[Avodah] R Chiyya Raba

[Eli Turkel]

In Bet Yisha R. Fisher quotes the CI explicitly without stating where it
appears in CI. Hence, my regret that I cannot quote the exact source.

"Nevertheless, he quotes the CI as stating that the generation after the
Mishna
they saw the dimuntion of their abilities (miut ha-levovot) against the
authors of
the Mishna and they understanding that the truth is always with the early
generations.
They were required to do this since they realized they were not on the level
of the
earlier generations and they said 2000 years of Torah which hints to the
Tannaim"

So again from this quote CI says explicitly (not Bet Yishai) that we start
from the
generation after the Mishna and not from the minute the Mishna was finished
(assuming there was such a moment). R Fisher claims that no one before CI
gave that explanation to the 2000 years of Torah, including Rashi

<<
: 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?>>

The point Bet Yishai brings is that the gemara here and also in Megilla 7a
whether the
Megillah was written with Ruach Hakodesh states clears that a sharp pepper
(an Amora)
is better than a basket full of melons Itannaim). According to CI the truth
is always
with the early generation and therefore what difference does it make if
there
is a nafha mina lehalachah


: 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?)>>

R Yochanan was a child when he sat before Rebbe many rows back. He
was never a Tanna. His rebbeim were R. Oshiya (an Amora )and Chizkiya.
Again the Tosefta was written after the Mishna (R Chiya and R. Oshiya)
and is considered Tannitic.

RSF objects that CI takes for granted his explanation of 2000 years of Torah
with no attempt to deal that no one else thought of this idea before him.
I find that this occurs other places in CI. In discussing damages from
smoke CI states that it doesnt apply to internal damages (ie smoke
inhalation) without bringing any support. His interpretation of boneh as
being
turning something "dead" into something "alive" is also a major chiddush
which
is simply taken for granted.

As to my and Micha's struggles with the details of CI when the Mishna was
written, I
find that CI never concerns himself with such details. In the case of  the
semen and urine
tracts CI clains "nishtane hateva". Ignoring the scientists that man's
anatomy could
not change in 2000 years how would the CI explain this internal change. Did
it
occur suddenly or was there an evolution over generations. Only to Jews or
even goyim?

The CI invalidates the use of recently discovered manuscripts. However, in
reality
manuscripts of rishonim were "discovered" over many centuries.  Pnei
Yehoshua
is one of the first to use rishonim like Ramban etc that are not quoted in
the Bet Yosef.
Kzot and Netivot argue over issues which we know is a machloket rishonim
which they did not have access to. So do we ignore all the chiddushim of
Ramban, Rashba, Ritva etc because some achronim did not have access to them?
When do we draw the line? I recall RYBS once saying that he saw the
chiddushei Ramban
for the first time when he went to Berlin.
In fact until very recently the chiddushim of many of the rishonim were
mislabeled.
If so why pick on Rabbenu Chanenl or Tosafet HaRosh or Meiri as recent
discoveries.

In summary some of these are sweeping statements which CI never got into
the details of how to implement them. Again as R. Fisher points out many of
these
are great chiddushim which the CI simply states and takes for granted
without
proving them or pointing to earlier authorities.



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110204/f1c272ac/attachment-0002.htm>