tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post6277336056548346458..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Rabbinic Fallibility (Bava Kamma 99b)joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-19206875389159771742009-04-02T21:46:00.000-04:002009-04-02T21:46:00.000-04:00As far as I can see, the actual story is consisten...As far as I can see, the actual story is consistent. You are correct that the analysis of the story, namely "But why [should he be different from] Dankcho and Issur who would be exempt because they needed no instruction? Surely R. Hiyya also needed no instruction?" is not consistent. This is what I referred to in my Dancho/Issur post as the setama degmara's analysis, which I was disagreeing with. <BR/><BR/>I would posit that first some Savoraim analyzed Dancho and Issar as people rather than coinage, and so asked this question. The teretz as well. And the idea of Lifnim mishurat hadin is suggested by Amoraim elsewhere -- see Bava Metzia 24a; and the brayta also occurs elsewhere - Bava Metzia daf 30b. This would then be the cue for Rashi.<BR/><BR/>kt,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-57119540970884996332009-04-02T21:36:00.000-04:002009-04-02T21:36:00.000-04:00How is this story consistent with your theory that...How is this story consistent with your theory that "Dancho" means "from Naxos"?Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.com