Hello Rav
Thanks very much
I had a question about Shevous 41b.
What is the process when there are conflicting versions and conflicting rulings, to know the halacha.
For example, Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava, versus Rav Papa said in the name of Rava, two different rulings about lending money in the presence of witnesses?
Rav Papi saying he must repay, Rav Papa saying he doesn't have to.
Thanks very much
Shalom R' Reuvein,
Great to hear from you!
I see that Tosfos (Shevuous 41b DH v'Rav Papa) cites Rabeinu Tam who decides to resolve the Halachah in favor of Rav Papa's view, not on the basis of this passage alone, but rather from support found in another Gemara (Bava Basra 170a) which indicates that generally one does not need to pay back with Edim.
Your question reminds me of the discussion of Tosfos in Avodah Zarah (7a DH b'Shel Torah) who cites a number of opinions how to resolve disputes like this, when the Gemara itself provides two alternatives (Ika D'Amri), each of which sound equally legitimate. Briefly, in that discussion there are four main views: Rashi's view is that if the Din is a d'Oraisa then we should be stringent, but if it is a d'Rabanan then we should follow the second version of the ruling; Riva's view is to side with the first version of the ruling; Rabeinu Tam's view is to be stringent if it's a d'Oraisa and lenient if it is a d'Rabanan; and Rabeinu Shimshon's view is to try and resolve the matter on the basis of some implication of Shas.
It is really hard to say, though, that there is one hard and fast rule for all circumstances. Notice, for instance, that in our case, here in Shevuos, Rabeinu Tam appears to be following the method of the Rabeinu Shimshon cited in Avodah Zarah.
May you continue to attain greatness in Torah and Yiras Shamayim!
Warmly,
Yishai Rasowsky