Rabbi Yochanan vs. Reish Lakish (article summary)
My article for last Shabbos is online (HTML, flipbooks, paid Substack):
Here, I will summarize the idea.
(1) The relevance to the daf is that the Talmudic Narrator aligns Rav Nachman with Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Sheshet with Reish Lakish. An argument found in the Rif is that since Rabbi Yochanan wins, that means that we rule like Rav Nachman. So we can explore this idea that Rabbi Yochanan wins.
(2) Unlike other examples, where it the anonymous voice of the gemara, this rule is stated by a fourth-generation Amora, Rava, in Yevamot 36a.
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת: חֲדָא — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. אִידַּךְ, דִּתְנַן: הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו,…
Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish in these three disputes: One, this dispute that we already stated with regard to the ḥalitza of a pregnant woman. The other dispute concerns that which we learned in a mishna: In the case of one who verbally divides up his possessions…
This is taken by Rishonim (and, we’ll see, by the gemara itself) to be a comprehensive list of when Reish Lakish wins. Therefore, every other time, Rabbi Yochanan wins.
(3) Let us look at the three cases, so that we know what we are talking about.
(4) We can wonder why Rabbi Yochanan always wins. Is it his role as Reish Lakish’s teacher? (But he had other teachers, perhaps even prior.) Was it the consensus of later Amoraim?
(5) But does Rava’s statement say what we think it does? He only said the positive — we rule like Reish Lakish in these three. He never said the opposite, that we rule against Reish Lakish everywhere else. Even though there is a disputed principle of michlal lav ata shomea hen, I don’t know that there is a principle of michlal hen ata shomea lav.
(6) I didn’t have space to get into it in the article, but maybe it is not just the list but the number. But then see how Amoraim, including Reish Lakish (in Yerushalmi Kiddushin) handle such numbers in the Mishnah, ha’isha nikneit beshalosh derachim.
(7) I mention another two cases of such general principles that the halacha is like X in A B C, and people assume it means only in A B C. One was about Abaye in yaal kegam.
The other was a two parter, about Rabba vs. Rav Yosef:
Rabba vs. Rav Yosef, part two (article summary)
I have different explanations for each, but a common objection is that who says that the positive statement in A B C implies the negative for everything other than A B C!
(8) In fact, we can identify a common thread of these three cases, having to do with death and limbo, such that Rava dealt with all three in the beit midrash at approximately the same time.
(9) However, there is a gemara in Chullin 77a in which Rava (not Rabba as in the printed texts) rules leniently about sinews, based on Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Pappa or Pappi objects that there is yet the contrary position of Reish Lakish. This silences Rava.
The Talmudic Narrator then asks: but what about that Rava (and here, even printed texts have Rava) said that we rule like Reish Lakish (only) in these three? The gemara answers from the internal Rabbi Yochanan / Reish Lakish dispute, that we see that Rabbi Yochanan retracted in this instance.
From the Talmudic Narrator’s question, we see that he considers A B C a comprehensive list.
(10) However, it seems to me that an equally valid approach could be that we see from Rava’s silence, and Rav Pappa’s objection, that this positive rule was not intended as a comprehensive list of when Reish Lakish prevails against Rabbi Yochanan. (And anyway, Rav Ashi could always disagree with Rava.)