More Discussions for this daf
1. 'To ask' or "Not to ask', that is the question; 2. Ran 5b, 3 lines above the wide lines 3. Nedarim and Charamim
4. Ran DH Ella Hachi Itmar Ta'ama (5a-5b) 5. Why does the Gemara need another example for Eino Muchach
DAF DISCUSSIONS - NEDARIM 5

Avraham Chain asks:

Why can't we ask: Why does Shmuel hold like R' Yehuda? By holding like R' Yehuda he is in contradiction with the braisa. Furthermore the Gemara often asks: Why doesn't this one hold like that one?

next: What kind of answer is: he holds like him because he holds like him? On the Rabanan it's not such a good question. They could answer: our svarah has the Mishnah and the braisa agreeing. But Shmuel whose svarah increases machlokes should have to explain why he holds like R' Yehuda against the Rabanan and against the braisa.

Lastly, what kind of explanation is it for Shmuel to say he is m'dayik in the mishna. Anyone who has any svarah must be m'dayik in the mishna or he couldn't support his sverah.

Avraham Chain, Kew Gardens Hills, NY

The Kollel replies:

1. An answer to your question may be found in the words of the Rosh in Bava Basra (1:42), who writes that an Amora possesses the power to rule according to a minority opinion even against the majority view. It follows that there is no reason that Shmuel cannot be in contradiction with a Beraisa if he has a Tana on his side, just as in our Gemara where Shmuel has Rebbi Yehudah on his side, and therefore he is entitled to rule like Rebbi Yehudah whoever the opposition is.

2. I want to answer your second question in a similar way to the answer to your first question. We one can take this a bit further because there is an opinion that "Shmuel Tana Hu u'Palig" -- Shmuel has the authority of a Tana and may even disagree with the Mishnah. (See Chidushei Rashba to Shabbos 37b, end of DH u'Mihu.) It follows that he is not obligated to explain why he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, especially if there is already an opinion on his side among the Tana'im.

3. There is an important rule that it is preferable to say something which is consistent with logic even when it does not fit so well with the precise meaning of the words. This is stated by the Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Nedarim 7:9), who writes that it is preferable to say something "Dachuk" in the words as long as it is consistent with the "Inyan."

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom