason to decide like Abaye against Rava. Going like the Rabanan, even alone, is acceptable and is not considered Kashe.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Fine. but why does Abayaa have to be in line with all the tannaim and Rava does not have to be?
Dear Daniel,
Let's modify what we wrote: Abaye does not have to be according to all Tana'im but he can't go with Rebbi Tarfon alone and leave out the Rabanan. After finding a Pasuk according to the Rabanan (Heter Nedarim) there's no problem.
Rava also can be with the Rabanan and that's enough.
I think I've said all I can on this subject.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner