Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


Yes I dispute that the aramic term for 'exilarch' is 'reish galusa'.
This "translation" is back-forced, at any rate the entire concept of exilarch is monumentally ridiculous ;)
By the way how do you square the *fact* that after Mar Zutra we know.... nothing... whatosever about the office, if it existed at all, and nothing at all about any potential claimaints ?

Utter silence. Until of course many hundreds of years later.
Really. How silly.





-----Original Message-----
From: Sholom Simon <sholom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Wjhonson <wjhonson@xxxxxxx>; gen-medieval <gen-medieval@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, Oct 1, 2011 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors


Theword does not appear hundreds nor thousands of times in the Talmud.
It does not appear at all in the Talmud.

Why are you making that ridiculous assertion? C'mon, getreal. That's like saying the word "son" never appears inLatin Church records. Of course it doesn't. "Son"is English and Latin Church records are in Latin.

The Talmud was written in Aramaic, and "Exilarch" is not anAramaic word. The Aramaic term for "Exilarch" is"Reish Galusa". Do you dispute this? Do you disputethat "reish galusa" appears hundreds of times in theTalmud?

Listen -- I may be neophyte compared to you in the area of genealogy --but I've been studying Talmud for 20+ years.

-- Sholom


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
    ... Utter silence. ... Subject: Medieval Jewish Ancestors ... Theword does not appear hundreds nor thousands of times in the Talmud. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
    ... Please cite specifically. ... The Talmud is a large body of work. ... Subject: Medieval Jewish Ancestors ... There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all, anywhere, had ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD or the fith century AD or the first century BC. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)