[Avodah] Halivni

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2. There is a principle that Amoraim don't disagree with Tanaim.
> However, many feel that they felt free to reinterpret Taanaitic sources
> in ways that were not the original intention in order to justify some
> amoraic opinion or some accepted practice. Is this on purpose
> or darkha shel Torah?
>
>
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
> _____________


2. There is a principle that Amoraim don't disagree with Tanaim.

Better stated [imho] ther is a principle that Amoraim cannot OVERRULE
tannaim
But they can LIMIT the scope of any statement.

Wolpoe's Gneral Klal about re-interpeting TEXT from its peshat

What drives a re-interpretation from the plain meaning of a  text?

   1. Logic/Svra  -
   EG it's not mistaber to say one is bodeik hametz l'or haneir  on the 14h
   of nissan when it is a Friday night
   2. Masorah:
   EG it is not logical nor traditonal to see RISHON as in ach bayyom
   harishon to allow Hametz  until the 15th so Rishon MSUT be the 14th [mipi
   hashmuah]
   3. Other  Texts
   Rashi probably claims that brothers sold Yosef to Egypt in Vayesehv
   because in Mikketz that is exactly what he accuses them of doing. Tosafos
   uses this technique the most to later th simle read, but Rashi does it more
   subtly.
   4. Textual nuance
   Q: Where does Rashi [and the underlying  Midrash} KNOW that Kayyin's gift
   was inferior?  the Text only claism that Kayyin gave some fruit of the land
   while Hevel gave fatted sheep?
   A: textual sensitivity. When the Torah points out that Hevel's was from
   the best it implies [or we infer] tha Kayyin gave from inferior stuff.
   {Meforshim on Rashi say this]

So when an Amora twists a Tanna's statemett it falls under 1 of the 4.

I am about to teach hullin ch. 8  Rabbi Yochana's meimra [v'lo klum between
meat and milk] is "twisted" by the Talmud to conform with Rav Hisda's meimra
of NOT eating dairy after meat.

I asked RDW Halivni:
Q: Since when does R. Yochanan HAVE To agre with Rav Hisda [who came later]
A: Aderabba, the Gamara is chagning Rabbi Yochanan because they did not want
a kashah on Rav Hisda!

Wolpoe's spin: In EY Rabbi Yochana probably said what he said, BUT in Bavel
Rav Hisda's meimra was probably normative and the Talmud could not tolerate
that. So  it reinterpreted Rabbi Yochanan either by virtue of 1 of 2
sources:

   1. Meimra of  Rav Hisda itself
   or
   2. Local MINHAG [probably due to the acceptance Rav Hisda as above]

When learning Gmara, se how often a simple Mishna is qualified by a Meimra.
Often these are NOT controversial but at times they  really twist the simple
peshat

The Bavli assumes that the case of giving Ma'aser before Truma is in reality
a somewhat convoluted read to the Mishna. I don't know which reason this
is.  But it is a fact that Amor'aim can reconfigure a Mishna in away that
the original intent is unlikley being honored.

Tosafos does the same to the Talmud itself. Usually they have another
source, albeit it even a Pesikta or a Behag

At no time do I believe in my heart that the Bavli is giving the exclusive
peshat when it changes things, But I do accept its authority in a legal
sense.  After all we do not pasken like a plain  Mishnah when the Talmud has
modified it - no matter how egregiously to the original intent - but I do
find it hard to "check my mind at the door!"  And frankly, since SVARA is so
crucial to Talmud therefore one cannot suspend the analytical sense.

The Gmara in Makkos seems to suggest this re: 39 vs. 40 makkos.

-- 
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/20080620/ccc1f54e/attachment-0002.htm>