Sometimes, after the Talmud records a disagreement, it concludes by saying that the Halacha is like one side of the debate (“vehilchoso”). See e.g. http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=2&daf=22&format=pdf end of line 10.

When and why does the Gemoro say “vehilchoso” ("and the halacha is like so-and-so")?

  • 1
    You could improve this question by adding in more about what you already know: What does this word mean, in your understanding? Why are you interested in knowing when it's used and why?
    – Isaac Moses
    Sep 12, 2011 at 20:47
  • @mevaqesh Relevant counter-example - Bava Basra at one point "paskens" the halacha like one shittah without a vehilchoso. The gemara then asks why it doesn't use the term vehilchoso and responds that it's either an issue of noteh (we don't have a definite ruling) or safek. Jun 5, 2017 at 15:40
  • @IsaacK why did you tag me?
    – mevaqesh
    Jun 5, 2017 at 15:43
  • @mevaqesh since you were editing the question and this would appear to be a relevant example that might be included. Jun 5, 2017 at 15:45
  • @IsaacKotlicky I was just fixing the tags. You are more than welcome to improve the post yourself.
    – mevaqesh
    Jun 5, 2017 at 15:56

2 Answers 2


Based on the question and answer brought in the Chaim Ad Olam (by Yaakov Chaim Sofer), we can say two things:

  1. “vehilchoso” is brought to exclude ("לאפוקי‬") other opinions.

  2. it tells us that this one opinion is an obligation, you don't have two equally valid options.

Rashi (Chulin 49A) says that the Gemara decided what the Halacha was. Meaning, there was an argument, and the last Yeshivot of the Talmudic era decided what the Halacha would be. (It would appear that Rashi holds that this was the Yeshiva of Rav Ashi - see Rashi on the bottom of Sukkot 3B)

See also the Yad Malachai (Rule 252), who brings what the Rosh, Ran, and Ramban say it means. But I didn't look up the sources to get context.

Based on here and here, it appears that there are some who hold that it was the Savuraim who added these Halachic Rulings. This would probably depend on who is credited with finalizing the text of the Talmud (see here and here).

  • Thank you. Minor points --- Looking at the gemoro I quoted above, and your point 1, would you accept "“vehilchoso” is brought to refute even one other opinion"? Regarding your point 2, MB in OC 671 (6) [33] says that the other side is valid bedieved. Sep 18, 2011 at 16:03
  • @AvrohomYitzchok: The word he uses is "לאפוקי‬", which I translated as refute. I'm not exactly sure what the best translation is, but I'll change it to "exclude". That is what the Gemara is doing. It brought opposite opinions and then let us know that one is correct. (Although the Gemara there is saying it is correct because they are assuming you have a mezuza, which may be one of the reasons you put it on the right if you don't have one). I clarified point two to show that he's saying that without the hilchasa I would think both options were equally valid.
    – Menachem
    Sep 18, 2011 at 21:26

והלכתא Vehilchasa This term is used by the Amora himself to indicate what the law is even though he personally holds of the opposing opinion. If the Gemara itself was stating what the law was , then it would state " this is the law even though it contradicts the Amora". Look in the Rosh in Avoda Zara Fifth Perek #34 . Yad Malachi 252.

Instruction: 1. Verify that the Amora personally holds of the opposing opinion. 2. Is the Amora himself saying "Vehilchasa"

For a gemara glossary go to http://www.howtolearngemara.com/s/gemara-glossary/


You must log in to answer this question.

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