Timeline for Reasons for scattering Talmudic subjects over different Masechtot
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2019 at 16:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 10, 2019 at 15:10 | answer | added | Alex | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 14:29 | comment | added | Al Berko | @Salmononius2 If you're the redactor of the Talmud, where would YOU put that passage? | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 14:53 | comment | added | Salmononius2 | "there's also a viable option of copying the passage several times" Why is that viable? Works used to be hand written, it's quite a lot of effort to rewrite things unnecessarily. And yes, I'm aware that there are passages that are repeated in multiple places, but they're usually mentioned in multiple places for a reason. You can argue the application of 'unnecessarily' and say that following whatever logical placement system you believe in is 'necessary', but it's just as easy to argue that rewriting something to follow an arbitrary placement system is wholely 'unnecessary'. | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 14:37 | history | edited | msh210♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
remove insult
|
| Sep 18, 2019 at 12:30 | comment | added | Lo ani | Cont. While they were discussing Erchin, however, someone brought it up and Rav ashi/ ravina recorded it along with everything else that was being said (ie the halachos of Erchin) | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 12:29 | comment | added | Lo ani | How I always understood it was that Rav ashi and ravina (and rabbi Yehuda hanasi) were equivalent to scribes in that they wrote what the discussion was about in the beit hamidrash at the time (so if they were talking about Sukkot and someone brings a Baraita said by rabbi yochanan, someone else then brings up another thing that rabbi yochanan said, and the entire discussion moves to the topic of that Baraita, for example) the fact that it wasn’t written down in sukkah means, IMHO that the amoraim didn’t talk about it while discussing Sukkot. | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 11:51 | history | asked | Al Berko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |