Ya'al Kegam (article summary)
For this past Shabbos, I wrote a novel perspective of yaal kegam. You can read here (HTML, flipdocs, paid Substack). After the image, a brief summary of the ideas.
Unfortunately, there’s a typo, where in the first paragraph and associated footnote I spelled “kegam” with a kaf. 😳
The first part of the article surveys the six instances of yaal kegam, to gain a perspective of the features of each sugya. However, there is a Rishonic argument about which sugya corresponds to the lamed of yaal kegam, so there is a C1, C2, and C2. In particular, for each sugya, (a) I look to see if there is a conclusive refutation to one side from the flow of the sugya itself and (b) whether the “gemara” (whoever that is, Ravina / Rav Ashi, or Savoraic, or Geonic or even later) includes a language of hilcheta ke-X.
We can wonder at the basis for such a statement of hilecheta ke-X; and the basis for hilcheta ke-Abaye be-yaal kegam. When was each said?
There is a cute gematria in which Rav Adda bar Ahava II, who is Rava’s student, tries to poach students from Abaye’s yeshiva by saying אַדִּמְגָרְמִיתוּ גַּרְמֵי בֵּי אַבָּיֵי תּוּ אִכְלוּ בִּישְׂרָא שַׁמִּינָא בֵּי רָבָא, “instead of gnawing dry bones in Abaye’s academy, eat juicy meat in Rava’s academy”. The gematria of garmei is the same as ya’al kegam. That would place that decision as within Abaye and Rava’s lifetimes.
Other approaches include that it was during later generations. Rav Ashi was sixth-generation, so it could be by the redaction of the Talmud. Or, Savoraim redactig the Talmud. Or, that it could even be post-Talmudic, and could reflect local practice, just as the Rif or Rosh will have a vehilcheta of their own after citing the gemara. And I even point to a vehilcheta which Rosh discusses which (he says) is not original but reflects local practice. I also point to Beitza 33, where Rashi sees fit to argue with a hilcheta.I note that there are exceptions to ya’al kegam, such as if other Amoraim happen to be involved; Abaye and Rava arguing about how Rabba should be cited would also form a nice exception.
I suggest that hilcheta ke-X may be one stratum, while hilcheta ke-Abaye be-yaal kegam is an even later stratum, assembling together the places where the Talmud had explicitly or effectively decided in favor of Abaye. Further, I suggest that this was a Masoretic statement rather than a kelal hora’ah — that it was directed at the Garsan, the Reciter of the Talmud in the academy, to know where to say the words vehilcheta.
The pragmatic effect of such an understanding is that (a) even in ya’al kegam, maybe we could argue based on implications from other sugyot, and (b) in all of the cases which are not ya’al kegam, and the decision is is not clear, who says we should rule like Rava? After all, this was just a listing of places of clear Abaye wins. There may be others, based on other sugyot, weight of evidence or how persuasive each was and what seemed a kvetch, and so on.