Dear Kollel,
Rava and possibly also Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say that a donkey rider must remain on his donkey at the time for Tefilah, whereas the previous Stam Mishnah suggests that the rider should step down from the donkey in order to Daven.
Is it possible that Rava and/or RYB"L never subscribed to the Klal about always following a Stam Mishnah? And if so, why is the Stam Mishnah rule such a significant factor in Halachic decision-making?
Best wishes for a Shanah Tovah, Elimelech Fishman, Brooklyn, NY USA
There is another rule: "The Halachah follows Rebbi against his colleague" (see Eruvin 46b). It is possible that this rule is more powerful than the rule that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah.
I can cite a possible source for this idea from the Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah 329:9-10, DH Isah she'Niloshah). The Beis Yosef cites the Mishnah in Maseches Chalah (2:2) which states that dough which was kneaded with fruit juice is liable for Chalah. However, another Mishnah in Maseches Tevul Yom (3:4) states that dough which was kneaded with fruit juice and then was touched by a Tevul Yom, because Pasul (Tamei), but only the place in the dough that the Tevul Yom directly touched, according to Rebbi Akiva. The Beis Yosef cites opinions that in the opnion of Rebbi Akiva, fruit juices do not combine the entire dough to make it be considered as one entity for the Mitzvah of Chalah or for Tum'ah. He writes that this means that Rebbi Akiva disagrees with the the above Mishnah in Chalah (2:2) that states that the dough is liable for Chalah. The Beis Yosef adds that since there is a rule (Eruvin 46b) that the Halachah follows Rebbi Akiva when he disputes with his colleague, we do not apply the rule that the Halachah follows the Stam Mishnah.
We learn fronm this that the Beis Yosef maintains that the rule that the Halachah follows Rebbi Akiva is stronger than the rule that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah. If so, I wish to suggest that the rule that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi against his colleague is also stronger than the rule of following a Stam Mishnah. This may be the reason why Rava or possibly Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules like Rebbi against the Stam Mishnah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Dear Rabbi Bloom,
I have three more questions about the Stam Mishnah Rule from Shabbos pages 46a and 156b. The Gemara assumes on page 46a that Rabbi Yochanan is stringent regarding Muktzeh and asks, how he could have said such a thing if he holds that Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah? The problem is that Rabbi Yochanan was contradicting a lenient Stam Mishnah that permits a Muchney, a cabinet set on wheels, to be moved provided there was no money on the cabinet. Now, compare a similar passage at the bottom of Shabbos 156b which assumes the opposite scenario, that Rabbi Yochanan is lenient regarding Muktzeh. The Gemara asks, how could Rabbi Yochanan say such a thing if he holds that Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah? Here, the problem is that Rabbi Yochanan contradicts a stringent Stam Mishnah that forbids using wood that was not prepared before Yom Tov.
1. So, my first question is: why does the Gemara target Rabbi Yochanan with the same question about the need to follow a Stam Mishnah regardless of whether he is assumed to be lenient or stringent regarding Muktzeh?
2. Many other Amoraim furnish opinions about Muktzeh. For instance, Ulla, Rav and Levi are stringent; while Shmuel, Zeiri, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi are lenient. How come the Gemara does not fault any of these Amoraim for contradicting a Stam Mishnah? Is it because not one of these Amoraim ever supported the concept of a Stam Mishnah rule?
3. If Rabbi Yochanan was the only Amora who believed in the Stam Mishnah rule, why is this such a significant factor in Halachic decision-making?
You responded that the importance of following Rebbi may supercede the rule about following a Stam Mishnah. Unfortunately, this answer cannot be used to explain any of the divergences from this Klal that appear in Berachos 47b. For example, Rabbi Assi directly contradicts the Stam Mishnah with his opinion that a baby in a cradle counts in a Mezuman. The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Assi holds like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that a baby counts as an adjunct to a Minyan. Is it possible that Rabbi Assi and RYB?ЂќL (along with Rava and/or RYB"L in the case of the donkey-rider) never subscribed to the Klal about always following a Stam Mishnah? So, I repeat my question, why is the Stam Mishnah rule such a significant factor in Halachic decision-making?
Respectfully yours,
Elimelech Fischman
Reb Elimelech, thank you again for your fascinating questions!
For the moment I am only going to attempt to comment on your last question, which is how can Rav Asi rule (Berachos 47b) in favor of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi against the Stam Mishnah. I would like to point out that Tosfos in Chulin (97a, DH Amar Rava) writes that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is reliable and the Halachah follows him everywhere even against Rebbi Yochanan.
My suggestion is that this may mean that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi even against a Stam Mishnah. Just as the Beis Yosef I cited above states that the Halachah follows Rebbi Akiva against a Stam Mishnah, it is possible that the Halachah also follows Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi against a Stam Mishnah.
Apologies for my brevity. B'Ezer Hashem I will attempt soon to answer your other questions.
Once again, Yasher Ko'ach for your wonderful work.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Please see Chulin 43b, especially Rashi DH Amora'i Ninhu, where it is clear that it is a Machlokes Amora'im if even R. Yochanan subscribed to that rule!
And see Teshuvos Binyan Tziyon Hachadashos, Siman 128, who speaks about this subject.
Meir Zirkind