Study Yevamot folio 43A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If R' Yehuda HaNasi had not taught that ruling in the Mishnah, from where would R' Ḥiyya, his disciple and redactor of the baraitot, have known it? Since the source of the unattributed ruling in the baraita is certainly the dispute recorded in the Mishnah, its lack of attribution in the baraita on
R' Naḥum questioned the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed ruling in a Mishnah and said to R' Ḥiyya: Didn’t we learn in a Mishnah (Kelim 13:8): A comb made for combing beaten flax in preparation for spinning, from which its teeth were removed and only two of its
A comb made for combing wool from which every other one of its teeth were removed, so that no two consecutive teeth remained in place, is no longer suitable for combing and so will remain ritually pure. If 3 teeth remained in it in a single place so that it could still be used for combing, then it
R' Naḥum posed his question: But we maintain that the halakha is not in accordance with that Mishnah. This would seem to contradict the principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed opinion. R' Ḥiyya said to R' Naḥum that the principle applies to all cases apart from this
The Talmud asks: What is the reason to say that the Mishnah is not authoritative? Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Idi, son of Rav Ika: It is because the first clause of that Mishnah contradicts the latter clause, as it teaches: A comb used for wool from which every other one of its tee