The order of the Gemara
Is there an explanation for why the Gemara is often structured in associative contexts and not according to matters?
Historically, it is probably a record of what actually happened in the court. Why they chose to leave it that way is not entirely clear. There are good explanations for why the Gemara does not operate in a top-down manner, that is, to establish rules from which details are derived, but rather prefers casuism based on cases and analogies. Rigid thinking usually fails in dealing with complex things (and life is complex). It seems to me that the Gemara wants to teach a form of reference rather than concrete content, and for this, associative negotiation that shows how everything is connected to everything is very suitable.
I understand why specific cases and examples are better than rigid rules. But why is there no order in the Gemara? Why is there so much confusion? And advice.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
