About: Be-mai peligei     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatTalmudConceptsAndTerminology, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/c/7KdfB2LtzF

Be-mai peligei (Aramaic: במאי פליגי) is a phrase used in legal debates in the Talmud, meaning On what do they disagree? It is used in explaining the difference between two views of the law (usually as expressed by two different rabbis). The implication is that they agree on the practical result but differ on the source text or legal principle forming the rationale for that result.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Be-mai peligei (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Be-mai peligei (Aramaic: במאי פליגי) is a phrase used in legal debates in the Talmud, meaning On what do they disagree? It is used in explaining the difference between two views of the law (usually as expressed by two different rabbis). The implication is that they agree on the practical result but differ on the source text or legal principle forming the rationale for that result. (en)
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
has abstract
  • Be-mai peligei (Aramaic: במאי פליגי) is a phrase used in legal debates in the Talmud, meaning On what do they disagree? It is used in explaining the difference between two views of the law (usually as expressed by two different rabbis). The implication is that they agree on the practical result but differ on the source text or legal principle forming the rationale for that result. It is contrasted with the question Mai nafka minnah, "What goes out from it?", which indicates that in a distinction between two or more legal opinions or conceptual categories, there must be some practical effect that emerges from the distinct categories as conceived. In other words, nafka minnah concerns the tachlis or "bottom line". An example of be-mai peligei occurs at Temurah 6a, where Rava and Abaye are discussing whether a transaction which breaches a religious law can have any legal validity, Rava holding that in general it does not and Abaye holding that it does. However, in a series of examples drawn from different fields of law it is found that they agree on the practical result in every case. "So on what do they disagree?" Rava holds that, while the general principle is that such transactions are invalid, exceptionally they are valid where there is an indication to this effect in the Biblical text. Abaye holds that, while the general principle is that such transactions are valid, exceptionally they are invalid where there is an indication to this effect in the Biblical text. In other words, they agree on the lists of examples but differ on which is the general rule and which is the exception. (en)
gold:hypernym
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git147 as of Sep 06 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 54 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software