[Avodah] The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

Micha:
> According to the Rambam, shas is basically a BD; there is no room for
> exceptions.

First where did the Rambam say it? He clearly says in haqdamah that the
hilluq between talmud and post-Talmud is that Talmud was accepted by all
of Israel. Now he may have stated otherwise elsewhere, but where is it?

Second we can show dozens if. Not hundreds of exceptions to Rambam
slavishly following Bavli.

[Funny - we're savvy enough to know BY does not rigidly follow his BD,
but weh haven't figured out that Rambam doesn't follow his own [alleged]
program rigorously?]

Instead of watching what he says, just watch what he does instead.


At Any rate - except for one point in his haqdamah - Rambam Terms talmud
as including:
    Mishnah 
    Tosefta 
    Y-lmi
    Sifra
    Sifrei
[Don't ask me where m'chilta went - also see Maran's haqdamah to SA]


> In Ashkenaz, there are numerous exceptions.

Ashkenaz adds to the above list
    Midrashim [EG Rabbah]
    P'sikta
    Qallir et al.
And some mimetic minhaggim that never made it into writing. Also,
Westerners never accepted Bavli in quite the same way Bavel did.
[See haqdama in Rema for a hint of this.]

> I don't know if the parallel could be made between berakhos and all three
> of the Rambam's categories.

No anology is perfect.
I wouldn't call a microphone a musical instrument either! But some do.
Go figure!

I'm illustrating a pattern - not laying out a concrete foundation.

As I explain it, Taz, Maggid Mishneh, et al. Have a similar approach
to what is Talmudic and Post-talmudic. And as far as I'm concerned The
Taz's read of Rosh is far more of a stretch than my read of the Rambam.

And FWIW I've already quoted several peers who read the Rambam the way I
would. I consulted with one offline before pushing my point on g'zeira,
because I know he would have reined me in if I were on the wrong track.

> A pesaq can be nispasheit and accepted, even after Ravina veR' Ashi sof
> hora'ah.

Not only that - but a moreh d'asra can be moreh halachah after Ravina
and rav Ashi sof hora'ah!

[And now go ask yourself - how did ashkenaz use the title "moreinu"?
A worthwhile pursuit pursuant to this thread.]

Anyway Tosafos did not see the Talmud as quite so closed - because
they kept doing what the Amoraim did. Only the Amoraim mostly did it
to tannaic material - or to early Amoraic material - while Tosafos did
so to Amoraic material and occasionaly Gaonic. Non- tosafists not only
closed the Talmud, they wanted to close the method.

Tosafos said aderabba. It's lav davka the p'saq of Talmud that has been
enshrined, rather it's the METHOD that has [also] been enshrined.

Some say Tosafos went too far. In my experience I have only found about
3-6 cases where I would concede tosafos went too far. The MAHARAL
[notice the moreinu!] felt otherwise

For sample of method
See Tosafos in Arachin [iirc 3a] re: women megilah tosefta and behag.
Tosafos presumes Behag is making an Aromaic style dialectic on R Yehsohua
Ben Levi based upon the tosefta. Thus, tosafos seems to say that at
least Gaonim - if not later - can still play the game of dialecting
amoraim by means of Tannaim - even though the Talmud does not

So to Tosafos the method is still alive

To others, if the Talmud failed to bring in a tosefta, it's too late.

------------------------

As per Rabbi Kanarfogel both Tosafos and Rambam will set aside a Bavli for a sugya in another text.  

+ Tosafos will play "games" and dialetcially alter the sources and create
  a new synthesis. [EG See behag above re: mishma miqra megillah]

+ Rambam will simply go and take the other text as is and ignore a
  Bavli EG see Rambam on lanochi tiggos is a positive obligation {Sifrei},
  or a lav haba miklall asei {Bavli} where Rambam bypasses Bavli
  altogether.

GS
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile