והא אמר רב פלוני: הקושיה והשתלשלותה בבבלי

The dialectical system of objections among amoraic sages in the Babylonian Talmud appears to rest on two seemingly contradictory assumptions. On the one hand, the Talmudic sugya presumes that amoraim possess comparable levels of authority and therefore may legitimately disagree with one another. This presumption is reflected in the rhetorical objection frequently voiced by the Talmud: “Are you raising the words of one sage against another?” (gavra agavra ka-ramit?!)—a phrase that functions as a methodological protest against such comparisons. On the other hand, the Talmud regularly violates this very principle: in about 350 instances, it raises objections from the statement of one amora against that of another, often introduced by the formula “But did R. X not say…?” (ve-ha amar Rav Ploni!)This article offers a comprehensive analysis of this methodological tension and proposes a new interpretive framework to account for it. The inquiry sheds light on the internal logic of Talmudic discourse across both the amoraic and stammaitic strata. In addition, the analysis suggests new avenues for understanding the shaping of halakhic authority and the evolution of legal decision-making in Talmudic Babylonia.