tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post6658899739997889884..comments2024-01-21T02:58:08.208-05:00Comments on On the Main Line: Solomon Schechter's Genizah gossip from 1898.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-39343005421264323182011-04-10T02:12:49.228-04:002011-04-10T02:12:49.228-04:00No responses doesn't mean no readers.No responses doesn't mean no readers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-1092049825001928582011-04-10T00:01:33.473-04:002011-04-10T00:01:33.473-04:00I am not capable of respondingI am not capable of respondingbaalbatishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-70377538373088763142011-04-09T21:43:00.845-04:002011-04-09T21:43:00.845-04:00Amazing that no one but me responds.Amazing that no one but me responds.Mar Gavrielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-16124367720544494082011-04-07T13:54:03.686-04:002011-04-07T13:54:03.686-04:00The prohibition was meant only to apply to copies ...<b>The prohibition was meant only to apply to copies intended for public reading in the synagogues. . . . </b><br /><br />This line is often stated, without support, about the various halakhic rules regarding כתיבת ספרי התורה שבעל פה. However, I don't think it's correct. Rather, it reflects the notions of a later period, in which "Torah scrolls" vs. "Chummesh Codices" were two different, clearly defined entities. I did a fair amount of work on this issue last year, but am currently taking time off from that project.Mar Gavrielnoreply@blogger.com