R. Weiss concludes that there is no way of reconcliding the two shiurim; they are simply incompatible. He is completely correct. Perhaps he is hinting at what I say, though probably not.
His shitah on techeles is the standard Charedi abitrary demand for high levels of evidence, minus the culture war stuff. He rightly concludes that even according to the charedi 'argument' there is still no reason not to wear it.
His take on medicine is the traditional halachic approach. Like many things, it falls apart when things fall apart. How much one bears a grudge about the Covid days is a personal decision. Today I'm feeling forgiving, but I don't begrudge others their right to not.
Not everything in the Talmud Bavli is paskened/understood as being l'halakha. So just the fact it appears there is not necessarily sufficient to make it authoritative.
In this case, though, the idea that if an Amora says something and no-one disagrees then that is ipso facto halacha is a geonic principle, universally accepted.
There are soft and hard versions of the claim that the Bavli is not a code. Both are true, but they are true in different ways. In the soft version (i.e. it's not a code in the sense that the Rif thinks it is), then you can still say that Rav Hisda's statement is codified.
1. But you can argue that in fact this IS a disagreement. The discovery of the shiurim contradiction uncovers that this is a disagreement, even if no-one realised it before.
2. It just does not meet the dictionary definition of codification, even if you claim it has authority. Code is not synonymous with authority.
1. It is not a disagreement among Amoraim. Gavriel did not provide any support from Amoraim. Saying that one can just 'uncover that this is a disagreement' in this case is saying that one can argue on any part of Talmud Bavli, including statements by the greatest Amoraim with no disagreement from other Amoraim just by 'uncovering' that the Amora was wrong.
I don't see why it would be relevant to mention it. The article is about resolving the problem. As I said, many people would claim that even if Rav Hisda was factually mistaken, it's still the halacha. Whether or not that is correct is not the issue.
However, to answer your question. The talmud Bavli has 3 layers (1) baraytot (2) statements by amoraim and (3) the anonymous dialectical layer. In some ways the (2) is less authorative than (1), since there is a constant assumption that an amora cannot argue with a tana (except רב). However, in some ways (2) is more authoritative than (1) because the stam will often add in an okimta or a חיסורי מחסרא that essentially reverses the meaning of a tanaitic statement, but will only rarely do that for an amoraic statement. In any case, (2) has different rules from (1) or (3) so it's necessary to define what counts as (2). The answer is any statement that was recorded apodictically from רב up until Rav Ashi and Ravina. Anyone after that doesn't get to say הוראה; if he wants to prove something, he has to bring a prior source that demonstrates it (acording to the rules of the Bavli). The total collection of הוראה formed a sort of proto-talmud, upon which the dialectical layer was added.
Thanks for responding though you feel it was irrelevant. I once skimmed through that piece from Ari Bergmann. I will try to read it more carefully.
I don't think the tone of your conclusion reflected your comment here that 'In this case, though, the idea that if an Amora says something and no-one disagrees then that is ipso facto halacha is a geonic principle, universally accepted.'
It appears to me that, at least until very recently, arguing on this principle was considered beyond the pale of Orthodox Judaism. If Reb Chaim Naeh would have heard you say that he was 'setting a precedent' by 'codifying the words of Rav Hisda' he probably would have called you an apikorus.
I think the other side is that there were 2 measurements for etsbaos too. See the Meiri in Pesachim and see here https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/45437 and the piece from הרב עמונאל מולקנדוב in ירחון האוצר כסלו תשע"ט (available on פורום אוצר החכמה) and in his sefer תורת הקדמונים ב.
(Not vouching for the theory. I didn't study it. Just throwing it out.)
I'll take a look BN, but the fact that there are two etzba'ot doesn't matter because everyone agrees that Rav Hisda is talking about an agudal (since this is 1/4 of a tefah). Kofer or not, I can say honestly that I tried every way of making this fit, and it doesn't.
I could add that, in a sense, I am vindicating the modern halachic process, because - unlike most small revi'it defenders - I don't think the poskim who have ruled to be machmir made a mistake in interpreting the gemoro. Textually, their argument is rock solid.
P.S. It's funny you mention about your father's שליט''א sefer, because one of the things I am sitting on is an article that solves the problems with shitats haGeonim through a source-critical approach.
>I think the other side is that there were 2 measurements for etsbaos too.
I wrote this primarily because of the pottery study you linked. However, after looking at the study it seems bunk. What evidence is there that the opening should be a tefach? The researchers cite a non-existent halacha in hilchis Tumas Ohel. I don't understand why ytou thought that linking to that article won't damage your credibilty.
Yeah, that's a weak argument (parenthetically, when I researching parchment, I also noticed that academics would quote Rambam exclusively as if he were a primary source. I suppose there is a technical reason for this). The good argument is what they say here:
'There are various possible reasons why the hand-
width would be a natural and convenient standard for
the inner rim diameter. As was mentioned previously, the
storage jars were used not only to store, but also to trans-
port the liquids or grains which they contained. There is
no reason to doubt that each jar was used several times.
To optimize their utility, their openings had to be deter-
mined as a compromise between opposing demands. On
the one hand, the openings should not be so small that
they will not allow for cleaning after their contents are
drained and before refilling. There is sufficient evidence to
believe that the storage jars were produced by attaching
two or three parts which were separately created on the
wheel. To facilitate molding them together, as well as a con-
venient attachment of handles, the potter sometimes insert
his/her hand into the opening. The minimal diameter of
the opening should be the handbreadth—the largest width
of the hand between palm to elbow. On the other hand,
the opening could not be too large, as the larger the open-
ing, the more difficult it is to minimize spilling during
transport or accidental falls in storage. The natural opti-
mum would therefore be to choose the handbreadth itself
as the standard diameter of the jar opening. This was easy
to implement when working on the wheel, as the potter
could use his/her palm as a tool.'
'Finally, it was also natural for the ancient potters to
adopt the handbreadth standard. It was as a unit of length
(tefach) that was widely used in ancient times, and is men-
tioned both in Assyrian and Egyptian (Clagett 1999) sources,
and in the Old Testament (for instance, Num 25:25 and
37:12)'
So the point is that you have a standard measurement which is the same as a fist, you know a fist was in use, and the easiest way of making this standard measurement would have been using the fist.
But really this is all a bit superfluous. An etzba is 1/4 of a fist. If you want to argue that human fists used to be substantially smaller, it's on you to demonstrate this. On this point, at least, the נודע ביהודה was completely correct.
I think this academics just find it more exciting if they can connect it to the tefach, especially if they can thereby weigh in on a rabbinical controversy.
As for the rest, I think it is clear by now that this is a principled mahlokes between you and every Orthodox Rabbi before the 21th century.
Not really. Gavriel himself writes above that "In this case, though, the idea that if an Amora says something and no-one disagrees then that is ipso facto halacha is a geonic principle, universally accepted."
What does MSS mean in footnote 3?
manuscripts. You can see them on hachi garsinan. https://fjms.genizah.org/
R. Weiss concludes that there is no way of reconcliding the two shiurim; they are simply incompatible. He is completely correct. Perhaps he is hinting at what I say, though probably not.
His shitah on techeles is the standard Charedi abitrary demand for high levels of evidence, minus the culture war stuff. He rightly concludes that even according to the charedi 'argument' there is still no reason not to wear it.
His take on medicine is the traditional halachic approach. Like many things, it falls apart when things fall apart. How much one bears a grudge about the Covid days is a personal decision. Today I'm feeling forgiving, but I don't begrudge others their right to not.
The Bavli is not a code, so I'm not sure what you mean by something being 'codified' in it.
Oh, you mean canonisation.
Not everything in the Talmud Bavli is paskened/understood as being l'halakha. So just the fact it appears there is not necessarily sufficient to make it authoritative.
In this case, though, the idea that if an Amora says something and no-one disagrees then that is ipso facto halacha is a geonic principle, universally accepted.
There are soft and hard versions of the claim that the Bavli is not a code. Both are true, but they are true in different ways. In the soft version (i.e. it's not a code in the sense that the Rif thinks it is), then you can still say that Rav Hisda's statement is codified.
1. But you can argue that in fact this IS a disagreement. The discovery of the shiurim contradiction uncovers that this is a disagreement, even if no-one realised it before.
2. It just does not meet the dictionary definition of codification, even if you claim it has authority. Code is not synonymous with authority.
1. It is not a disagreement among Amoraim. Gavriel did not provide any support from Amoraim. Saying that one can just 'uncover that this is a disagreement' in this case is saying that one can argue on any part of Talmud Bavli, including statements by the greatest Amoraim with no disagreement from other Amoraim just by 'uncovering' that the Amora was wrong.
<Not so much codification by poskim as much as coficiation by the Bavli itself.
Gavriel, what is your posiion on רבינא ורב אשי סוף הוראה and why doesn't it even deserve a mention?
I don't see why it would be relevant to mention it. The article is about resolving the problem. As I said, many people would claim that even if Rav Hisda was factually mistaken, it's still the halacha. Whether or not that is correct is not the issue.
However, to answer your question. The talmud Bavli has 3 layers (1) baraytot (2) statements by amoraim and (3) the anonymous dialectical layer. In some ways the (2) is less authorative than (1), since there is a constant assumption that an amora cannot argue with a tana (except רב). However, in some ways (2) is more authoritative than (1) because the stam will often add in an okimta or a חיסורי מחסרא that essentially reverses the meaning of a tanaitic statement, but will only rarely do that for an amoraic statement. In any case, (2) has different rules from (1) or (3) so it's necessary to define what counts as (2). The answer is any statement that was recorded apodictically from רב up until Rav Ashi and Ravina. Anyone after that doesn't get to say הוראה; if he wants to prove something, he has to bring a prior source that demonstrates it (acording to the rules of the Bavli). The total collection of הוראה formed a sort of proto-talmud, upon which the dialectical layer was added.
I am basicaly parroting here Ari Bergmann https://18forty.org/content/uploads/2020/04/Ari-Bergmann-Dissertation.pdf
Thanks for responding though you feel it was irrelevant. I once skimmed through that piece from Ari Bergmann. I will try to read it more carefully.
I don't think the tone of your conclusion reflected your comment here that 'In this case, though, the idea that if an Amora says something and no-one disagrees then that is ipso facto halacha is a geonic principle, universally accepted.'
It appears to me that, at least until very recently, arguing on this principle was considered beyond the pale of Orthodox Judaism. If Reb Chaim Naeh would have heard you say that he was 'setting a precedent' by 'codifying the words of Rav Hisda' he probably would have called you an apikorus.
I think the other side is that there were 2 measurements for etsbaos too. See the Meiri in Pesachim and see here https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/45437 and the piece from הרב עמונאל מולקנדוב in ירחון האוצר כסלו תשע"ט (available on פורום אוצר החכמה) and in his sefer תורת הקדמונים ב.
(Not vouching for the theory. I didn't study it. Just throwing it out.)
I'll take a look BN, but the fact that there are two etzba'ot doesn't matter because everyone agrees that Rav Hisda is talking about an agudal (since this is 1/4 of a tefah). Kofer or not, I can say honestly that I tried every way of making this fit, and it doesn't.
I could add that, in a sense, I am vindicating the modern halachic process, because - unlike most small revi'it defenders - I don't think the poskim who have ruled to be machmir made a mistake in interpreting the gemoro. Textually, their argument is rock solid.
P.S. It's funny you mention about your father's שליט''א sefer, because one of the things I am sitting on is an article that solves the problems with shitats haGeonim through a source-critical approach.
>I think the other side is that there were 2 measurements for etsbaos too.
I wrote this primarily because of the pottery study you linked. However, after looking at the study it seems bunk. What evidence is there that the opening should be a tefach? The researchers cite a non-existent halacha in hilchis Tumas Ohel. I don't understand why ytou thought that linking to that article won't damage your credibilty.
Yeah, that's a weak argument (parenthetically, when I researching parchment, I also noticed that academics would quote Rambam exclusively as if he were a primary source. I suppose there is a technical reason for this). The good argument is what they say here:
'There are various possible reasons why the hand-
width would be a natural and convenient standard for
the inner rim diameter. As was mentioned previously, the
storage jars were used not only to store, but also to trans-
port the liquids or grains which they contained. There is
no reason to doubt that each jar was used several times.
To optimize their utility, their openings had to be deter-
mined as a compromise between opposing demands. On
the one hand, the openings should not be so small that
they will not allow for cleaning after their contents are
drained and before refilling. There is sufficient evidence to
believe that the storage jars were produced by attaching
two or three parts which were separately created on the
wheel. To facilitate molding them together, as well as a con-
venient attachment of handles, the potter sometimes insert
his/her hand into the opening. The minimal diameter of
the opening should be the handbreadth—the largest width
of the hand between palm to elbow. On the other hand,
the opening could not be too large, as the larger the open-
ing, the more difficult it is to minimize spilling during
transport or accidental falls in storage. The natural opti-
mum would therefore be to choose the handbreadth itself
as the standard diameter of the jar opening. This was easy
to implement when working on the wheel, as the potter
could use his/her palm as a tool.'
'Finally, it was also natural for the ancient potters to
adopt the handbreadth standard. It was as a unit of length
(tefach) that was widely used in ancient times, and is men-
tioned both in Assyrian and Egyptian (Clagett 1999) sources,
and in the Old Testament (for instance, Num 25:25 and
37:12)'
So the point is that you have a standard measurement which is the same as a fist, you know a fist was in use, and the easiest way of making this standard measurement would have been using the fist.
But really this is all a bit superfluous. An etzba is 1/4 of a fist. If you want to argue that human fists used to be substantially smaller, it's on you to demonstrate this. On this point, at least, the נודע ביהודה was completely correct.
I think this academics just find it more exciting if they can connect it to the tefach, especially if they can thereby weigh in on a rabbinical controversy.
As for the rest, I think it is clear by now that this is a principled mahlokes between you and every Orthodox Rabbi before the 21th century.
Not really. Gavriel himself writes above that "In this case, though, the idea that if an Amora says something and no-one disagrees then that is ipso facto halacha is a geonic principle, universally accepted."
https://mekormayimhayim.substack.com/p/precedents-all-the-way-down-halakha-37b
Kind of relevant.
Maybe explain that to Gavriel?