Artscroll vs. Steinsaltz on Rabbi Eliezer / Elazar
In yesterday’s daf, Artscroll did much better in rendering the Mishnah than did Rav Steinsaltz / Koren. Thus, in Gittin 86a:
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת הַוּוֹלָד כָּשֵׁר –
MISHNA: Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman marries another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of the offspring from this marriage is unflawed. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child.
כָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ, וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים; יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים, וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן; יֵשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן, וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד; הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת – הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר.
These three bills are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it, but it contains only one witness. These are the three invalid bills of divorce with regard to which the Sages said: And if she marries, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים – כָּשֵׁר, וְגוֹבָה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים; שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִים עַל הַגֵּט אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.
Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written for her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband can contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. Nevertheless, the witnesses’ signatures are not an essential part of a bill of divorce.
Is this really Rabbi Eliezer? It seems that he is essentially presenting the position that Eidei Mesirah Karti, the important witnesses are the ones to the giving, not to the writing. And his disputant should be Rabbi Meir, who is fifth-generation. Rabbi Eleazar (ben Shamua) is fifth-generation, while Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus) is third-generation. We had these issues in the past, with various printings and manuscripts having Rabbi Eliezer, but with mixed evidence. The general assumption should be Rabbi Eleazar.
Indeed, while the Vilna Shas prints “Eliezer” in the Mishnah, there is also a lengthy note in Masoret HaShas on the side:
“Perforce this is Eleazar. And see Tosafot Yom Tov that we should be gores Eleazar, without a yud. And so to in the piska that appears later, and throughout the sugya. So too in Rashi here {on the Mishna}. The other instances are {correctly} Rabbi Eleazar.”
Here too is Rashi, with the dibur hamatchil of Rabbi Eleazar, without the yud:
Meanwhile, all printings and manuscripts of our Mishna in our gemara have Rabbi Eliezer.
Moving on to the piska, meaning the short citation of the Mishnah from the Geonic era on, telling us what section of Mishnah relates to our gemara, our printed text indeed has Rabbi Eleazar, as the Masoret HaShas said. However, contrary to what we might think from reading Masoret HaShas, that is only in the Vilna Shas.
So, here are the printings. Only Vilna has Rabbi Eleazar. The other three have Rabbi Eliezer.
So too all manuscripts:
Finally, Masoret HaShas mentioned the give and take of the gemara itself, having Rabbi Eleazar. That isn’t entirely true. See the images with printings above, which have Rabbi Eliezer. That continues until the end. Again, except Vilna.
Arras and Munich as well, Rabbi Eliezer:
Soo too Fikovitch, not shown. But Vatican 130 and 140, in the gemara itself, have Rabbi Eleazar throughout.
So Artscroll follows Masoret Hashas in making Rabbi Eleazar consistent, while Rav Steinsaltz follows the inconsistent Vilna printing.
I don’t think we can really relate it, but I should at least mention the dispute between Rashi and Tosafot. Rashi makes the Tanna Kamma of the Mishnah to be neither Rabbi Meir, for one reason, nor Rabbi Eleazar, since he is the disputant who appears next in the Mishnah.
מתני' ואם ניסת הולד כשר - האי תנא לאו כרבי מאיר סבירא ליה דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי דלרבי מאיר הוולד ממזר ולמאן דמוקי לה בגמ' כרבי מאיר איכא למימר דכתב ידו כמאה עדים דמי ולאו כרבי אלעזר סבירא ליה דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי דהא פליג רבי אלעזר בסיפא אלא כיון דכתב ידו הוא וכתב ונתן קרינא ביה ואע"ג דליכא עדי מסירה כשר מדאורייתא ומיהו רבנן פסלינהו דלמא אתי לאכשורי בכתב סופר הלכך לא תינשא ואם ניסת הוולד כשר ודוקא כתב ידו אבל כתב סופר ואין שם עד הוולד ממזר:
Tosafot point out, though — what about the part of the gemara working it out according to Rabbi Meir.
שלשה גיטין פסולין - לעיל (גיטין דף ג:) פירשתי ומה שפי' בקונטרס דהך משנה לא כרבי אלעזר ולא כר"מ אין נראה דאיכא בגמ' דמוקי לה כר' מאיר:
But I am not so sure that we should read the gemara so. And Tosafot need to emend various related segments of the gemara to make this work. מוקי לההיא כר' מאיר - נראה דלא גרסי' ההיא דאמתני' קאי:
Regardless, another point is: who else is there?
Unless we somehow make a distinction between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Eleazar? I don’t think we can do this, since the “who else is there” relates to eidei mesira vs. chatima karti, so whoever says this is Rabbi Meir’s global disputant.