NOTE- THIS IS A DUMP OF NOTES I MADE COPY-PASTING THINGS THEY(talqcom, jacko,..) HAD SAID.
THE MAIN SUMMARY THOUGH IS ABOVE.
1\
[re: bad textual editions used by the French]
Many people do. That is why it is impossible for me to answer 'al
reghel 'ahath. Read HUCA, JQR, REJ, Asupoth, etc. from any
significant set of years.
The novel The Chosen referred to this in the 1960s. "Textual
emendation." Of course the E. Europeans hated the idea, and wanted to
hear nothing about it. But the diqduqe soferim used a Talmudic text
very different than that used by Rashi and Tosafoth. Ritba, Ramban,
and Yad Rama often offer significant variations.
Then Haim Sabato wrote about the Yad Harav Herzog Talmudic manuscript,
and Professor Marx published the JTS' manuscript on Aboda Zara. I
compared it to the standard printed text, which is apposite to the
readings Rashi offers. NOT ONE sugya has agreement. Many sugyoth
have significant differences in key terminology.
So you can say "FWIW bad argument" all you like, but I did the work.
Next I read the 100+ supercommentary to Teshuboth HaGeonim Iyye Hayyam
No. 187, of R. Yisra'el Moshe Hazzan. Have you?
Did you see his analysis of the Iggereth Sherira Gaon and the
demonstration of the faulty French version of that work?
Did you see his comments on Rashi and why he characterizes his
Talmudic commentaries as "dahiq ve'athe merahiq" (= forced and out of
left field)? Did you notice why he thinks Rashi's comments are of
such a character?
R. Yisra'el Moshe Hazzan was the grandson of the Hiqre Leb, the Rishon
LeSiyon R. Yosef Refa'el Hazzan. RYMH was elected to the bet din of
Jerusalem at age 21, and was the chief rabbi in Rome, Corfu and other
places. He spent his life studying Geonic responsa.
He states that Rashi lacked Geonic tradition, and thus his comments
(to the Talmud) are forced and out of left field. This led the French
to misinterpret and/or change the text of the Iggereth Sherira Gaon,
and is why the Spanish version tracks the Geonic Repsonsa manuscripts,
such as, for example, Sha'are Teshuba No. 187.
--
he claims that the french doctored the Iggeret Sherira Gaon
When asked if the one published by Moznaim was doctored, he said it was the original
"I believe they printed the Spanish version, which is undoctored (th
eone in the red cover, correct?). I believe the editor actually cites
to the supercommentary of R. Yisra'el Moshe Hazzan in a note or two.
The Wagshal family (=Moznayim Publishing) also published the Iyye
Hayyam (Hazzan's supercommentary to geonic responsa "Sha'are
Teshuba"), so they are well aware of the issues.
"
--
> >Toysfus was not a legislative body. It is a collection of
> >commentaries ot the Talmud based on bad girsa'oth and flouting the
> >fundamentals of the Talmud' technical terminology
[he would prob say that rambam has no power to legislate either. and was not legislating, but was codifying. ]
--
Rambam follows R. Haaye Gaon... HaRambam has a famous teshuba where he
explains the entire history of his view of tefillim and how upon
seeing the version according to Ha'aye Gaon he threw away his old
tefillim from Spain.
-----
If you look in the 7th question that the hakhme Lunel asked Maimonides
(pp. 541-545 Blau edition, No. 289), you see his answer re: the order
of the perashiyoth. You also see the claim by these Lunel rabbis that
"our rabbis and the geonim and Rab Ha'aye Gaon" all said the opposite
of what Maimonides said.
Maimonides' answer was that in his youth he did as the Lunelians say,
based on a book by R. Moshe of Cordoba.
Later he found out that many Geonim and all the "anshe hammizrah" and
the "anshe eres hassebhi" (=Israelis) disagreed with this, and that
Rabenu Ha'aye Gaon's tefillim were opened and they agreed with the
Eastern/Israeli view, and that Maimonides found in all the old
girsaoth of the Talmud in pereq haqqomes "qore 'al seder hattora:
qadesh li, vehaya ki yebi'akha, shema, vehaya 'im shamowa'", and that
this girsa was not available in the West.
So here you see the opposite of your assertion, and the Lunelians were
wrong about Rabenu Ha'aye.
Moreover, you see Mamonides was very concerned with the "ancient
textual readings" of the Talmud, and only obtained them after having
settled in the East.
--------
his rabbis
have studied a very large amount of sugoyoth where Rashi and the
Geonim simply read the text (both as to girsa AND meaning radically
differently. Maimonides, R. Yonah Ibn Jannah, R. Shemu'el Hannagaid
and Rabbenu Hananel all read it similarly if not identically
--
they talk about "old sepharad"
http://www.chayas.com/kabramb.htmAnti-Maimonidean Demons
these are basically the only 2 things on the web that mentions it
--------------
2\
---
Ron Aaron and Talqom, ahaleva
Dor Daim, and the Teimanim.
]
---
looking at talqom's posts
Subject: Re: Determining Nightfall According to Rabaynu Tam (was Re: End of
>Shabbos Times w/ Editorial Comments- Revi
>From:
[email protected] (Jonathan Steinberg)
>Date: 7/15/2002 9:23 AM Eastern Standard Time
>I am sure that the Millions of Torah Observant Jews who regard you
>as one of the foremost poskim of our day greet this as a wonderful
>revelation.
I will leave you to your sarcasm. Just remember, not everyone is in awe of R.
Moshe Feinstein as you might be. Especially those of us who actually read his
teshbhtoh, and have more than yeshiva world criteria against which to measure
them.
Compare sometime R. Feinstein's responsum on abortion with that of say Bension
Me'ir Hai Uzziel, both of which quote the Rambam and reach diametrically
oppsite conclusions. Care to guess who twists the text beyond recognition?
Or would you and your millions simply prefer godol worship at any cost? Oh,
and by definition only a modern E. European can be a godol. I know. The
ge'onim are passee, and their opinions of no matter.
What *is* a revelation is that all European texts erased the three words where
M defines seth hakokhabhim. Why? Godol worship?
What is a further revelation is that R. Tam's position has no basis in the
Talmud, and that either the law is defined by the Talmud or it is not.
Do you imagine the kohanim really waited until 72 minutes after sunset to eat
teruma at night? Is it better for "Bnai Tora" to not recite the shema' until
72 minutes post sunset and thereby make bitul misvath 'ase?
Sometimes extra humras and religiosity have a significant price.
I see parallels betwen extra humras and Ijtihad (a central term and theme of
the Kuzari) - the basis of all religions save Judaism.
>Those two or three of us who consider R' Moshe the
>pre-emininet decisor of our time will have to pass with regrets.
Good! You are a true zealot for the Lord.
Ray
-=--
ahaleva
I concur with Ray. Rambam says explicitly in the terumoth section
that seth hakokhavim is "around 1/3 of an hour" after sunset. There
is no difference between seth for terumoth purposes and any other
purpose. This phrase was erased form all printed texts I have seen.
Sure, Snunit and Machon-mamre have the older version.
As far as nonzemanith goes, recall that zemaniyoth correspond to the
ancient sundial. The Hebrew had no absolute measure of time (who did
until the Renaissance?). Thus if someone says three hours, *only* a
proportional hour could be measured. At night there is no sundial.
Commonfolk -- as opposed to astronomers -- could not calculate exotic
algortihms to know when to read the shema. A mil is an *absoute* time
measure. Rambam is codifying the 3/4 of a mil standard here. The
geonim corroborate.
Only R. Tam, based upon a passage in Peshaim not articulating *any*
law, rather speculating about physics, ever challenged this. All
Europeans followed his -- hus mikevodo umekevodam -- error, and erased
the text of Rambam.
Tir'u benehemath Sion.
Ronnie
----
Talqcom
am saying the Talmud had an oral tradiiton necessary to decode it. This was
transmitted formally circa 770 by Natronai Hannasi to the Spaniards. It never
reached Northern Spain nor France. Hence the great variance between Geonic and
Rashi/Tosafoth interpretation.
Nonetheless, as M states, all Israel is bound by the Babylonian Talmud, as it
was the last functioning beth din shel rabbim.
>But are we discussing halachah or Babylonian tradition? Your metric is
>flawed.
You introduced the hilluq, not I. For me there is only one authoritative
halakha, that of Beth Dinam shel Rabhena veRabh Ashe, a reflection of
Babylonian jurisprudence (and the core of Palestinian). The PT was never
officially "nehtam" in Israel. The archives of the Sanhedrin were moved to
Babel when Christianity became the official Roman faith, and babylon's beth din
haggadol became supreme.
R. Tam, on the basis of Pesahim (end of chapter 9) a nonlegal discussion,
asserts 72 minutes as seth hakokhabhim. I see this as a blatant error. No
Gaon -- whose tradition *is* the babylonia one -- ever subscribed ot such a
theory.
Ray
----
talqcom
>Quote one source that says that Rabbeinu Tam is less
>of an authority than the Rambam.
1. Maran Joseph Caro, Avqath Rohel No. 38.
2.
The point is strained, though. M was a codifier. R Tam was not. His hora'oth
(like setham yenam is permitted) often vary from the Talmud. The issue is not
"who is a greater godol", an idea which only makes sense in a place and time
neither of them ever lived.
>As to Mr Talqom,
>scholarship notwithstanding, he is not an authority besides for
>carrying a large chip on his shoulder.
1. Talqcom is an AOL username. Ray Atiya is my name.
---
micha, yisroel, talqom
micha (ashkenazi)
>Last, as for Ray's claim that the Rambam had some superior connection to
>the geonic mesorah.... The disjoin between the ge'onim and Sepharad is
>no smaller than that between Rabbeinu Gershom (Rashi's mentors' mentor)
>and his mentor, R' Hai Gaon.
yisroel (Ashkenazi - though usually jacko sympathiser)
Yeah, e.g. R' Hai Gaon ruled that a woman can complete a minyan, while
Rambam ruled against that.
Talqom
Because the Talmud rejected that opinion. Geonim continued to function as
active legislating courts. M *after* the Geonic period was over (death of Hai)
adopted the rulings of the last Talmudic court -- that of Rabhena and R. Ashe
-- as authoritative for all Jews. Most contemporary Jews accepted this.
Ray
------
talqcom
Not so. Most of what you would call Sefaradi Rishonim are culturally French.
Such as Ramban, Rishba, Sefer Hahinukh, etc. I consider them equivalent to
Tosafoth.
>Last, as for Ray's claim that the Rambam had some superior connection to
>the geonic mesorah....
They did. Natronai haNassi transmitted the entire Talmud to Spain.
--
Andalusian tradiiton came from the Geonim!
------------------------------------------------
3\
--
my guess
---
http://blog.sephardicrevival.org/2006/12/24/the-differences.aspx"How many of us care that the "talqin" (Judeo-Arabic for the oral tradition necessary to study Talmud) is not taught/transmitted anywhere? How many seek to improve this situation?"
--
(after somebody mentioned epistle of sherira gaon by moznaim, somebody mentioned)
(this person writing - talqcom is similar tradition to jacko. But explains more. He has left now )
I woud just add the following reference as well, which contains a complete line
by line commentary to the Iggereth as well as the resolution of various
girsa'oth.
Iyye Hayyam No. 187.
Iyye Hayyam is a supercommentary on the Teshuboth Hagge'onim collection known
as "sha'are teshubha." The supercommentary was written by R. Yisrael Moshe
Hazzan, the grandson of the Rishon Lesion R. Yosef Hazzan (Hiqre Lebh) the
nephew of R. David Hazzan (whose son, R. Eliyahu Hazzan was the chief rabbi of
Alexandria), and the son of R. Eli'ezer Hazzan, a noted qabbalist who wrote a
supercommentary on the Sefer Hayashar of R. Tam.
R. Yisra'el Moshe Hazzan was the chief rabbi of Rome, and earlier a member of
the Jerusalem beth din, having been appointed in his late twenties!
He spent his life studying ge'onic material. In No. 187 he analyzes the two
extant versions of the Iggereth in light of Ge'onic reponsa. It is a
masterpiece that should be studied by every rabbinical student.
Every page reveals a surprise.
It is generally sold as part of collections on ge'onic works, and can be found
at the Wagshal family bookstores here and in Israel, known as "Moznaim"
publications.
Ray
Ray
---
http://www.chayas.com/sheela.htmmentions a yemen thing that might have the correct version of sherira gaon.
and mentions rabbi hazzan.
ribbi hazzan! hakham hazzan
---
added
jacko claims that custom has to be instituted by a bet din..
that all customs are. Otherwise they have no validity..
that they were in the gemara.
And they only apply to a set time/space..
though with a bet din that is the continuation of the previous one,
they can continue across time.
The gemara laws(Customs? and customs? any diff) are national..
national courts instituted them.
judea has refuted this.. on his shows.
arguing that there are many customs in the gemara not instituted by
a bet din.
---
Topic: a critique of rashi and french rabbis, and ramban.+Bavli not yerushmi authoritat (Read 2771 times)