- This topic has 63 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The Talmud was not burnt until the end of the Tosafis era, I the days of Rabbi Yechiel of Paris and the Maharam.
It’s true that hand copying is very prone to mistakes. But we had the scrutiny of the great sages, such as Rashi and the Tosafists, as well as the scholars of Spain and Provence. That is why some Masechtos have more mistakes than others.
There was never an intention to have perfect unity of minor textual differences throughout the Jewish communities. At least not until very recently. The further back you go, the larger the discrepancies in the various manuscripts. This is well known.
“The further back you go, the larger the discrepancies in the various manuscripts. ”
Up to a point. That’s the pedigree collapse phenomenon.
Obviously it began with one, then it was copied and sent to different communities who had no way to keep in touch to that degree to match word for word.
Nope. There never was an exact wording. It was a verbal recital for centuries before there was any widespread textual manuscripts.
Verbal recital was the Mishnayos. After Rav Ashi, it was written and edited. This is basics. The earliest generations of Rabanan Savurai had it written.
Dear Halevi,
The gemara is clearly a verbal dialogue. Many of the mnemonics have been preserved. There were no manuscripts in Bavel until the tenth century. Your basics are in conflict with Iggeres Rav Sherarah Goan.
Besides, a simple comparison between the tosafos and chachmei sefard, demonstrates that their discrepancies are not largely errors of copyists. There is an obvious difference of origin.
And, an examination of the sparse writings of the early Geonim, points to there being no standard wording. The BeHag had completely different versions than any manuscript that was ever known in Europe. It is laughable to suggest that there were such major errors that crept in go just a few hundred years. And that they were then completely resolve in a comparable amount of time. But yet the BeHag, writing an early halachic compendium, was unaware of these mistakes.
There was a cherem placed on who removes hagahas from the gemara.
Dear Reb Eliezer,
The wording in that sentence, is in the wrong order.
Of course it’s a verbal dialogue. That’s what was written down.
I don’t know how you pulled this out from Rav Shrira Gaon, unless you have a third version. He speaks of the Mishna and Talmud being written before the final radication.
You see overplaying the differences of Nuschaos between Sfarf and Ashkenaz. I never came across any significant difference. They quote each other without issue. (Tosafos references Rabbeinu Chananel and The Ramban and on references Rashi and Tosafos without issue.)
It seems to me that you are not actually coming off your learning experience but rather from some academic take on this issue. I find them very unreliable, they stick in their preconceived notions and try to defend them. They overdo the Sfard-Ashkenaz difference way overboard. Anything I’ve read on these issues from academic sources were highly unimpressive.
The Seder Hadoros describes one generation after Rav Ashi as the writers.
Being that there were mistakes, and it was up to the Rabbonim to set it straight, it is obvious that different writers and rabbis will come to different conclusions.
To the student of the Bavli it is evident that it is edited and streamlined. Whereas the Yerushalmi jumps to a question — leaving you to figure out how they got that assumption — the Bavli asks smaller questions and answers them — many times they are obvious answers — in order to lead up to a point. Someone did that.
Dear Halevi,
I’m only going on the great Talmedei Chachachim throughout the generations that had direct knowledge of how our Holy Torah has been preserved throughout the ages. I’m sorry to say that you are going of off an academic instruction that is full of assumption, and reliance on on discreted sources. The fact that this academy was presented centuries ago, does not make it reliable.
Both of the major figures that you are standing behind were controversial and non traditional in their day. And one of them is very responsible for the mass assimilations that overtook us, in the last two centuries. One major source that rejected that academy of thought because of what he actually knew, was the Marshal.
If you are fully aware of Jewish History [Not history of Jews.] you know exactly which topics I’m referencing. I’m not going to elaborate. If you did not yet get up to this in your own learning of gemara, do not worry about it. You can be a real gadol without ever discovering it. And I’m still an am haaretz with all my researching. The Talmedai Chachamim I spoke with at length, would probably have preferred to be discussing the shiur they gave in yeshiva with you.
The Ramban largely had the format that was popular in Ashkenaz.
If Rabbeinu Tam would have had the Rach’s approach instead of Rashi’s, the tosofos would never have been able to be formulated.
Your observation on the expanded formula of the Bavli is a good one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.