S. Your distinction between history and memory resonates with me. I have little knowledge of my family's history other than place of origin of my parents and some stories about my grandparents. I know nothing about my great-grandparents, much less, earlier generations. I believe that this is common among the children of immigrants. It's sad how little we know of our antecedents.
I was surprised to learn that there were contradictory versions of R' Sherira Gaon's letter on the composition of the talmud. The French version sounds problematic. If the Mishnah was not put into writing until much later, why is Rav Yehudah Hanasi cited as justifying that writing because of "et la'asot l'Hashem.."? Was that a later interpolation into the talmud text?
Y. Aharon
Same thing with me. I know some of it, but what I don't know really bothers me. The example I often think of is that everyone should ask himself where his ancestors came from--and then see how far back they can trace it. If they came from Poland, for example, where did the Polish branch of your family originate? What about before that?
I had a mini revelation a few months ago when I remembered my grandfather saying kiddush Friday night. He didn't say the words in parentheses. My father does. I didn't really look into the issue, but in tribute to my grandfather I now omit those words (e.g, "ki hu yom..."). Why should my nussach become whatever is printed in some siddur or benscher I got at a wedding?
But by the same token, what do I know about his minhagim? A bit. Not enough. What about the history of his minhagim? Having Hassidische roots on his side, what came before it?
I wish I know much more than I do.
As for the French version, it is probably the correct version, I think!
If I am not mistaken the idea that Rabbi wrote the mishna due to es l'asot is not found in the Talmud. Have a look at the bottom of Babba Metziah 33a into 33b. IMO a careful reading will show that the mishna was not in written form during the time of Rabbi. I suppose one can argue that this was before he had it written (after all, one sourcce supposes it was written during his time). But the fact that there is a Yarushalmi mishna and a Bavli mishna may serve to give some weight to the idea that it was not written until a later date; each Talmud carries a differnt (albeit similar) rescension of the mishna.
Thinking about it, maybe the reason why Rabbi is associated with the task of writing TSHBP (aside for the fact that he might have actually had it written) is because if he didn't, then who did? Answer: later 'amoraim and/ or Saboraim. Clearly the monumental violation of the spirit and letter of TSHBP would be better ascribed to no less a giant than Rabbi, rather than later, lesser sages. Rabbi might have the authority, but people living 3-400 years after him? Halilah!
(To reiterate, of course he may have been the one.)
Y. Sussman has a monograph-length article in Mechkarei Talmud 3 where he shows that the French version is indeed correct. It remains to be seen if anyone will review his work and come to a different conclusion.
What sort of evidence does he give?
"If I am not mistaken the idea that Rabbi wrote the mishna due to es l'asot is not found in the Talmud."
the gemara of es laasos is gitin 60a, which doesn't mention rebbi, but does mention that r yochanan and reish lakish had sifrei agadata
I don't know if I can do justice to his arguments (Mike K. once called M. Shapiro the "ba'al hafootnote"; that honor truly belongs to Sussman).However his first point is that the pashtus is that it was not written so the burden of proof is on the other side. He then writes that from the role of the "tanaim", who were consulted whenever a question arose about the proper girsa, as well as from the constant urging of repetition of your learning and the fear that the Torah would be forgotten, and from the language used to describe the learning, we see that the Mishnah (and the gemara) were not yet in writing. He also points out that the previously mentioned "sifrei agadata" also show that the halachic material was transmitted exclusively by mouth.
Looking at his article, I see that I left out his argument (with exhaustive documentation) from the different girsa'ot that the Amoraim had in the Mishnah (from which he arrives at the opposite conclusion from that of Y.N. Epstein).
Thanks, Andy.
Commenting by HaloScan
