[Avodah] Yekum Purkan

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Dec 17, 2007 10:39 AM, Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> > But the truth be told, this is not a black and white issue.  E.G. Rashi
> > seems convinced that his Mesorah is from Bavel over Israel.
>
> It was.  His mesorah was from Rabbenu Gershom, who went to study in
> Bavel, and brought the Bavli derech back to Europe with him.  Or so I
> have gathered from random reading - perhaps I'm mistaken.


it has bee nattributed to Rabbeinu Gershom that the BAvli is no more nor no
less authoritative as any other work of TSBP.  This does not gell with the
above. Truth be told I have not research RGMH very thoroughly.  I do not
know how much Rahi's rebbes learned from him.


>
> In other news I must modify a previous comment of mine on this subject.
> I had pointed out the oddity (to me) that Ashkenazim whose minhagim
> are supposed to be from EY say Yekum Purkan in Aramaic,


Again Aramaic is both Judean and Babylonian. Sokoloff has 2 separet
dictionaries fro each dialeect. Yersuhalmi is in mostly Aramaic. Onkelos
used to be in Judean Aramaic but has morphed.



> while Sefardim
> whose minhagim are supposed to be from Bavel


Again this is not black and white.  it is probably tht there are dozens of
ashkenazic sources from Bavel and conversely certain Sephardic litrugy comes
from Israel.

E.G. one of the major sources for  Ashkenazic liturgy is Seder Rav Amram
Gaon who is clearly from Bavel.

Taking prescpricptive genralities as aboslutes is a common way to
mis-understand what is being said.  Fro example Halacha keRav be'issurim but
Rav holds thst kiddush is not needed bimkom s'udah.  That is Sh'mu'el's
position.  These are not rules rather they are k'lalim. A Klal is a
generality NOT a rule.  To use computer terminology they are defaults.
Ashkenaz dafults to Eretz Yisroel EXCEPT when it takes other sources.

Sayhing a Stam Mishna is kerabbi Me'ir does nto mean EVERY mishnah is like
Rabbi Mei'r.  If if says divrei R. Yehudah it is not kerabbi Meir. If Yekum
Purkam MENTIONS reishei galvasa by name it CANNOT be from Eretz Yisroel! How
can a resih galusa be from EY?   Yekum Purkan is "signed" as from Bavel.
-but not because it is Aramaic.  Kaddish is in Aramaic, too Does that imply
a Babylonian source?


> say an equivalent bracha
> in Hebrew.  This Shabbos I had another look at the Sefardi equivalent
> of YP, and noticed that it does break into Aramaic for about two lines
> in the middle, and then switches back to Hebrew.  I don't think this
> substantially alters my wonder, but it is worth mentioning.
> --
> Zev Sero
>

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071217/8f23ff75/attachment-0001.htm>