[Avodah] R Chiyya Raba

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:55:37PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Following Micha's remarks I decided to revisit Bet Yishai (R Shlomo Fisher)
: where he disagrees with CI on why amoraim don'f disagree with tannaim.
...
:                He brings Rashi and others that clearly didnt interpret the
: gemara that way. In addition he objects to making conclusions based on an
: aggadata.

The CI doesn't, does he? He explains a halakhah that already predated him
based on an aggadita.

(And besides, we do reach halachic conclusions based on aggaditos --
there are exceptions to the kelal. I argued it's when the process allows
both, but this whole topic has been overdone on Avodah, IMHO.)

: He brings several gemarot where in fact amoraim outweigh tannaim. One famous one
: is the discussion (yoma 85b) why we violate shabbat to save a life. After the gemara
: bring several tannatic suggestions it concludes with Shmuel who brings
: the pasuk of "ve-chai bahem" and that is the one the gemara accepts.

But is there a nafqa mina lemaaseh that one can discuss halachic authority?

: In general according to CI he finds it difficult why amoraim and even
: rishonim can disagree on sources and interpretations of pesukim.

This is where my understanding of the CI differs greatly from what you
report RSF saying the CI said. The CI as I naively read him is syaing
that tanna vs amora is a derived concept. It's not that this one is a
tanna and that one is an amora, but this period is that of tannaitic
authority and that period of amoraic.

: In terms of another discussion CI states explicitly that the generation after Rebbe
: could not disagree because they are on a lower level. R  Fisher doesnt understand
: how that could happen within a generation. However, in any case CI clearly
: does NOT distinguish before and after the completion of the Mishnah.

RSF seems to be taking the CI's "lower level" to be of ability. But the
CI speaks in absolute calendrical terms. The notion of three bimillennial
eras was written into Maaseh Bereishis.

:                                            However, in any case CI clearly
: does NOT distinguish before and after the completion of the Mishnah.

But he DOES explicitly distinguish between the alpayim Torah and the
alpayim yemos hamashiach and places the mishnah at the line between
them. That's the centerpiece of this shitah! How does RSF explain the
CI to be saying otherwise?

(And even WRT ability, the shefa could have shut off like a faucet when
the timer ran out. So yes, it could in theory happen kehe'eref ayin.)

: R. Fisher also asks that if Rav is so great that he can disagree with Tannaim how
: come we pasken like R. Yochanan against Rav.

R' Yochanan was a tanna for part of his life. Perhaps we pasqen like R'
Yochanan against Rav because the two only met before the compiling of
the mishnah. (A test for this theory -- do we ever hold like R' YOchanan
in one quote over Rav cited from someplace else?)

But in any case, didn't this whole tangent begin with my questioning
how R' Chiyya Ruba -- and later we added Rav -- fit within the CI's model?

As I already said, the CI as I read him makes it all about millenia,
and he says millenia switch in less than a lifetime (eg our discussion of
"nefesh asher asu beCharan" and 2000 AM), and the mishnah marks the end
of the era of Torah then how does any of the above analysis fit?

Now I'm just /more/ confused about the CI's shitah. I don't need more
shitos or the other tzad's argument. I just want to understand how the
CI deals with these famous exceptions, and thus his shitah bichlal.
(As cases at the edge of the envelope usually cast the most light on
the kalal -- a central feature of shas.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha at aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.