More Discussions for this daf
1. The Time Of Kerias Shema of the Morning 2. Kerias Shema after midnight 3. Hash-m sefasei tiftach
4. The time for reading Shema 5. Be'chipazon - 6. Burning Kodshim on Yom Tov?
7. Vatikin versus Daf Yomi shiur 8. Contradiction within Rashi 9. Hanetz Hachamah
10. Sharp questions 11. Time the Malchei Umos ha'Olam Arise in the Morning 12. Lo Sechanim and Paskening Like Your Rebbi
13. Following the Ruling of your Rebbi 14. Earliest Time To Daven Shacharis 15. Saying Shema with Sunrise
16. Makas Bechoros 17. Vatikin and Acherim 18. Oso Tzadik
19. They "borrowed" from the Egyptians 20. Zman Krias Shema 21. Various questions (Leaving Egypt, Eliyahu, Ge'ulah l'Tefilah)
22. The sons of Raban Gamliel and their question 23. Achilas Korban Pesach 24. Vasikin
25. כדאי הוא ר' פלוני לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק

moshe rubin asks:

R" Gamliel's sons (top of Berachos 9) ask whether they can follow R' Gamliel's shitah as against the Rabanan or whether the Rabanan agree in principle and are only machmir. How does this go together with the gemara in eruvin (forgot daf) praising people who follow their Rebbe to the extent that people in R' Eliezer's town followed him (in halachah re: chicken and meat) even though we do not paskin like him, but because they followed their Rebbe and the halachah was not established yet. Presumably, R' Gamliel was his children's Rebbe (and if he was av bes din already was also in a general position of Rabannus).

Is there a difference if a Rabim is involved? [But presumably B'Shamai's talmidim went like their shitahs even as against B"H who were likely the Rabbim as they always won the vote (except for the one time by the 18 gzeiros where there happened to be more B"SH people voting).] Either way, help appreciated. Thank you!

moshe rubin, brooklyn, NY

The Kollel replies:

This is another very good question, and again I have not yet found anyone who discusses it.

(a) I think the Gemara you are referring to may be Shabbos 130a, where one of the examples cited is that in the place of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili they used to eat chicken and milk together, and that in the place of Rebbi Eliezer they would forge knives on Shabbos for performing a Milah. It is clear that the majority of the Sages disagreed with those practices, but nevertheless in their own places it was permitted.

(b) However, I think the answer is that the above principle applied only because Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Eliezer were the undisputed authorities in their towns, and therefore it was permitted to eat chicken and milk together in Rebbi Yosi's town, even though it is forbidden in the rest of the world.

(c) Raban Gamliel, in contrast, did not possess this undisputed authority in his place. There is proof for this from the Gemara in Berachos 27b which discusses the question of whether Ma'ariv is obligatory or optional. Rebbi Yehoshua said that it is optional, and Raban Gamliel said that it is obligatory. Raban Gamliel said that one should wait until the "Torah warriors" entered the study hall and then the question could be decided. One sees from this episode that even though Raban Gamliel was the Nasi, nevertheless he did not possess sole authority and he also was subject to the rule that the Halachah follows the majority opinion. This is why his sons (Berachos 9a) needed to know if the Rabanan disputed their father's ruling.

(d) The example from Shabbos 130a is similar to what the Gemara in Eruvin 94a states, that even though Rav disagreed with Shmuel, nevertheless in Shmuel's locality Rav would not express his opinion because the right to give Halachic rulings was limited there solely to Shmuel.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds:

1. I can strengthen your question by citing the Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 150:1) who writes that one may follow one's Rebbi even against a majority of other authorities, even if this involves being lenient on d'Oraisa questions. A teacher qualifies as one's Rebbi for this matter when one is close to him and always follows his rulings in the majority of the Mitzvos.

2. There is a source for this in the Chidushei ha'Ran (Chulin 43b, DH ha'Rotzeh) who cites the Gemara in Shabbos 130a to which you alluded in your question, which says that in the place of Rebbi Eliezer they made the Milah knife on Shabbos. The Ran writes that the reason why they were permitted to do this, even though the majority opinion was that this is forbidden, was that all of the people in Rebbi Eliezer's town were considered his Talmidim and were therefore permitted to follow his ruling.

(See also Or l'Tziyon by Rav Benzion Abba Shaul zt'l, part 2, introduction, branch 6.)

3. Why, then, would the sons of Raban Gamliel not have followed their father's ruling even if the majority opinion was against him?

4. One can answer this question with the help of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 240:2), who writes that a son may not contradict his father's words in his presence. This implies that if the father is not present, the son may disagree with his father. The Vilna Ga'on there (#3) writes that we find in many places in Chazal that the son disagreed with his father on Halachic matters.

5. Therefore, we may say that the sons of Raban Gamliel were of sufficient stature to possess their own opinion and they decided that they would follow the opinion of the Rabanan, not of their father, Raban Gamliel.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Mordechai Ross asks:

What about the hadasim in succah where they used two-one leaf even though it was just his rebbis shita?

The Kollel replies:

Mordechai, this is a brilliant observation!

1. In other words, the Gemara in Sukah 32b tells us that Rav Yehudah maintained that a Hadas must have three leaves on a level, emerging from one root. However, in Rav Kahana's opinion, even if two leaves are equal and the third is above or below them, the Hadas is valid. The Gemara states that Rav Acha, the son of Rava, was particular to look especially for this two-one kind of Hadas, since Rav Kahana ruled that it is valid.

2. The Gemara continues that Ameimar said that the latter is called a "Hadas Shoteh" -- a "foolish Hadas" -- and the conclusion of the Gemara appears to be that such a Hadas is invalid. Even so, we observe that Rav Acha specifically sought such a Hadas. This seems to be a strong proof for the Chazon Ish, whom I cited above, who writes that one may follow one's teacher even against the majority opinion and even if this involves being lenient, as Rav Acha was when he used a Hadas which was Pasul according to most opinions.

3. However, even though this seems to be a proof for the Chazon Ish, I will note a couple of different interpretations of the Gemara in Sukah 32b, according to which there indeed may be no proof from there. The Ritva there writes that the reason why Rav Acha looked specifically for the two-one Hadas was in order to display to the students that the Halachah follows Rav Kahana. This seems not to fit so well with the Chazon Ish because according to the latter, even if the Halachah would not follow Rav Kahana for the general public, Rav Acha still would be allowed to follow Rav Kahana's opinion, as Rav Kahana was his Rebbi.

4. Moreover, the Taz (Shulchan Aruch OC 646:7) writes that the Rema there cites opinions that the Hadas Shoteh is totally invalid, even if no other Hadasim are available. However, the Rema also cites lenient opinions. The Taz deduces a proof for these lenient opinions from the fact that Rav Acha tried to justify Rav Kahana's opinion, even though the Hadas Shoteh is not as good as a Hadas with three equal leaves, as Rashi writes (DH Mehader). The Taz suggests that when Mar bar Ameimar said that his father called it a Hadas Shoteh, he did not mean that it is totally invalid, but rather that it is not the best ideally. He had to say this so that no one should receive the wrong idea from the fact that Rav Acha was particular to look for the Hadas Shoteh that it is the very best. However, it follows from this that everyone agrees that the Hadsas Shoteh is valid, and this is a source for the lenient opinions cited by the Rema.

5. One learns from the Taz that it may be that the Hadas Shoteh is actually valid. According to this, there would no proof from our Gemara for the Chazon Ish's rule that one may follow one's Rebbi even if he argues with the majority opinion and even if he is lenient in doing so.

Thank you again for pointing out this very interesting source.


Dovid Bloom