Shalom! As always, thank you for your help.
Regarding a Baraita, the Gemara asks "UMI ET LE LEREBBI MUKTZE?..." (bottom of 40a). This question arises because, given that Rebbi explained the opinion of R' Shimon on muktzeh, the Gemara assumes that Rebbi agrees with R' Shimon's opinion on muktze.
The Gemara responds (second IBAIT EIMA) that the fact that Rebbi explained the opinion R' Shimon on muktzeh, does not necessarily mean that Rebbi agrees with R' Shimon opinion on muktze ("VELE, LO SVIRA LE...").
However, the Gemara does not explain why the fact that Rebbi explained the opinion of R' Shimon on muktzeh, does not necessarily mean that Rebbi agrees with R' Shimon's opinion on muktze. Therefore, although the Gemara teaches us how to interpret the texts, the Gemara does not explain why, and it seems to me that HAIKAR CHASER MIN HASEFER.
Same can be said about the third response the Gemara gives: Rebbi says to Rabanan, recognize that these animals are "BAYTOT", and Rabanan respond "NO, THEY ARE MIDBARIOT", without explaining the reasoning of Rebbi and Rabanan.
I saw this kind of question and answer (without further explanation) in many places in the Gemara, and I wonder if you have a thought about this.
Thanks!!!
Dino Feigelstock, Washington DC, USA
1) It's great to hear from you! I cannot say that I have a deep explanation which might be what you're looking for. But I can share with you two simple approaches that occur to me regarding your excellent questions.
a) Regarding what you wrote about the Gemara's second answer (Rebbi was explaining Rebbi Shimon but does not agree with him), it seems correct to say that the Gemara's working assumption, unless contradicted by evidence to the contrary, is that when one younger Chacham cites and explains the opinon of an older Chacham, then it is most plausible to assume that the younger one subscribes to the view of the older. But again this is only if there is no substantive reason to indicate otherwise. So here, if we do have reason to believe that Rebbi does indeed hold of Muktzeh -- namely, based on the fact that he appears in the discussion that distinguishes between the Baisos and Midbariyos -- then it becomes a much more reasonable and legitimate move for the Gemara to suggest that he in fact does not subscribe to Rebbi Shimon's ruling; rather, Rebbi was only explaining it for the sake of clarifying the opposing viewpoint.
b) Regarding what you wrote about the Gemara's third and final answer (l'Divreihem d'Rabanan ka'Amar Lehu), it sounds like you are saying that Rebbi and the Rabanan are presented as simply disagreeing with each other, and the Gemara is not addressing the rationale or the reasons for why each side maintains its position and refuses to agree with the opponent. At the moment I did not come across any subtle and brilliant explanation to reveal what assumptions are behind each view, if that is what you are seeking. But what we do see is that Rebbi is more lenient regarding Muktzeh in this case than are the Rabanan. In that sense, whenever we see an argument like this, the two opposing rulings in a particular circumstance can be reflective of a global stance that each sage adopts towards that issue. I will have to keep my eyes and mind open for more insight into this very significant issue, which -- as you said -- applies not only here but in many other places in Gemara.
2) I later found a couple of interesting points cited in the Mesivta volume on Beitzah Daf 40b.
a) I will first share what seems to be the most relevant to your question regarding the Gemara's final answer. The Toldos Yakov maintains that Rebbi's position is based on the following premise. The Chachamim admit that animals which spend the night inside the Techum are not Muktzeh. Therefore, claims Rebbi, this indicates that whenever there are two opposing reasons to view the animals as either Muktzeh (because they spend the day outside the Techum) or as Mutar (because they spend the night inside the Techum), the Chachamim adopt the lenient stance. But, if that is so, claims Rebbi, then by the same reasoning the Chachamim should also permit the animals who spend half the year outside the Techum, on the grounds that here too they are considered Baisos for the entire half year which they are in the Techum, and it should not matter that the timeframe is longer than the previous case. The Chachamim themselves, on the other hand, disagree with this and instead maintain their stringent position to forbid those animals on the grounds that the length of timeframe does indeed matter; the animals that come back home only when the rain commences are out of range -- and hence Muktzeh -- for the entire dry season, unlike the animals who come back every evening, which thus prevents them from becoming Muktzeh for any day of the year.
b) The other comment I saw was based on the Tzelach who suggests the following regarding the Gemara's first answer. (Granted, your analysis was focused on the second and third answers, but I thought it might help to share this nevertheless.) The Tzelach asserts that according to the first answer of the Gemara, both Rebbi and the Chachamim subscribe to the view of Rebbi Shimon; they just disagree about whether the cows which spend half the year outside of the Techum are indeed comparable to Grogeros and Tzimukim (Chachamim) or not (Rebbi). This is as opposed to saying that only Rebbi subscribes to Rebbi Shimon's view whereas the Chachamim hold like Rebbi Yehudah.
Of course I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you when there are any developments, and I'm always glad to hear your insights.
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky
Shalom Rav Rasowsky;
First, thanks again for your response!!
1) Just to clarify. In 1b you state "it sounds like you are saying that Rebbi and the Rabanan are presented as simply disagreeing with each other, and the Gemara is not addressing the rationale or the reasons for why each side maintains its position and refuses to agree with the opponent". Yes Rav, that's exactly what I meant.
2) Also, to clarify. In 1b you state "At the moment I did not come across any subtle and brilliant explanation to reveal what assumptions are behind each view, if that is what you are seeking". Yes Rav, I'm seeking for what assumptions are or could be behind each view. However, my basic question is, whatever these assumptions are, why are they not stated in the gemara? (From your words "I cannot say that I have a deep explanation which might be what you're looking for" I have the impression that you did understand what my basic question is. Correct Rav?)
3) Regarding 2b, thanks for sharing the Tzelach! It did not come to my mind the possibility that, according to the first answer of the Gemara, both Rebbi and the Chachamim subscribe to the view of Rebbi Shimon (I thought that only Rebbi subscribes to Rebbi Shimon's view whereas the Chachamim hold like Rebbi Yehudah).
4) I wonder if we can respond to my basic question (why the assumptions behind each view are not stated in the Gemara?) in the following way. This applies to the case of the third IBAIT EIMA (but probably we can state something similar about the second IBAIT EIMA and maybe in other cases of the gemara).
It seems to me that the basic issue the Baraita is dealing with is when human beings MAKTZIM MIDAATAM their animals. How long animals should be out of the home to be considered MIDBARIOT (and MUKTZEH) or BAYTOT (and MUTAR)?
By the Gemara simply stating the opinions (without stating the assumptions), the Gemara may be telling us that we don't have any pesukim from the Torah or TANACH, we don't have baraytot, no surveys were performed (as asking a significant number of people "when ATA MAKTZE MIDAATECHA YOUR ANIMALS?), no social studies were conducted, in order to answer this important question (that will indicate if animals are Muktesh or not). Given the lack of (objective) data to answer this question, we can only rely in the (subjective) view of our CHACHAMIM, and simply ask the CHACHAMIM: CHACHAMIM, based on your thoughts and life experience and based on all what you consider significant, when human beings MAKTZIM MIDAATAM their animals? Therefore, given that the answer is subjective, based on the totality of the personal thoughts and life experience of the CHACHAM, it is sort of difficult (or impossible) for the Gemara to write the assumptions, and that's why the assumptions are not stated.
Rav: do you think that this approach is acceptable?
Thanks and kol tuv!!!
It is pleasure to hear from you again.
1) OK, good!
2) It is a very fine point you are making. Even though the Gemara typically does provide the rationale behind the rulings of the Tana'im, there are times where it leaves significant portions of the explanation, perhaps intentionally, as "an exercise for the reader."
3) Yes, the interpretation of the Tzelach was very eye-opening for me too!
4) I will continue to think about this subtle issue. I believe there is great truth in the explanation that you wrote. Your eloquent suggestion brings to mind the fact that significant portions of the ideological basis behind a Halachic position can often be difficult to articulate in dry terms, but instead must be experienced and even arrived at by intuition instead of deduction.
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky