DEAR RABBI KORNFELD
I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS QUESTION WAS ADDRESSED
THE GEMARA IN SHABBAT 128 AND THE GEMARA IN ERUBIN 2 BRINGS "PESUKIN" BUT NOT IN THE TORAH - RISHONIN IN BOTH PLACES SAYS IT IS A COMMON THING TO QUOTE OUT OF TEXT IN SHORTER VERSION - BUT WHY WOULD THE AMORAIM DO SUCH A THING MISLEADING ?
BE WELL
ISAAC
P.S IS THERE ANY WAY TO ACESS PASS QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY THE KOLLEL?
In previous generations, everyone was fluent with the text of Tanach, and therefore, the compilers of the Gemara did not bother themselves with writing the entire Pasuk every time that they quoted the Pasuk. The reason why they occasionally shortened Pesukim, or put two together, is (1) because the Gemara says that a person should always teach his students in the most concise fashion, with a "Lashon Ketzarah" (Pesachim 3a), and (2) in order to avoid the problem of necessitating "Sirtut." The Halachah is that whenever a verse is written, it must be written by first etching a line in the paper and then writing the verse atop that line. The Gemara (Gitin 6b) says that a verse of three or more words requires Sirtut. Therefore, they did not quote the verse in its entirety, but instead shortened it, or combined verses from different places, in order not to require Sirtut. (Even though we find other places where more than three words of a verse are cited, it could be that originally, only two words were cited followed by "v'Chuli" or "v'Gomer," which indicated that one should continue the verse on his own. (Our printing of the Shas, though, went ahead and wrote out the rest of the verse.) When citing two words of the verse would have been confusing and thus they needed to cite more words, they cited the verse by combining more than one verse, in order to prevent the need for Sirtut.)
As far as accessing passed questions, b'e'H we hope to compile archives of the question and post them on the website. In the meantime, if there is something in specific you are looking for, you can tell us what it is and we will search our archives for you, or, if you prefer, we can put together a file with all the passed questions and send it to you.
DEAR MORDECHAI
LET ASSUME THAT THE AMORAIM SPOKE IN SHORT VERSION FOR THE SERTUT PROBLEM AND LETS ASSUME THAT LATER WHEN PRINTING THE SHAS THE EDITORS TOOK UPON THEMSELVES TO CONTINUE THE WORDS OF THE PESUKIM- BUT AS TOSAFOTS IN SHABBAT 128- BRINGS THE PASUK " VENATON HAKESEF VKAM LO"- IS NOT A PASUK RATHER THE PASUK IS " VYASIF CHAMESHIT KESEF ERKECHA ALEKA VEKAM LO" SO THE TWO WORDS IN COMMAN IS " VEKAM LO" SO HAD THE GEMARA ONLY QUOTE "BEKAM LO" FINE BUT THE GEMARA GOES OUT OF ITS WAY TO PUT WORDS WHICH " LEKAORA" DOES NOT EXIST , THEREBY MISLEADING THE READER TOTALLY
- THE GEMARA IN KIDDUSHIM DAF 11 SIDE B LINE 9 BRINGS THE SAME MISQUOTED PASUK AND RASHI TELLS US THE CORECT PASUK AS TOSAFOT QUOTED. HAD RASHI NOT HAVE TOLD THE READER THE PASUK - THE READER WHO HAVE NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE GEMARA AT ALL AS HE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE LEARNING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FROM THE EXTRA "H" IN " HAKESF" AS THE GEMARA DID COUPLE LINES ABOVE "KESEF HAKESF RIBBA"- SO I SEEM TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY WOULD THE GEMARA MISQOTE A PASUK
- FINE IF JUST SAID ON SHORT VERSION LIKE HAD IT SAID " VAKAM LO" WE COULD SAY THAT THEY WERE FLUENT AND ALL NEW PASUKIM BY HEART -BUT WHY LET THE READER OFF THE TRACK COMPLETLEY.
PLEASE SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS SUBJECT
HAPPY CHANUKA
ISAAC
Chazal were not concerned that the reader would err and think that a non-existent verse actually exists, for certainly a person would not make such a mistake; they added the words before "v'Kam Lo" just to prompt the reader to remember the proper verse (for not everyone knows all of Tanach by heart). The words deal with the topic of the verse, but paraphrase the verse (similar to what the Gemara in Kidushin (49a and Tosfos there) tells us, that when we translate a verse, we do paraphrase the idea expressed in the verse and do not offer a word-for-word translation.)
-Mordecai