"From Amoraic Authority to Stammaitic Dialectics: Difficulties Based on Amoraic Sources in the Babylonian Talmud" (original) (raw)

Jewish Studies Quarterly (upcoming), 2023

Abstract

The system of challenges raised against amoraic sages in the Babylonian Talmud is based on two contradictory assumptions. The dialogue in the Bavli is based on the assumption that the amoraim enjoy similar levels of authority, and have a right to disagree with one another. Thus, in cases where a difficulty is presented against one amora from the statement of another amora, the Talmud will respond, “Are you casting the words of one against the other! (׳גברא אגברא קרמית?!׳)” However, this generally assumed principle is countered by more than 500 cases in with the Talmud does indeed raise a difficulty from the opinion of one amora against another amora of the same or earlier generation using expressions such as: (1) “But did R. X not say…?” (והא אמר רב פלוני...!); (2) “Does the master not agree with what R. X said…?” (לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב פלוני...?). In this article I will offer a full presentation of this thorny problem and suggest a new resolution. The results of this analysis lead to some new ways of understanding the difficulties raised in both the amoraic and stammaitic strata of the Babylonian Talmud, as well as the formation of certain trends in legal rulings that developed in Talmudic Babylonia.

Barak S. Cohen hasn't uploaded this paper.

Let Barak S. know you want this paper to be uploaded.

Ask for this paper to be uploaded.