QUICK & NECESSARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION OF GAONIM: Relates to Tafilin on Moed

The main work of the Talmud came to an end with the death of Ravina in 4259 (499ce). Rav Ashi and Ravina were the end of the decision making (horoth). This initiated the period of the Savoraim, who made some additions to the Talmud and placed it in its final form. It appears that it is these Savoraim who the RMb"M refers to as the FIRST GAONIM. Since the Savoraim headed academies including all the sages of the time, their decisions are as binding as those of the Talmud. The period of the Savoraim lasted for 90 years until 4349ce (589 ce). Following the Savoraim came the official period of the Gaonim. They headed the great academies of Sura and Pumbetitha in Babylonia, which had been founded in Talmudic times. Although the decisions of the Gaonim were based on traditions from the masters of the Talmud, and were almost universally accepted, they were appointed by the Exilarch, and thus there authority was less. In addition, they were NOT universally accepted by all of Judaism... despite statements to the contrary. As the RMb"M correctly noted in the introduction of his law code some 500 years after the Savoraim:

"In our time disasters continually follow one another. The need of the moment sets aside every other consideration. The wisdom of our wise men is lost, and the learning of our learned men is hidden. All the interpretations, codes and responses which the Geonim composed, and which they thought were easy of understanding (here the RMb"M means the FIRST GAONIM=Savoraim), have become unintelligible in our days, and there are but few who are able to comprehend them."

Thus, this caused the RMb"M to compose a work accessible to everyone without any arguments or counterarguments, in clear and unmistakable terms, in entire accord with the decisions which may be deduced from all the treatises and interpretations existing since the time of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, compiler of the Mishna until the present day."

Getting back to the Gaonim: Even during their times, no one had the authority (according to Torah) to add nor diminish from the Torah in the form of decrees and laws. However, this did not stop them from doing so:
"The geonim occasionally 'transcended' the Talmudic laws and issued new decrees. At the time of the gaons Mar R. Huna at Sura and Mar R. Rabba at Pumbedita (c. 670), for instance, the measures taken in relation to a refractory wife were different from those prescribed in the Talmud (Ket. 62b). Toward 785 the geonim decreed that debts and the ketubah might be levied on the movable property of orphans. Decrees of this kind were issued jointly by both academies; and they also made common cause in the controversy with Ben Meïr regarding a uniform Jewish calendar (see "R. E. J." xlii. 192, 201)."The RMb"M publicly says flattering things about the geonim (i.e.: He called Halakhoth Gadoloth a work of G-D in his Mishna commentary).

However, he turns around and rejects their words as nonsense as well.
Privately he was very critical ("vicious" is no exaggeration!) of them.
We may dismiss their rebel legislations, unless we are ourselves rebels.
When they say something reasonable, it is foolish to reject it, of course
(and RMBM did not, when it it was reasonable). Political correctness is NOT a
latter-day-saintly thing, but an old custom that even RMBM liked to
follow. see Laws of Rebels in Hilchoth Mamrim - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e300.htm

Only the first two chapters are CRITICAL, and the first 3 paragraphs of
the 3 chapter; thereafter is details that need not concern one...and matters
of honoring and fearing parents in the chapters after 4. Obviously, these works are to be learned from, but not used as legal sources.

If we say that the Geonim are able to legislate against or in addition to the sages of the Sanhedrin, then we are ourselves rebelling against the Sanhedrin and agreeing with rebels against the Sanhedrin.

The RaMBaM very much respected the parshanut (not CONTRADITION or ADDITION) of the Geonim, but holds against them whenever they went beyond "UNDERSTANDING" the Talmudic text.

EXAMPLE OF RAMBAM AGAINST GEONIM: Do you want a specific example? What is the blessing on sugar in RaMBaM's opinion? See Laws of Blessings 8.5! The Talmud decides, not the Geonim, even if we have to extrapolate from the Talmud! The Geonim are NOT legislators, but commentators. When they say something reasonable, it is foolish to reject it, of course (and RMBM did not, when it it was reasonable). Political correctness is NOT a latter-day-saintly thing, but an old custom that even RMb"M liked to follow. In addition, the RMb"M notes that in his own days, very few were even capable of learning the Geonim at all - for many reasons. All the more as time went by. Another apparent reason - we've seen over time - involved the existence of corrupt versions of the same text. Egyptian geniza fragments of geonic responsa, are a good example.

In short, OLD is not necessarily good, nor authoritative, either."

Site Admin: Here is an important lesson in logic. Even though I tend to
appreciate the old, we need to be careful about a fallacy of logic called
'Arugumentum ad Antiquitum'. This is the belief that something is true,
simply because it is older. This is totally illogical. The Oldest is not always correct, although I do see the importance of studying it...but never to
assume it as correct on age alone. Halakhoth Gadoloth is important Geonic work to study, but should not be relied upon as a LEGAL GUIDE.

The only thing that matters is what is incumbent on the whole of Israel.
The Torah is our constitution. Anything that is unconstitutional is not law, but color of law.

Regarding comments about the power of the Babylonian exilarch...being in a position to help settle disputes is totally different from being in a position to make new or nullify old siyyaghim, taqqanoth, or minhaghim.

Even the Babylonian sages never had the power to contradict the authoritative legal traditions established in the Land of Israel. Their new decrees and customs were only intended to safeguard the law. Their authority was based on their unique ability to determine and officially codify what the original law was, and the fact that its rulings were accepted by the majority of the Jewish People—which no later court could claim.

It is still a question, however, as to whether any original Babylonian legislation truly obligates the Jewish People or not. In either case, it is practically impossible to distinguish with certainty between their decrees and the authentic Israelite law. In the context of the rest of Talmudic literature, the Talmud Bavli remains the primary source of the Halakhah (official Jewish Law).

If there is a question regarding original Babylonian legislation, certainly no post-Sanhedrin court or individual after Rav Ashe has the authority to add to, or give an alternative ruling to rabbinical law as it was written down by the time the Talmud Bavli was formally sealed, about 500 C.E. Since then, only authentic Talmudic Law—based purely on the written word from the original Talmudic literature—is the Halachah.

Seven New Geniza Fragments of Halakhot Pesukot
and Hilkhot Reu Hilkhot Mila
Yehonatan Etz-Chayim

Yehonatan Etz - Chayim, in "Seven New Geniza Fragments of Halakhot Pesukot and Hilkhot Re'u 'Hilkhot Mila'," presents six fragments of Halakhot Pesukot' Hilkhot Mila' and one fragment of a parallel section of Hilkhot Re'u, all hitherto un published. The Halakhot Pesukot fragments, from six different but overlapping manuscripts from the 13th to the 14th (and perhaps the 15th) centuries, bridge the sections published by Etz - Chaim in Sidra volume 2. Together with other sections published re cently by the author elsewhere, almost all of the missing part of the Sassoon edition of 'Hilkhot Shabbat' of Halakhot Pesukot has been published.

Etz - Chayim compares the fragments with the other major halakhic compendium from the Geonic period, Halakhot Gedolot. Special attention is given to the additions in Halakhot Gedolot which are absent in Halakhot Pesukot. Some of these additions have been found to contradict the text common to both halakhot Gedolot and Halakhot Pesukot, as times causing difficulties in understanding the additional material. Quotes from the Babylonian Talmud found in Halakhot Pesukot and in Halakhot Gedolot are compared to our version, and indications have been found of different versions of the Talmud text sometimes used by the Geonim. Proof has been discovered that sometimes the Geonic redactor himself rephrased the "different version".

The Additional Passages in Halakhot Gedolot in comparison to Halakhot Pesukot and their Halakhic Mark on the Rishonim
Yehonatan Etz-Chaim

In "The Additional Passages in Halakhot Gedolot in comparison to Halakhot Pesukot and their halakhic Mark on the Rishonim", Yehonatan Etz-Chaim extends the observation he made in Sidra, volume 2. There he noted the presence of additions in Halakhot Gedolot which are not merely a quotation, a supplement or a paraphrase of Talmudic sources, but which are, instead, either an independent explanation of the words of the Babylonian Talmud or a wholly independent addition with no basis in talmud ic literature. Not one of these additions left its mark in the halakhic decisions of Alfasi or Maimonides, who frequently decided the halakhah in opposition to these additions. The same is true of other Rishonim. Etz-Chaim's conclusions there were based o n the comparison of a limited amount of material, and a small number of additions - only six. In the current study he undertakes to compare a larger section, the laws of Passover.

Etz-Chaim found thirty-seven additions to the laws of Passover in Halakhot Gedolot compared with Halakhot Pesukot, with sources in the Yerushalmi, the Tosefta, the Mekhilta de-R.Ismael, Baraitot and sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud, Saboraic sources and th e Sheiltot. A study of these sources led to the following conclusions: a. These additions left no impression in Alfasi or Maimonides : b. Even in those instances where there were items in these additions, parallel to Alfasi and Maimonides, yet these halakhic deciders had used the common, direct source and not Halakhot Gedolot ; c. There are additions whose rulings these halakhic desciders opposed ; d. There are additions for which Alfasi and Maimonides themselves served as the source ; e. Those additions whose source was the Sheiltot are later than Alfasi and Maimonides ; f. A few other additions originated in Ashkenaz and in France.

The following quote from Halakhoth Gadoloth is an English translation of this topic. This Geonic quote (responsa) is relied on by many (most) Yemenite Jews to justify their practice of not wearing tefillin on Hol shel Moed.

"They asked Mar Rab Yaakov the son of Habib a question concerning Tefillin and he answered, 'It is forbidden to put on Tefillin on the Hol HaMoed.' And [another] question was asked: 'How do we know that it's forbidden to put them on?' [To which it was replied], 'What is the reason? Because they have made it (i.e. the Hol HaMoed) like the Sabbath and the Feast Day'."

In my assessment, the above quote represents a clear changing of the law in relation to the conditions of the time. I argue that this change was made at the time of the Geonim, by the Geonim themselves. IE: They changed the law because people started treating the hhol shel moed as (like) a Festival. OR they were confused on Talmudic versions (see Fragment evidence below). Thus, this change was made as a reaction to the way Jews started treating the Hagim (Festivals). Originally, the hhol shel moed (intermediary days) were not treated as a Festival, and thus tafilin were required, as like every day except Shabboth and Festivals.

Halachoth Gedoloth was written long before RMb"M in anno 743 C.E. However, "older does not always make it righter".

Ribbi Shim`on (in Talmud) proves we have to follow the legislation of the Sanhedrin, in terms
of their concept of "majority rules. See Yerushalmi:

ר"ש בן יוחי הוה עבד בשמיטתא וחמי חד מלקט שביעית א"ל ולית אסור ולאו ספיחין
אינון א"ל ולא את הוא מתירן א"ל ואין חבירי חלוקין עלי קרא עליו

דף כה,ב פרק ט הלכה א גמרא  (קוהלת י) ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש וכן הוות ליה

So I guess the main question is this: Does what is written in Halakhoth Gadoloth actually represent the words of the earlier Sanhedrin. Or is it a post-Sanhedrin change that lacks authority?

Either way (as stated above), Halakhoth Gadoloth is a work to be studied, but we do not posqen according to it.

In our times, severe troubles come one after another, and all are in distress; the wisdom of our Torah scholars has disappeared, and the understanding of our discerning men is hidden. Thus, the commentaries, the responses to questions, and the settled laws that the Geonim wrote, which had once seemed clear, have in our times become hard to understand, so that only a few properly understand them. And one hardly needs to mention the Talmud itself--the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud, the Sifra, the Sifre, and the Toseftot--which all require a broad mind, a wise soul, and considerable study, before one can correctly know from them what is forbidden or permitted and the other rules of the Torah.

Writing down laws from the Talmud is NOT legislation, or M"T would make RMBM a legislator.