<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 28, 2007 2:31 PM, AY & CB Walters <<a href="mailto:acwalters@bluebottle.com">acwalters@bluebottle.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">The Geonim say that from the chasimas hatalmud by
R' Ashi until the Behag was 350 years.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Now, AFAIK, the Behag was the first post talmudic
sefer, he was probably from the early gaonim/late saboraim.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">But what the saboraim doing in the intrerim - why
do we have zero seforim from them, when we have an unbroken chain both before
that, and afterwards?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">It is known that some of what we call the Gemoro
was actually written after R' Ashi, by the saboraim (eg the entire first daf and
a half of Kidushin), but presumably this is the exception not the
rule.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I have heard that all the connecting words, such as
"meisvei, toh shema, kasha" etc found in the gemoro are of savoraic origin;
originally the bavli looked like the yerushalmi - without the connecting words,
where the kashia ends and the teretz starts, etc. If so, then to say the Talmud
was closed by R' Ashi, just means the halochos, and not necessarily the
leshonos.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Is this theory accepted as true? Even if so, 350
years is an awfully long time for this - longer than the period from R' Akiva
until R' Ashi - spanning all Amoraim and much Tanoim too...</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Any ideas?</font></div></div></blockquote></div><br>You can get a PhD for answering these questions<br>Start by reading the Igggeres D'Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon and down the road check out a book by Kaplan called
<i>The Redaction of the Baylonian Talmud</i><br><br>Also See the Bach on Even Ho'ezer 6 in which he discussess the Rambam's methodology, it is a hint at a distinction between the "meimros" of the Talmud vs. the 'Shakla vetraya" stuff.
<br clear="all"><br>Reading a lot of Ga'onic literature can be very informative. Think of the Sh'iltos and the Halchos Gedolos as more yerushalmi like in that there is little of the "framing" ofte shakla v'tarya
<br><br>It is likely that many Rishonim noticed the distinction between moraic statemetns and the shakla v'tarya See Tosafos in Pesachim re: Seini lev dehi'a which is treated Halachically as 'dechiya be'alma" and therefore not normative
<br><br>A simlar phenomenon happens on this list. I have attacked arguments from say X. X assumes I am opposing his position because of my attacks. In reality I may be agreeing with his position and simply rejecting his selection of evidence as too weak etc. Thus, shakla v'tarya can be very mis-leading and it is not impossible for Rishonim to take a position that APPEARS to be under attack by the Gemara.
<br><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>