If amoraim (sages of the Talmud) are discussing an opinion in a mishna does that mean that is the law? The Rif (Rav Isaac Alfasi) brings this idea in chapter 6 of Ketuboth. It is in fact based on a gemara in Sanhedrin which deals with the issue of when a judge makes a mistake in a law. It is in reference to damages that are owed to a woman. If someone hits her and makes a wound or causes to her some kind of embarrassment. To R. Yehuda if the embarrassment is public she gets 2/3 of the damages that are owed and her husband gets 1/3. If the embarrassment is private then she gets 1/3 and her husband 2/3.
The Gra asks on this that there are lots of places where the amoraim discuss an opinion in mishna that is not the halacha.
On the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo one of the commentaries wants to answer this question that when the amoraim discuss an opinion in mishna then that is the law.
In any case this does deal with the question what is the law--the halacha?
I tried to get somewhere with this subject in Sanhedrin with David Bronson where there are tons of permutations concerning the issue when a judge makes a mistake. When does he have to pay but the law stays and when the law is that the case is reversed.
But over there the idea of the amoraim arguing about one opinion shows that it is the halacaha is brought.
This will clearly disagree with lots of other places in the gemara where the issue comes up what teh law actually is. In Eruvin the Gemara goes through the list of Tenaim--with whom is the law when there is disagreement.
The confusion about this issue i mentioned a few days ago about an situation where the stam mishna [mishna with no name mentioned in it] says one thing and the gemara says this is the opinion of so and so but the sages say differently.In Bava Kama this is brought an used as a proof against Sumchos. In Ketoboth this exact situation is brought and the law is like the Mishna!
I heard once from Abigail Bussu [The daughter of Rav Israel Abu-hazeira] the main things are the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo and Musar [Medieval books of Ethics]. So in terms of halacah that would seem to settle things.--
The Shulchan Aruch is I heard one about 70-80 like the Rambam since Rav Joseph karo always goes by the majority between the Rif, Rosh, and Rambam. And in fact a lot of effort has been spent in understanding the Ramabm in recent years mainly starting with Rav Haim from Brisk [Soloveitchik] and Rav Shach. Still I think that the whole issue of halacah is still not clear.
But it is interesting that in the list of books that one is supposed to learn and finish every year Rav Nahman brings the Rif Rosh and Shulchan Aruch [The large edition with all commentaries]and he leaves out the Rambam.
The Gra asks on this that there are lots of places where the amoraim discuss an opinion in mishna that is not the halacha.
On the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo one of the commentaries wants to answer this question that when the amoraim discuss an opinion in mishna then that is the law.
In any case this does deal with the question what is the law--the halacha?
I tried to get somewhere with this subject in Sanhedrin with David Bronson where there are tons of permutations concerning the issue when a judge makes a mistake. When does he have to pay but the law stays and when the law is that the case is reversed.
But over there the idea of the amoraim arguing about one opinion shows that it is the halacaha is brought.
This will clearly disagree with lots of other places in the gemara where the issue comes up what teh law actually is. In Eruvin the Gemara goes through the list of Tenaim--with whom is the law when there is disagreement.
The confusion about this issue i mentioned a few days ago about an situation where the stam mishna [mishna with no name mentioned in it] says one thing and the gemara says this is the opinion of so and so but the sages say differently.In Bava Kama this is brought an used as a proof against Sumchos. In Ketoboth this exact situation is brought and the law is like the Mishna!
I heard once from Abigail Bussu [The daughter of Rav Israel Abu-hazeira] the main things are the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo and Musar [Medieval books of Ethics]. So in terms of halacah that would seem to settle things.--
The Shulchan Aruch is I heard one about 70-80 like the Rambam since Rav Joseph karo always goes by the majority between the Rif, Rosh, and Rambam. And in fact a lot of effort has been spent in understanding the Ramabm in recent years mainly starting with Rav Haim from Brisk [Soloveitchik] and Rav Shach. Still I think that the whole issue of halacah is still not clear.
But it is interesting that in the list of books that one is supposed to learn and finish every year Rav Nahman brings the Rif Rosh and Shulchan Aruch [The large edition with all commentaries]and he leaves out the Rambam.
