Rambam (1138-1204)

...

Rav Ashi composed the Babylonian Talmud in Shin'ar approximately one hundred years after Rabbi Yochanan composed the Jerusalem Talmud...

...These [principles apply regarding] the judgments, decrees, ordinances, and customs which were established after the conclusion of the Talmud. However, all the matters mentioned by the Babylonian Talmud are incumbent on the entire Jewish people to follow. We must compel each and every city and each country to accept all the customs that were put into practice by the Sages of the Talmud, to pass decrees parallelling their decrees, and to observe their ordinances, since all the matters in the Talmud were accepted by the entire Jewish people...

GEMARA: In whose possession [does the property remain]? Rabbi Ila says: In the possession of the mother’s heirs. Rabbi Zeira said: In the possession of the son’s heirs. When Rabbi Zeira ascended [to Eretz Yisrael], he adopted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, whereas Rabba, [in Babylonia], adopted the opinion stated by Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from this that the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise.

When Rabbi Zeira ascended [from Babylonia] to Eretz Yisrael, he fasted one hundred fasts so that he would forget the Babylonian [method of studying] Gemara, so that it would not hinder him...

Rabbi Abba opened [his eulogy] for him: Our Rabbi was worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, except for the fact that Babylonia caused it [not to rest].

[Rav Samma] became embarrassed [because he had asked his question based on a mistaken assumption]. Rav Ashi said to [Rav Samma]: Do not be upset [that Ravina is a greater scholar than you are]; one of them, [i.e., the Sages of Eretz Yisrael], is like two of us, [i.e., the Sages of Babylonia].

Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I took for myself two staves; the one I called Graciousness, and the other I called Binders” (Zechariah 11:7)? “Graciousness”; these are the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, who are gracious to one another in discussions of halakha. “Binders [ḥovelim]”; these are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who injure [shemeḥabbelim] each other in discussions of halakha.

Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe when a certain man came and knocked at the door. [Ulla] said: Who is that? May his body be desecrated, as he desecrates Shabbat [by producing a sound]. Rabba said to him: The Sages prohibited only a musical sound.

R' Yitzchak Alfasi (1013–1103)

And we have seen some of the authorities (Rabonot) who hold in accordance with Ulla, and they rely upon the Talmud of the Westerners [the Yerushalmi], as we learned there in Tractate Yom Tov: Rabbi Eleazar said, 'All sound-makers are prohibited on the Sabbath.' Rabbi Ela went to the study hall, went up to the house, and found them knocking—he struck the door and said to them, 'Do you not knock on the Sabbath?' And we also say that Rabbi Yirmiyah permitted knocking on the door on the Sabbath. Abaye said to him, 'Who permitted this for you, when we do not hold this way?'

Since the sugya of our

Gemara (the Babylonian Talmud) permits it, it is of no concern to us that

the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West forbids it, because we rely on our

Gemara since it is later in time, and they (the Sages in Babylonia) were more

versed in the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West than we are. Were they not

convinced that this statement of the Gemara of the Inhabitants of the West is not

to be relied upon, they would not have permitted it.

Because they dwell in a dark land, they utter obscure teachings."

The Rambam (may his memory be blessed) explained in a responsa to a question regarding Rabbi Jeremiah, that he followed his [usual] reasoning, as he stated: "He has made me dwell in dark places, like those long dead" (Lamentations 3:6) — this refers to the Babylonian Talmud. The reason is that the legal rationales of the Mishnah were not as clear to them as they were to the Sages of the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Zeira also desired that the reasoning of the Babylonians be forgotten, because their reasoning was not as clear to him until he heard the reasoning of the Westerners [the Sages of the Land of Israel], since it is human custom for a person to remember best what they learned first.

However, this was not the case in all generations, but rather [specifically] in the days of Rava, Rav Yosef, Abaye, and Rava, when there were periods of persecution (shmad), as is stated in the chapter HaSocher et haPo'alim.

It is also stated in chapter Elu Terefot that Rabba, Rav Yosef, and Rabbi Zeira fled — the text refers to them as arukai ("fugitives") because they were fleeing due to the persecutions. And Rabbi Zeira said to them that despite all this, the words of the Torah would not be forgotten.

..

However, afterwards, the Torah grew strong in Babylonia, all the more so in the days of Rav Ashi, as we state: "From the days of Rabbi [Judah the Prince] down to Rav Ashi, we do not find Torah and greatness combined in one place."

Thus are the words of our Master (may his memory be blessed), and they are life to those who find them.

* Note: Some have attributed this responsum to R' Maimon, Rambam's father

Anonymous, 13th C

...And the Babylonian is lengthier and more elucidated, and we rely upon it more...

“Neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in [due to the adversary]” (Zechariah 8:10). Rav said: Once a person leaves the study of halakha, [even] for the Torah, he will no longer have peace. And Shmuel said: This is referring to one who leaves [the study] of Talmud to [learn] Mishna. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even [to one who leaves the study] from Talmud to Talmud.

R' Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040-1105)

Even from Talmud to Talmud - From Talmud Yerushalmi to Talmud Bavli which is deep, as it says in Sanhedrin (24a), "He has made me dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead”, this is the Talmud of Babylon.

R. Johanan said: Even from Talmud to Talmud. The master explained that this means from the Talmud Yerushalmi to the Talmud Bavli,

which is deeper [than the Yerushalmi], as it is said in Sanhedrin “you have

placed me in darkness”: this refers to the Bavli. But to me it seems that the

opposite is true, for on the contrary the Bavli is better explained and that this person, in order to be easier on themselves, set

aside the Bavli in favor of the Yerushalmi.

When Ravin ascended [to Eretz Yisrael], he stated this halakha before Rabbi Yirmeya. And [Rabbi Yirmeya] said: Foolish Babylonians! Because you dwell in a dark land, you state halakhot that are dim. Have you not heard this statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Oshaya?

What [is the homiletic interpretation of the word] Babylonia? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: [It means] mixed with Bible, mixed with Mishna, and mixed with Talmud. [With regard to the verse]: “He has made me dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead” (Lamentations 3:6), Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is the Talmud of Babylonia.

R' Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (1816-1893)

...The meaning in all of this is that in the first tablets, the power of innovation was not given, but rather [only] what Moses received: the precise meanings of the verses and the halachot derived from them, but not the ability to innovate a matter of halachah through the thirteen hermeneutical rules and the like—the dialectics of the Talmud. There was no Oral Law [in the way we know it today], but rather traditions received from the mouth of Moses, and whatever was not received, they would deduce one matter from another.

However, in the second tablets, the power was given to every veteran student to innovate halachah according to the rules and the Talmud, except that initially only Moses and his offspring engaged in this. And in Arvot Moab, Moses admonished Israel so that they would accept this path, as will be explained at the beginning of the book of Devarim.

All of this came about because the Golden Calf was the cause, as it was decreed: "And on the day I make an account, I will bring an account upon them..." And because of this, the decree of the spies brought about exile and dispersion among the nations. This is a compelling cause for the toil/dialectics of Torah study (פלפולה של תורה) due to two reasons: namely, the preservation of the nation and the preservation of instruction (hora'ah) in Israel, as we explained above at the end of Parshat Bo and the beginning of the book of Devarim.

For this very reason, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, commanded that the second tablets be carved by the hands of Moses—not because they were undeserving of a divine work, but to teach that the halachah innovated through the power of these tablets is a partnership of human toil with Heavenly assistance, just like the tablets themselves, which were the handiwork of Moses and the writing of God. (And see further below, paragraph 27, that even in the writing there was participation by Moses).

This is the meaning of what our Sages, of blessed memory, stated: that even that which a veteran student is destined to innovate was [already included] in the tablets—meaning that the power of the second tablets encompassed everything. And all of this is the words of the Gaon: that in this particular detail, the second tablets were more esteemed than the first.

For even though the sanctity of the first tablets was superior to them, and naturally, had those not been broken, it would have been easier to arrive at instruction through reason and the deduction of one matter from another than after they were broken; nevertheless, when we became corrupted and found ourselves needing to labor and review, making the study of Torah robust, the latter tablets were better suited for this.

And similar to this were the two Talmuds afterward. For the Yerushalmi is greater in sanctity than the Bavli, because it was produced by the earlier amoraim, as per the statement of Rava in Shabbat (page 134a): "I, regarding the traditions (targimna) of the elders, what do I need them for?" Behold, he conceded that the sanctity of the early ones is greater for directing toward the truth. And furthermore, because the sanctity of the Land of Israel was helpful.

Nevertheless, we know that the power of the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) is more esteemed than the Yerushalmi. And even though it is said in Sanhedrin (page 24a), "'He has made me dwell in dark places'—this is the Babylonian Talmud," it is not said as a reproach, God forbid, but rather [it refers to] its wondrous power to illuminate halachah even in "dark places"—meaning in Babylon and the diaspora, where the light of the Land of Israel is absent. Without the power of the Babylonian Talmud, we would not have reached the light of instruction there.

And analogous to this, on a higher plane, was the difference between the first and second tablets. And see the book of Devarim (4:14).

R' Yehuda Loew ben Bezalel [Maharal of Prague] (c. 1524-1609)

...

Nevertheless, the sages of Babylonia would prevail in their wisdom through difficulties and resolutions, and they would arrive at understanding through pilpul. Only that to clarify things through pilpul requires great effort and deep inquiry, and not every person is able to attain it. Therefore, they called the sages of Babylonia ‘fools’.

And when one of them would ascend to the Land of Israel, he alone would be equivalent to two of them. This was due to the pilpul they possessed, whereas in the Land of Israel they would acquire wisdom with calmness, and it was the truth of the halachah, and thus their wisdom was ultimately greater. And because of this, our Babylonian Talmud is of greatest primacy — because the pilpul has been fully clarified within it...

R' Avraham Yitzchak Kook (1865-1935)

..."He has made me dwell in dark places, this is the Talmud of Babylon."

Yet, from the darkness a great light shall sprout: "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." This is because they thereby bring down the radiance of the supreme Divine Presence (Shechinah) into the lower strata of life, illuminating thereby many deeply shadowed entryways...

R' Moshe Sofer (1762-1839)

The writer of these words sits in a land of darkness, and though speaking toward a higher realm, speaks with a low spirit; and perhaps when these words arrive in the proper land, they will be elevated and sanctified twofold in wisdom, understanding, and all craftsmanship. And in this manner, the Babylonian Talmud was elevated over the Jerusalem Talmud after it was accepted there, and there was enhancement and clarity in law and halakhah.

The Ra’abad wrote that no one in our time is permitted to disagree with

the words of a gaon in order to change the law unless there is some great

difficulty, and this is not something common at all. Therefore, one who

disagrees with a gaon is like someone who makes a mistake with regard to

a ruling based on a mishnah. Similarly, if a person makes a mistake with

regard to the rulings of the geonim due to lack of familiarity with their

words—but had he been familiar with their words he would have retracted

his ruling—this person is like a sage who makes a mistake with regard

to a ruling based on a mishnah.

And the feet of the creatures correspond to all of them. There are those who emend in the Kedushta composed by Elazar ha-Kalir...however, they deleted it in vain, for he composed his words based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi)...Such was his custom, that in several places he would set aside the system of our Talmud (Bavli) in order to adopt the system of the Jerusalem Talmud, for he was a Tanna, and he was Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon...

...

And further, we state in Perek Shlosha She'achalu (Berachot 48a and Tosafot there): "Rabbi Hiyya bar Aba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: One never fulfills the obligation on behalf of the many until they eat a kezayit of grain." And so too said Rav Huna bar Yehudah in the name of Rav.

However, from the Yerushalmi it implies that for a beriyah (a complete, singular creation) we do not require a kezayit, for even a single grape or a single pomegranate seed is subject to a blessing both beforehand and afterward.

..

Now, if this were the identical incident as the one in our Bavli, it would be the same as the Yerushalmi's account; if so, [the Yerushalmi] would be disagreeing with our Talmud, and we would not rely upon it, since [our Bavli] did not explain it on the grounds that it is a beriyah.

Rather, perhaps these were two separate occurrences: the incident in the Yerushalmi involved a whole olive eaten with its pit, which constitutes a beriyah. But the incident in our Talmud did not have a pit—for normally a salted olive is without a pit—and therefore it was not a beriyah, which is why it was necessary to explain that the olive was large.

Yet, one who wishes to remove himself from doubt should eat a kezayit even of something that is a beriyah....

However, in the responsa of our master, Rav Paltoi Gaon, of blessed memory, I found it written: 'A judge—once heat has been applied beneath it and it has become hot to the point that it is about to boil, there is no prohibition of yein nesak, nor of giluy, and we do not recite songs nor do we bless over it except for shehakol, and it is not fitting to drink it either neat or mixed with water; rather, once it reaches this measure that we have explained, it departs from the category of wine and is called boiled wine.' But this does not appear correct to me...

Therefore, since we learned in Terumot that it [cooked wine] improves [over time], and moreover, we are told in the Yerushalmi that one fulfills the obligation of the four cups of Passover with it, one should not quibble about the matter [claiming] that we do not recite "Borei Pri HaGefen" over cooked wine. For we do not uproot the words of the Jerusalem Talmud unless it explicitly disagrees with our Babylonian Talmud, and this matter is not found anywhere in the entire Talmud that we do not recite "Borei Pri HaGefen" over cooked wine.

...All of Levi's arguments refuting Shimon's claims, his suit over this house, and his demolition of Shimon's proofs are true, except for Levi's assertion that 'we do not rely on what appears in the Yerushalmi simply because we do not find it in the Bavli'—in this, he was not correct. For we do not reject a teaching from the Yerushalmi unless its direct opposite appears in the Bavli; but if something does not have its opposite in the Bavli, we do not reject it. Rather, we rely upon it and rule in accordance with it...

R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)

"They saw him crucified, etc." The words of the [Maggid Mishna] do not appear correct to me. For his reasoning—that he was bothered by the fact that the Mishnah states anonymously that "they testify regarding a severed/mutilated limb," and also because Rava did not mention the concern of a heated knife— for the Talmud is full of such matters that are stated anonymously.

It appears to me rather that [the case] is dealing with a specific, private instance, and the ruling of the Yerushalmi not to contradict our Talmud is certainly a definitive ruling: that whatever we can interpret in a manner that avoids a contradiction is vastly preferable, even if the interpretation is somewhat forced.

..

...And he does not recline and eat. And he does not eat his fill and he does not drink his fill. And he does not eat meat and he does not drink wine...

...And he does not recline and eat. And he does not eat meat and he does not drink wine...

And know that it is found in the Yerushalmi: "He does not eat his full measure, nor does he drink his full measure." Yet the poskim (halachic decisors) omitted it because, since it is not mentioned in the baraita of our Talmud (Babylonian Talmud), it implies that we do not rule in accordance with this [view].

Rav says: Once meat is obscured from sight, it is forbidden. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: If there are butcher shops [in a city] and Jewish butchers [prepare the meat], any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted. [Meat] found in the possession of a gentile is different.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Mana. He saw an Aramean cutting from his horse and feeding his son. He said to him, that is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is in the hand of a Gentile is as found on a thoroughfare. He answered him, so said the great Rebbi Yose: Only if they saw him leaving a Jewish butcher shop...Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them.

..

(12) Similarly, when meat is found in the hand of a gentile and it is not known from where he purchased it, if [the majority of] the sellers of meat were Jewish, it is permitted.
This reflects the ruling according to Scriptural Law. [Nevertheless,] our Sages have already forbidden any meat found in the marketplace or in the possession of a gentile even though all the slaughterers and all the sellers are Jewish...

(A) Meat, etc. The language of the Rambam until the end of the section, and it is a Baraita in several places: "Nine shops, etc., and [meat] found, etc." And in the Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim, Chapter 7, Halakha 4: "Nine shops, etc., and [meat] found, follow the majority." Rabbi Yochanan said: "Meat found in the hand of a gentile is like [meat] found in the public square." Rabbi Yose said to him: "Yes, and this is provided that one saw it coming out from a Jewish butcher shop, etc."

Rav traveled down there [to Eretz Yisrael] and saw them being lenient, and he made it stricter for them. And this implies that even regarding [meat] found in the hand of a gentile—for there [in the Jerusalem Talmud] they were stricter regarding the hand of a gentile than regarding [meat] simply found, since they required that one saw it, etc.

And this is what is meant by "Meat, etc., if, etc." And similarly "Meat, etc., if they were, etc." And the majority rule does not apply here automatically, as written in the aforementioned Jerusalem Talmud, "and this is provided that one saw, etc."

And even though the discussion in [Babylonian Talmud] Chullin 95a is not thus, he [the Rambam] relied on the Jerusalem Talmud, as is his custom in most places.

...And even though we are not normally concerned for a minority, and our Babylonian sugya represents the primary law, since we see in the Jerusalem Talmud that Rav stated this out of stringency, it applies universally in all circumstances, and even meat found in the hand of a gentile is forbidden. This is the opinion of our Master, though it is not fully clear according to our [Babylonian] Talmud...

(3) Since I have heard that some are astonished at my words, I have come to explain what I have said—that currently it is not proper to cease invoking and petitioning for rain on the first day of Passover. It was not from when it happened; rather, already many years ago in Germany I protested two things that I saw practiced in those days.

(4) The first is that they do not petition for rain properly. Even though it is stated in the first chapter of Ta’anit (10b): “It is taught: Hananyah says: In the Diaspora, [we do not begin petitioning for rain] until the sixtieth day of the [autumn] season; and R. Huna b. Hiya said in the name of Shmuel: The law accords with Hananyah.” We always follow the Babylonian Sages and practice in accord with their opinions whenever the Babylonian Sages and the Eretz Yisrael Sages dispute each other, for we consider the Babylonian Talmud to be primary. This all applies on matters concerning permitting or prohibiting, obligating or exempting, declaring pure or defiled. But when the matter hinges on the temporal needs, and it does not entail an alteration that transgresses the words of the Torah, it is proper to follow the year, the times, and the season. And Babylon sits on a great deal of water, and they did not require rain until the sixtieth day of the season. Alternatively, the planting season was later in Babylon. But in Germany, where the planting season begins in the middle of Tishrei, it is well known that if the rains do not fall immediately after the seeds are planted, they will be ruined, as the birds and rats will eat them all. So why should we not practice in accordance with the people of Eretz Yisrael, who petition for rain in Marheshvan, like Rabban Gamliel? For in this matter there is no dispute between the people of Babylon and the people of Eretz Yisrael in the sense that these offer a rationale for why it is proper to follow their position, and those offer a rationale for why it is proper to follow their position. Rather, in Babylon they acted on the basis of their needs, and the Mishna (in Ta’anit), which states that we begin petitioning in Marheshvan, was taught in Eretz Yisrael, in accordance with its needs...