[Avodah] Why is the Amora mentioned before the Braisa?

[Yaacov Shulman]

I have a question on Gemara structure. Sometimes the Gemara reports a
statement of an Amora and then states, "and in fact a braisa says so too!"

Since the braisa preceded the Amora, it would seem to make more sense to
first quote the braisa, and then state that the amora said the same as the
braisa.

I came up with a provisional understanding of this structure, which i would
like to put forth, and request other people's thoughts.

This provisional understanding  is based on the fact that sometimes the
Gemara states explicitly that it does not recall the correct line of
transmission. For instance, Kesuvos 60a: "Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva said in
the name of Shmuel...others say that Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva taught in
braisa in Shmuel's presence."

Back to the original question, maybe the Gemara does not know if the Amora
was teaching what he had learned from the braisa, or if he had come up with
that teaching in some other way. if the Gemara would say that the braisa
says something and the the amora says the same, it would give the impression
that the Amora was aware of and commenting on the braisa. But if the braisa
says that the amora said something and then adds afterwards that a braisa
says the same thing, that implication is not made.

-- 
Yaacov David Shulman
Translator; Editor; Ghostwriter
Specializing in Torah and literary texts
shulmanwriter.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110103/aedaed76/attachment.htm>