The gemmara seemingly suggests that Shmuel intentionally mistated Rebbi's position in order to make it easier for the people to remember the din. However, this seems to be a problem of mi'dvaar sheker tirchak as well as haomer davar bshem omro. I assume that there must be some other explanation.
Gary Schreiber, Chicago, IL USA
This is one of many places where we see that making sure people follow the correct Halachah takes precedence over mi'Dvar Sheker and ha'Omer Davar b'Shem Omro. This is clearly stated by the Ben Ish Chai in Teshuvos Rav Poalim (3:1, where one of his proofs is from our Gemara), and is akin to the statement of the Magen Avraham (O.C. 156) that one is allowed to state a Halachah in someone's name although the person never said that Halachah, in order that it should be accepted by the person who needs to hear that this is the Halachah.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
It seems that Shmuel did NOT invent this idea of misreporting sources.
Perhaps Shmuel knew of the statement in the Yerushalmi Moed Katan ch. 3. halacha 1, Rabbi Krispie in the name of Rabbi Yohanan quoting Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who said:
"If a person tells me "Thus said Rabbi Eliezer" I will teach accordingly, but will change the name of the source [not saying it is Rabbi Eliezer]".
This of course makes life very difficult if one wants to know what Rabbi Eliezer actually said, but it could be a source for Shmuel.
See Pesachim 112a, where Rashi translates the Gemara to mean, "If you want your words to be accepted, say them in the name of a great man." This practice is also evident in Eruvin 51a, where Rabah cites a Halachah in the name of Rebbi Yosi (who didn't say that Halachah) in order for Rav Yosef to accept it (since the Halachah always follows Rebbi Yosi's ruling).
However, Rashbam in Pesachim 112a says that the Gemara means, "Study under a great man and say over his teachings." In fact, in the end of Maseches Kalah (and again at the end of ch. 2 of Kalah Rabasi) we find that saying things in the name of a Chacham who did not make that statement is a terrible sin and causes the departure of the Shechinah from Yisrael.
The Magen Avraham (156:2) points out this contradiction and leaves it unanswered. Perhaps it makes a difference whether one is certain that the Halachah is correct or not.
Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The Machatzis Hashekel there makes a number of points on this issue:
1. The Gemara in Berachos 27b cites the words of Maseches Kalah. Although the ROSH and RABEINU YONAH there explain the words of Maseches Kalah as explained above, the RIF there and the RAMBAM (Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:2) explain it differently. Maseches Kalah means that one should not make a Halachic statement that was not said by his Rebbi without quoting the source of the statement. (The logic behind this is that everyone assumes that what a person teaches was learned from his Rebbi, unless told otherwise, so one does not have to quote his Rebbi when saying over his Rebbi's statements; see Tosfos Shabbos 27b DH Rav Papa.)
According to this understanding, the reason that Beraisa says that this sin causes the Shechinah to leave Yisrael, is because one is teaching a Halachah without revealing who taught it to him. The Beraisa is simply teaching the other side of the coin of "One who says over a Halachah in the name of the one who taught it brings the Ge'ulah to the world" - which, in fact, is the second part of the statement as it appears in Maseches Kalah. (According to this, the correct Girsa in Maseches Kalah is "Davar she'Lo Shama mi'Pi Rabo" - as it appears in the Gemara, and as the Vilna Gaon notes in Maseches Kalah; not "mi'Pi Chacham," as it appears in our print of Maseches Kalah.) If so, this Beraisa does not present a contradiction to the Gemara in Eruvin.
2. The LECHEM CHAMUDOS (Berachos 27b #24) writes that the reason not to say something in the name of a Chacham if the Chacham didn't say it is because there might be a mistake in the statement, and the Chacham will become embarrassed. (He actually says this in explanation of the Rambam. However it would seem more appropriate to explain the Rambam as we have explained above.)
The Machatzis Hashekel suggests, based on this logic (and based on a Girsa he apparently had in the Lechem Chamudos) a suggestion similar to what the Kollel wrote, that if one is absolutely certain that the Halachah is correct it is permitted to say it over in the name of one's Rebbi - especially if one knows that his Rebbi will not become upset about it.
(b) The CHIDA in Machazik Berachah 156:7 answers the question in a slightly different manner. He makes a distinction between if the one who says the Halachah over is a Talmid she'Higi'a l'Hora'ah or not.
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind