[Avodah] Amoraic statements

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 07:49:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements
: that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded
: earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel -- dina dmalchuta dina (the
: law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal
: yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a
: zimmun of 10]}

And waiting until the rishonim to argue about what order the parshios
were in the tefillin does make sense to you?

I could think of two opposite reasons why this would happen:

1- They are only basic once the machloqes is resolved. (Like in the case
I raised, where Tosafos notes that in Bavel they found both of what we
would call "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin.) Which shifts the question
to why the machloqes suddenly needed resolution, if eilu va'eilu was good
enough until then.

2- They were so basic they didn't need saying until people started
questioning them. Then, a gadol hador needed to get up and tell the
doubters they're wrong.

As for DDD in particular, Shemu'el was a friend of Shevur Malka. So
"malkhusa" may have been a hot topic in his live.

And Rava's proof (BQ 113b) is of a puq chazi variety -- of course that's
the din, because the government cut down trees to make bridges, and no
one avoids using them because of stolen property!

So I think it's a "didn't need saying" until people questioned it.

Although on second thought I'll add: or maybe simply asked the
hypothetical question in Beis Medrash, not actually questioning
it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You want to know how to paint a perfect
micha at aishdas.org        painting?  It's easy.
http://www.aishdas.org   Make yourself perfect and then just paint
Fax: (270) 514-1507      naturally.              -Robert Pirsig