[Avodah] what did we learn for 350 years?

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Nov 28, 2007 2:31 PM, AY & CB Walters <acwalters at bluebottle.com> wrote:

>  The Geonim say that from the chasimas hatalmud by R' Ashi until the Behag
> was 350 years.
>
> Now, AFAIK, the Behag was the first post talmudic sefer, he was probably
> from the early gaonim/late saboraim.
>
> But what the saboraim doing in the intrerim - why do we have zero seforim
> from them, when we have an unbroken chain both before that, and afterwards?
>
> It is known that some of what we call the Gemoro was actually written
> after R' Ashi, by the saboraim (eg the entire first daf and a half of
> Kidushin), but presumably this is the exception not the rule.
>
> I have heard that all the connecting words, such as "meisvei, toh shema,
> kasha" etc found in the gemoro are of savoraic origin; originally the bavli
> looked like the yerushalmi - without the connecting words, where the kashia
> ends and the teretz starts, etc. If so, then to say the Talmud was closed by
> R' Ashi, just means the halochos, and not necessarily the leshonos.
>
> Is this theory accepted as true? Even if so, 350 years is an awfully long
> time for this - longer than the period from R' Akiva until R' Ashi -
> spanning all Amoraim and much Tanoim too...
>
> Any ideas?
>

You can get a PhD for answering these questions
Start by reading the Igggeres D'Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon and down the road
check out a book by Kaplan called *The Redaction of the Baylonian Talmud*

Also See the Bach on Even Ho'ezer 6 in which he discussess the Rambam's
methodology, it is a hint at a distinction between the "meimros" of the
Talmud vs. the 'Shakla vetraya" stuff.

Reading a lot of Ga'onic literature can be very informative.  Think of the
Sh'iltos and the Halchos Gedolos as more yerushalmi like in that there is
little of the "framing" ofte shakla v'tarya

It is likely that many Rishonim noticed the distinction between moraic
statemetns and the shakla v'tarya  See Tosafos in Pesachim re: Seini lev
dehi'a which is treated Halachically as 'dechiya be'alma" and therefore not
normative

A simlar phenomenon happens on this list. I have attacked arguments from say
X.  X assumes I am opposing his position because of my attacks. In reality I
may be agreeing with his position and simply rejecting his selection of
evidence as too weak etc.  Thus, shakla v'tarya can be very mis-leading and
it is not impossible for Rishonim to take a position that APPEARS to be
under attack by the Gemara.

-- 
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/20071205/8495f45c/attachment-0002.htm>