Sunday, November 05, 2006

Daf Yomi - Beitzah 9 - Separating challah on Yom Tov

Rabbah rules that if one made a dough before Yom Tov, he can separate the challah from it on Yom Tov. Rashi writes that although it is rabbinically forbidden to separate Terumos and Maasros from ones food on Yom Tov if it could have been performed prior to Yom Tov, this is not applicable to separating challah from dough that was made on Yom Tov. Kneading dough is permitted on Yom Tov so that one can enjoy eating fresh bread on Yom Tov and one does not have to do so prior to Yom Tov. Therefore one is also allowed to separate challah on Yom Tov. The father of Shmuel disagrees and maintains that even if one made the dough prior to Yom Tov, he cannot separate the challah from it on Yom Tov.

Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that states that separating challah was included in the rabbinic prohibition of separating Terumos and Maasros. Rabbah only permitted separating the challah on Yom Tov if the dough was made on Yom Tov. Although one could separate the challah at the stage when the flour is mixed with the water, the prevalent custom was to separate the challah after the dough was made. Given the fact that the dough was made on Yom Tov, one can separate the challah on Yom Tov.

Tosfos then quotes a Tosefta that states that Rabbah only permitted separating challah on Yom Tov in the Diaspora where there is no concern that separating challah is akin to rectifying an object, because in the Diaspora one can eat dough even without separating challah. One would be prohibited from separating challah on Yom Tov in Eretz Yisroel because one cannot eat the dough in Eretz Yisroel without having separated challah, and separating challah would thus be akin to rectifying an object on Yom Tov which is forbidden.

Tosfos rejects the words of the Tosefta and Tosfos concludes that Rabbah permitted separating challah on Yom Tov even in Eretz Yisroel and the father of Shmuel prohibited separating challah on Yom Tov even in the Diaspora. Tosfos rules in accordance with Rabbah as Rabbah is a basraah, a later Amora.

The Maharshal in Chochmas Shlomo questions the ruling of Tosfos, as we have a tradition from the Geonim that we only rule in accordance with the basraah from the period of Abaye and Rava and on, whereas Rabbah lived earlier. The Maharshal writes that the Rif rules in accordance with the father of Shmuel. The Ran adds that Rava is the Amora who qualifies the opinion of the father of Shmuel and Rava is the basraah, so for this reason the Halacha is in accordance with the father of Shmuel.

The Mitzpei Aisan (in hashmatos) answers this question based on a Rashba in Shabbos who rules that when a student differs with his teacher, we rule in accordance with the student, but this principle only applies after the era of Abaye and Rava and not earlier. When the disputants are colleagues, however, then the Halacha is in accordance with the basraah, and this principle applies even prior to the era of Abaye and Rava. Tosfos in Kiddushin 45b writes that the reason why the Halacha follows the basraah is because the later Amoraim were more exact in establishing the Halacha clearly. Furthermore, the Rosh in Sanhedrin writes that the later sages understood the logic of their predecessors, thus giving them the ability to determine whose opinion was halachically correct. The distinction between the era of Abaye and Rava and the period prior to that is that prior to the era of Abaye and Rava, a student would only study what he had heard from his teacher, whereas after the era of Abaye and Rava, the students would analyze various opinions and they would conclude that the halacha was not necessarily in accordance with the opinion of their teacher.

1 comments:

David said...

Intressante. However, I must question the assertion that a change in study methodology occurred after the time of Abbaye and Rava. Does the Mitzpah Aisan bring proof for this sweeping statement? I am sure he does.

The reason you quote from the Rosh is the same reason I have often heard quoted from the Rif in establishing why the halacha follows the Bavli: because being the latter of the two Talmuds, the Bavli had occasion to consider the reasoning of the Yerushalmi and take it into account. The same logic should lechoirah follow in a general "hilchasa ki'basra" sense.