<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 17, 2007 10:39 AM, Zev Sero <<a href="mailto:zev@sero.name">zev@sero.name</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 class="Ih2E3d">Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br><br>> But the truth be told, this is not a black and white issue. E.G. Rashi<br>> seems convinced that his Mesorah is from Bavel over Israel.<br><br></div>It was. His mesorah was from Rabbenu Gershom, who went to study in
<br>Bavel, and brought the Bavli derech back to Europe with him. Or so I<br>have gathered from random reading - perhaps I'm mistaken.</blockquote><div><br>it has bee nattributed to Rabbeinu Gershom that the BAvli is no more nor no less authoritative as any other work of TSBP. This does not gell with the above. Truth be told I have not research RGMH very thoroughly. I do not know how much Rahi's rebbes learned from him.
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>In other news I must modify a previous comment of mine on this subject.
<br>I had pointed out the oddity (to me) that Ashkenazim whose minhagim<br>are supposed to be from EY say Yekum Purkan in Aramaic,</blockquote><div><br>Again Aramaic is both Judean and Babylonian. Sokoloff has 2 separet dictionaries fro each dialeect. Yersuhalmi is in mostly Aramaic. Onkelos used to be in Judean Aramaic but has morphed.
<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> while Sefardim<br>whose minhagim are supposed to be from Bavel </blockquote>
<div><br>Again this is not black and white. it is probably tht there are dozens of ashkenazic sources from Bavel and conversely certain Sephardic litrugy comes from Israel.<br><br>E.G. one of the major sources for Ashkenazic liturgy is Seder Rav Amram Gaon who is clearly from Bavel.
<br><br>Taking prescpricptive genralities as aboslutes is a common way to mis-understand what is being said. Fro example Halacha keRav be'issurim but Rav holds thst kiddush is not needed bimkom s'udah. That is Sh'mu'el's position. These are not rules rather they are k'lalim. A Klal is a generality NOT a rule. To use computer terminology they are defaults. Ashkenaz dafults to Eretz Yisroel EXCEPT when it takes other sources.
<br><br>Sayhing a Stam Mishna is kerabbi Me'ir does nto mean EVERY mishnah is like Rabbi Mei'r. If if says divrei R. Yehudah it is not kerabbi Meir. If Yekum Purkam MENTIONS reishei galvasa by name it CANNOT be from Eretz Yisroel! How can a resih galusa be from EY? Yekum Purkan is "signed" as from Bavel. -but not because it is Aramaic. Kaddish is in Aramaic, too Does that imply a Babylonian source?
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">say an equivalent bracha<br>in Hebrew. This Shabbos I had another look at the Sefardi equivalent
<br>of YP, and noticed that it does break into Aramaic for about two lines<br>in the middle, and then switches back to Hebrew. I don't think this<br>substantially alters my wonder, but it is worth mentioning.<br><div class="Ih2E3d">
--<br>Zev Sero <br></div></blockquote></div><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>