In the Sugya of b'Fanai Nichtav, Why does the Gemara go on for 4-5 pages on Rabba (which is only the reason for the Takana and) it doesn't seem like anything is gained in Halacha (l'Maseh, as we follow Rava) or in the understanding of this Takana (which can benefit us even when the Halacha follows Rava) reulting from this lenghty discussion. It seems that we only get to squeeze Rabba into very distict situations but no better understanding of Raba or the Takana. Are we to say that only through this lengthy discussion were we able to acerain the Halacha? It seems to be a far stretch that we couldn't make that conclusion without all this discussion.
I don't know (from me little experience) of other Gemaros that go on like this with seemingly nothing to gain.
The fact that the Gemara seems almost obsessed with Rabba seems like there is some profound idea that can be derived from Shitas Rabba even if not in Halacha. Would you have any thoughts on the matter.
Thank you
Chayim zirkind , Montreal, Canada
Hi Chayim,
There are many pages in the Gemara that can be cut out since there is no relevance to halacha le'Maase. Most of us started Gemara learning from the Sugya of Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Daas, while the bottom line is that the Halacha is like Abaye. This reminds me of the Hakdama of the Rambam, where he seems to say that after his book, there is no need any more to spend time on long detailed discussions of the Talmud. (There is a lot to say about what exactly the rambam means, but I'll leave that for a different occasion).
So, first of all, Raba is important enough to observe his opinion even if we need a clear Psak. We always need to decide what to do bottom line, but the Talmudic discussion has extreme importance to understand the different aspects of the topic. The opinion that isn't brought down in Halacha, is not wrong. We have rules how to make a Psak, like we rather Beis Hillel not because they are right, but because we want to practice their opinion because they are humble. In some sources we find that in the future, the Halacha will be according to Beis Shamai.
Anyhow, there are several interesting ideas we learn from these pages, as far as the Din of li'Shma in Gittin and others, which all come out just from the discussion itself.
Let me know if this helps,
Aharon Steiner
BH
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question, however, I think that there is something missing in this answer, at least from the point of explaining Rashi- Pshat of the Gemara (even though it might not have been clear from my question that that is what i was looking for)
I am not sure what you mean by the word Techum, do you mean Techum Shabbos or boundaries (please clarify)
Rashi clearly explains and in great length the meaning of the word ? "Muvlaos" (which Kfar Ludim falls into this category) and Rashi does not make any mention of Techum Shabbos rather in the literal sense of boundaries, meaning that Rashi explains "Muvlaos" as a geographical placement of the city not its distance/closeness and it is outside? the boundaries of EY however "swallowed" within the protruding parts of the boundaries.
Rashi uses the word "Rachok" in regards to Bey Kubi from Pumpedisa, which indicates that Rashi understood Rabba as trying to give us a measurement of distance and not whether it is in the Techum or not!
However, I saw the Tos Harosh, who asks a question on Rashi and then adds "V'yesh L'yashev..." explaining how to understand Rashi without taking away from what Rashi said; Muvlaos has to be "more" EY then Smuchos (and that is the reason that R' Gamliel says that the Shliach does not need to say B'fonay N'ichtav.. from a city that is Muvlaos) therefore says the Rosh, even though Rashi only mentions the aspect of 'within the protruding parts of the boundaries' Rashi does not mean to negate the need for it being close to EY (just like by Smuchos) and with this he explains the need? (according to Rashi) for Rabbah to give his account of the distance between Bey Kubi and Pumpedisa, to tell us that it needs to have two conditions to fall into the category of Muvlaos 1. withing the protruding part of the boundaries 2. close to EY (like Bey Kubey being near Pumpedisa (which would mean that for Rabba students they could now identify in real life the closeness the Muvla city needs, to be considered Muvla))
Chayim
As you correctly understood, I was not trying to explain Rashi, as you did not ask me to explain Rashi. I merely quoted an Acharon who answers your question in a different manner, and indeed is not saying Rashi's explanation, because he does not understand how Muvla'os can refer to a measure of distance. However, he did address your question, which is why I quoted him in the answer. Thanks for quoting the Tosfos ha'Rosh.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose