A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
4 edited tags
| link
3 clarified meaning of תיובתא
source | link

Frequently, when the Gemara tries to disprove Rav from a Mishna, it answers that he's considered a Tanna and can argue on a Mishna.

But there's this case in Berachos 3737a, where Rav and Shmuel both say that one doesn't say a Mezonos on rice, and the Gemara concludes with a "תיובתא" (a conclusive refutation) against them.

Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that Rav is a Tanna?

Frequently, when the Gemara tries to disprove Rav from a Mishna, it answers that he's considered a Tanna and can argue on a Mishna.

But there's this case in Berachos 37, where Rav and Shmuel both say that one doesn't say a Mezonos on rice, and the Gemara concludes with a "תיובתא" against them.

Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that Rav is a Tanna?

Frequently, when the Gemara tries to disprove Rav from a Mishna, it answers that he's considered a Tanna and can argue on a Mishna.

But there's this case in Berachos 37a, where Rav and Shmuel both say that one doesn't say a Mezonos on rice, and the Gemara concludes with a "תיובתא" (a conclusive refutation) against them.

Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that Rav is a Tanna?

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackJudaism/status/1029473157093253121
2 make the title match the question; clarify cite
source | link

How could Rav ever be disproved?

Frequently, when the Gemara tries to disprove Rav from a Mishna, it answers that he's considered a Tanna and can argue on a Mishna.

But there's this case in Berachos 37, where Rav and Shmuel both say that one doesn't say a Mezonos on rice, and the Gemara concludes with a "תיובתא" against them.

Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that Rav is a Tanna?

How could Rav ever be disproved?

Frequently, when the Gemara tries to disprove Rav from a Mishna, it answers that he's considered a Tanna and can argue on a Mishna.

But there's this case in Berachos, where Rav and Shmuel both say that one doesn't say a Mezonos on rice, and the Gemara concludes with a "תיובתא" against them.

Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that Rav is a Tanna?

How could Rav be disproved?

Frequently, when the Gemara tries to disprove Rav from a Mishna, it answers that he's considered a Tanna and can argue on a Mishna.

But there's this case in Berachos 37, where Rav and Shmuel both say that one doesn't say a Mezonos on rice, and the Gemara concludes with a "תיובתא" against them.

Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that Rav is a Tanna?

1
source | link