good morning rbnm…,
as intended you find here explanation postscriptum if any comes up. for the moment its just a placeholder makespace if i decide to maybe apologize the direct approach via ms. kahn. i am more what we call a horst cvd. i act faster than i think and speak before decision. saying to ask the question i did en allemande e.g. may have been some stupid idea. but as i said i cannot translate that into another language, it was a spontaneous open question i had during last thursdays session and not qualified to be implemented into scientific discourse. but if anybody feels able and willing to interprete what i was wanting to ask you as commune of scholars and some way of supplying an answer would be found i will thank you.
i have the many a questions to you but still carry some fear of adressing you being alman. i cannot overcome strange appearing behaviour when speaking to you. science…, a scientific approach more and more becomes my way of dealing with the ongoing past. listening to your sessions and taking part in j.history classes someway enabled me to take a less german perspective.
this should not be interpreted comme again un german apology but rather as my very personal essai de participer dans dialogue. we have a fine book here in berlin by max czollek called “desintegriert euch”, you could see my essais as some sort of desintegrating myself and to taking on a personal perspective, should there be any win out of it for anybody or not…
good evening..., i post this early before losing courage to ask. i try to translate from german some question which arose last thursdays session, sorry my english: can the research as being represented through you be seen as continuing the work of the subject to the research say the rbnm and the commentaire? do the academic scholars of the studies of mishna feel themselves as (successors, heirs?) of the representatives of the tosefta or commentaire :or: should one assume those seperate from each other? if so, when do you think began the time of research on mishna as part of an academic discourse not necessarily connected to religious aspects (this assuming still questioned...) and thus without taking it for an :additional part: to the ancient scriptures? can one understand the oral form of this academic dispute we here witness (with its citations and references to the coryphaes of the discourse) as a re-ligious reference to the prewritten tradition of the ancients?
i didnt manage to clipboard the above into the last sessions chatline, so it remains question.
11043.good morning sarit…,
its a post into the :reine bezug: saying i write into the hollow not knowing if you come to overread this. i wanted to thank you for sending the :scriptures: as i am willing to label the essais. maybe gets clear above how i feel making contact to your world, i still dont know how to approach you scholars. i think this will do anyway and not spare your time with email conversation. you will if that was an intention have read here and that would be fine, more un-distancing will i not dare. have you some work-while week, greetings from berlin morning at zero degrees, st.
still postscriptum: find here proof-of-studies-in-the-wide-field-of-idunno…