The halacha we have today is mostly sourced in Talmud Bavli(the Babylonian Talmud),Medrash and Zohar. I would like to know what Halachot in which we rule according to the Yerushalmi (the Jerusalem Talmud) versus the Bavli (the Babylonian Talmud)?

  • 5
    Although this doesn't directly answer your question, the following post by Rabbi Michael Broyde is certainly related: torahmusings.com/2011/05/the-yerushalmi-as-a-source-of-halacha – YDK Jan 6 '12 at 4:29
  • 2
    אבל הרמב”ם דרכו לנטות אחר הירושלמי ברוב מקומות (ביאור הגר”א אורח (חיים סימן תלו סעיף א ד”ה א”צ לבדוק – simchastorah Jan 6 '12 at 4:56
  • 1
    Then again, when you say "halachot in which we rule...", once you get down to the Shulchan Aruch, we're tallying up the Rosh, the Rif and others who may or may not have given power to the Yerushalmi. – YDK Jan 6 '12 at 6:13
  • 1
    The zohar is at best a compendium of material from the tanna R' Shimon Bar Yochai and much later sources (there are plenty of book in academia written on this). It would stand to reason that since there is no way for us to tell which statements were actually said by R' Shimon and which were written later and attributed to him we should err on the side of caution and never pasken from the Zohar over the gemarot which, as a whole, predate it. – user1668 Jul 3 '12 at 17:50
  • 1
    @DoubleAA But since the asserts that we learn Halacha from Zohar, I don't think it's OT to comment on the limitations of this. – Hod - Monica's Army Jul 3 '12 at 18:40

Basar Shenitalem Min Ha'ayin would be an example of this:

The Gemara Bavli in Hullin 95a and 95b, rules that the thing we are worried about is an animal (according to rashi a raven, according to the rambam "a wild animal or vermin" (my rough translation)) switching the meat. The gemara holds that this doesn't apply if it was in the hands of a non-Jew -- meat left with a non-Jew is not considered a problem according to the Bavli.

The Shulchan Aruch (63:1) rules, unlike the gemara referenced above, that we are also worried about non-Jews in terms of basar shenitalem min ha'ayin. The GR"A (S"K 1) says that this is based on the Rambam in Ma'achalot Assurot 8:10, who rules like the Yerushalmi in Shekalim 7:2 ( "כדרכו ברוב מקומות" - "as is his way in most places" - GR"A), NOT like the Bavli I quoted above.

| improve this answer | |

Tosfot in Menachot 33b sv. U'mai quotes a Yerushalmi that he says argues on the Bavli regarding how high to put a mezuzah on an extremely tall doorway. The Bavli rules that it should be in the top third of the doorway regardless, while the Yerushalmi rules that in this case the mezuzah should be hung around shoulder height.

According to Rav Yisroel Belsky (and other sources all quoted here, footnote 22) the custom follows the Yerushalmi.

| improve this answer | |
  • I suppose that for "shoulder height" we go by either the owner or an average adult male? – Seth J Oct 11 '12 at 21:38
  • @SethJ Tosfot does sound like it's the owner's shoulders that are relevant. I don't know why you think gender is relevant as both genders are equally obligated in the mitzva. – Double AA Oct 11 '12 at 21:45
  • Interesting about its being the owner's shoulders that are the determining factor, as I'm used to seeing a standard for Halachic measurement, which many times follows the size of an average adult male (consider "cubit", for example). – Seth J Oct 11 '12 at 21:57

According to Rabbi David Bar Hayim, and Rabbi Yehoshua Buch and Rav Chaim Wasserman, whenever the Yerushalmi and Bavli contradict eachother, Jews today living in Israel, should follow the Yerushalmi. The three of them have set up a Beit Din to make such a position on specific customs official, and hallachically legally binding to those who accept the beit din.

Since Jews living in Israel and who feel the beginnings of Geulah no longer live or feel as if they live in Galut, then Jewish practice must follow that of Geulah Judaism and follow in the ways of Israel, instead of the Bavli, which was constructed and recorded for Galut Judaism.

The full practical implications of this view can be found at the machon shilo website.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Who says that a psak made by a Rabbi who lived outside of Israel is invalid? Where do you get that from? – avi Jan 6 '12 at 14:12
  • 1
    The halacha as defined in the Bavli was created when Jewish had no independence or an Army of their own to defend them. The world has changed since then. – avi Jan 6 '12 at 14:13
  • 1
    @DoubleAA That is not quite true. The Yerushalmi could not be completed because of a loss of independence of the Galil in the 200s to 300s. Before then, the Romans would not come to those places. There are many differences noted in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli of the different nature of the talmuds. – avi Jan 7 '12 at 15:57
  • 1
    @DoubleAA That is a good seperate question. The answer to which is long, since you are making a few bad assumptions. However the short answer is that not one single book is the end all and be all of Jewish practice. However, everything that comes from Israel during that period is valid. The Bavli also talks about differences between Israel's practice and their own. – avi Jan 8 '12 at 6:58
  • 2
    One acquires the authority by the people who accept the beit Din. If you don't accept the authority then they have none. If you do accept the authority, then they have it. The Beit Din for the New Moon, which would decide the time of the Jewish holidays for all the Jewish people, needs to only be 3 people. The Rambam states that our holidays only have meaning because a beit Din of 3 people in Israel declare the new moon. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 9:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .