Rav Amram asked on Rabbah a question which elicited a retort of TERADA, Lunatic! from Rabbah. Subsequently the beam in the Beis HAmedrash cracked and the Gem. attributes this to either Rav Amram's embarrassing question on Rabbah or to Rabbah's sharp retort to R"Amram.
Now strangely enough, the same type of discourse was discussed on 19b. There also, after a lengthy discourse trying to explain the difference between the Mishna and the Baraisa, the Gem refutes the explanation using the very same method as in our Gem. here. Yet the beams in the Beis Hamedrash were unaffected!
This prompted my question of: Which is worse, a 'foolish' question or a 'foolish' answer?
Kol Tuv
Alex Lebovits, Toronto, Canada
I don't know which Gemara you are referring to, but I don't think it matters. Let me explain.
According to what you wrote, one would expect that whenever two Amora'im argue, the beams of the Beis ha'Medrash ought to crack. After all, what difference does it make as to the topic of their dispute?
I'm sure you will agree that this suggestion is ludicrous.
That is why Rashi explains the Sugya in connection with the embarrassment that the disputants caused one another, and not on account of their difference of opinion.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
Dear Rabbi Chrysler
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Trying to be brief in my question proved to be a mistake on my part.
The Gemara I was referring to on Bava Metzia 19b actually starts on the second last line of 19a with the words ??Urmiynhu? where the Gem. points out a contradiction between our Mishna and a Braisa and asks why the Braisa is concerned for fraud and our Mishna is not?
R' Abba Bar Mamal answers that there is no contradiction, because our Mishna is talking about aShechiv Merah and the Braisa is talking about a Beryah, a healthy person!
The Gem. then spends 28 lines explaining this difference.
After this long explanation Rav Zevid asks on Rav Mamal ??How can you possible say that the Braisah is talking about Beryah, a healthy person?! It says ?Daytiki?(tm) mefurash in the Braisah!
Now, not seeing something that is mefurash is a pretty embarrassing question on R?(tm)Mamal and which makes his answer look very foolish and the 28 lines explaining his mistaken reasoning seems more than just redundant!
According to what you wrote, one would expect that whenever two Amora'im argue, the beams of the Beis ha'Medrash ought to crack. After all, what difference does it make as to the topic of their dispute?
Rabbi Chrysler, it is not the fact that they are simply arguing that would/should make the beams crack. It is Rav Zevid?(tm)s embarrassing rebuttal demolishing R?(tm) Mamal?(tm)s answer; (which seems to be exactly similar to Rav Amrams embarrassing question on Rabbah in our Gemorah); that should make the beams crack!
I'm sure you will agree that this suggestion is ludicrous.
That is why Rashi explains the Sugya in connection with the embarrassment that the disputants caused one another, and not on account of their difference of opinion.
It seems to me that my question does have some merit;
In our case the question is an embarrassing one and in the previous case the answer was an embarrassing one. The beams cracked in our case where a foolish (embarrassing) question was asked, but the beams did not crack when a foolish (embarrassing) answer was given.
And this is what prompted my question of: Which is worse, a 'foolish' question or a 'foolish' answer?
And since our Gem. is mesupak if it was because of the question or because of the name calling that the beams cracked; it must be that a foolish question is worse than a foolish answer. For if we were to say that a foolish answer is worse, then the reason in our Gem. would have to be because of the name calling; since we saw that a foolish answer doesn?(tm)t merit cracked beams.
Kol Tuv,
Alex Lebovits
At least now I understand what you are trying to ask. But I abide by what I wrote last time.
Rashi explains that it has to do with the embarrassment that the one caused the other (not the 'silliness of the question'), adding that it is a matter of Mazal. The Tal Torah says that he doesn't know what this means. Do you?
I see no point in elaborating further. We do not know the extent of the embarrassment that either of the two Amora'im felt, and we certainly do not know much, if anything, about their Mazal.
The beam breaking was the outcome of this combination. It was a local phenomenon and does not apply anywhere else.
And the proof for this is that, although the Gemara often refutes the opinion of an Amora (and sometimes even of a Tana) from an obvious source, we do not find beams breaking.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler