[Avodah] The sukkah on Shemini Atzeret controversy

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:00:39PM +0000, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: With all due respect, there are so many weasel words here that I don't
: really follow the question:

WADR, you sound like nitpicking, looking for wiggle room when there is
none. But then, that's only natural given your perception of what I
thought was clear.

: "anything accepted as part of the gemara" - accepted by who?
: "accepted by most rishonim" - but not all of them
: "what's more relevent to us" - who is "us"?
: "If rov rishonim assume" - but the minority don't
: "many gedolim were willing to keep the insertion" - and others weren't
: "the authority is nearly the same" - nearly, but not quite

We no longer argue whether or not "Vehilkhisa" belongs in shas. (Or
other savoraic or gaonic additions.) No acharon suggested, for example,
putting them in parens like other deletions, printing them in kesav Rashi,
etc... It is accepted in any teshuvah today that this is the masqanah of
the gemara. And if I overlooked exceptions to my "any teshuvah today",
we're still definitely talking daas yachid territory.

We, those who follow ruba deruba of posqim since Tosafos, allowed the
geonim who inserted these ammendations to get away with it because we
granted these proclamations the authority. That centuries of peer review
kept them in for a reason.

You write that there were gedolim who weren't willing to keep the
insertions. Who? Who published a shas removing them again? Tosafos note
the insertion, but only in one particular case where the text of the
insertion wasn't fully accepted in every edition yet, and points out
that it certainly wouldn't have been accepted as certain-as-Bavli in
the She'iltos's day. But they don't deny the principle, just its
application to Pesachim 30a. See Chulin 97a d"h "Amar Rava".

I therefore still stand by my earlier claim that "vehilkhisa" represents
the gemara's conclusion, even if we agree that it does not represent
the amoraim's conclusion.

: But the line that I take most serious issue with is:
: > But what's more relevant to us is authority, not history.

: I can't see isolating the two. The posek must take both into
: consideration. One does not look only at the numbers, but also at the
: situations. Even if the preponderance of poskim felt that "v'hilchasa"
: was a reasonable p'sak, it might not have been so reasonable in some
: localities.

You're blurring my use of the word history. We're speaking of the history
of pesaq, not of umdena.

Yes, you need to know the case they pasqened about in order to know if
the pesaq applies to the case before you. But you don't need to know
which amora was in which generation. None of the rules of pesaq among
tannaim or amoraim invoke age (within each of those two eras). We granted
all named amoraim authority, and place every stam on the same (but 2nd
to named) level.

This is why the Revadim analysis of gemara waited for the closing years
of the 20th cent for development. Analyzing the gemara by pealing apart
the historical layers of development isn't how pesaq is done. (As a general
rule; again, I'm sure there exist exceptions of which I'm unaware.)

To quote R' Pinchas Zuriel Hayman's article at <http://www.lookstein.org/articles/revadim.htm>:
    Some scholars place stress on the identification of the Stama
    d'Talmuda as late Amoraic or Saboraic. Although this is a fascinating
    question for learning and research, the issue has no halachic
    implications, for several reasons:

    1. the people of Israel have accepted the Talmud in its entirety as
    the source for halachah

    2. halachah is derived from Talmud, but fixed in later codes such
    as the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo (Safed, 16th century)
    which bind observant Israel, irrespective of the exact dating of
    any given source material

    3. Saboraim are also part of the unbroken chain of tradition, just
    like the Amoraim before them and the Gaonim who follow them. A source
    dated from the saboraic period will be no less relevant halachically
    because it is post-amoraic.

This is a clearer phrasing, but basically what I was trying to say.
I would add that the first two items are inseperable -- the acceptance
mentioned in #1 is reflected in the codes, and the acceptance of the
codes in #2 further entrenches #1.

...
: Of course, if "v'hilchasa" had been accepted by all as coming from
: Ravina and Rav Ashi, they've have been stuck, with nothing to hang their
: kula on...

Tangent:
The Rambam writes "Rav Ashi veRavina" (RAvR), reversing the usual
order. This is one of a number of data points suggesting that the Ravina
who participated in composing the gemara was not R' Ashi's bar pelugta
(5th-6th gen), but Ravina I's nephew and R' Ashi's grandson (Ravina II,
8th gen). It would explain the frequency that we find gen 7 amoraim in
shas, such as R' Acha bar Raba and Ravina II's father, Mar berei deR'
Ashi (real name: Tavyomei).

Anyway.... I'm saying that since the days of Tosefos, the opinions that
grant post-RAvR positions in the gemara more authority than other geonic
positions. Perhaps not so far as to grant them equality if they disputed
RAvR or amoraim before, but AFAIK no such insertion actually exists.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha at aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507