Bar Nafli, AKA Mashiach

There are three interesting scribal variants on approximately Sanhedrin 97.

(1) The first pertains to Bar Nafli. From Sanhedrin 96b going on to 97a:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ אֵימַת אָתֵי בַּר נַפְלֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן בַּר נַפְלֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָשִׁיחַ. מָשִׁיחַ בַּר נַפְלֵי קָרֵית לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דִּכְתִיב ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אָקִים

§ Rav Naḥman said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: Have you heard when the son of giants [bar niflei] will come? Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Who is the son of giants? Rav Naḥman said to him: He is the Messiah. Rabbi Yitzḥak asked him: Do you call the Messiah son of giants? Rav Naḥman said to him: Yes, as it is written: “On that day I will establish

אֶת סֻכַּת דָּוִיד הַנֹּפֶלֶת״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דּוֹר שֶׁבֶּן דָּוִד בָּא בּוֹ, תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים מִתְמַעֲטִים, וְהַשְּׁאָר עֵינֵיהֶם כָּלוֹת בְּיָגוֹן וַאֲנָחָה, וְצָרוֹת רַבּוֹת וּגְזֵרוֹת קָשׁוֹת מִתְחַדְּשׁוֹת, עַד שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹנָה פְּקוּדָה, שְׁנִיָּה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא.

the Tabernacle of David that is fallen [hanofelet]” (Amos 9:11). That is why the Messiah is called bar nifli. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: During the generation in which the Messiah, son of David, comes, Torah scholars decrease; and as for the rest of the people, their eyes fail with sorrow and grief, and troubles increase. And the harsh decrees will be introduced; before the first passes the second quickly comes.

The name Bar Nafli seems right, based on the pasuk being cited. Still, looking at manuscripts, I see two variants.

The scribe of Florence 8-9 really dropped the ball.

Rav Nachman speaking to Rabbi Yitzchak because Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. And even that name was originally written incorrectly, as if by someone with dyslexia, with קח written, then replaced with חק. At any rate, this scribe make it into Bar Naftali, which admittedly is more of a name. But still, this is not a variant to rely upon. It does not match the underlying prooftext verse.

Florence 8-9 manuscript

Meanwhile, Yad HaRav Herzog has נפאלי spelled with an additional aleph, both times it occurs in the passage.

That would be a consonant being used to indicate a vowel, say a kametz. So it is NafAli. We see this on occasion with some names like Rava, with an internal aleph to indicate the kamatz. The proof text says hanofelet, הַנֹּפֶ֑לֶת, but is it out of the ordinary. Usually, in the case of a word with etnachta or silluq cantillation, we expect the pausal form. So it would be hanofAlet, like some people say in Harachaman in bentching. Maybe this indicates that they read that word like that in Amos?

(2) The second scribal variant appears once we move to daf 97, about the town of Kushta (truth) where no one lied and no one died:

אָמַר רָבָא: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, לֵיכָּא קוּשְׁטָא בְּעָלְמָא. אֲמַר לִי הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן, וְרַב טָבוּת שְׁמֵיהּ – וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב טָבְיוֹמֵי שְׁמֵיהּ – דְּאִי הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ כֹּל חֲלָלֵי דְּעָלְמָא לָא הֲוָה מְשַׁנֵּי בְּדִיבּוּרֵיהּ. זִימְנָא חֲדָא אִיקְּלַעִי לְהָהוּא אַתְרָא, וְקוּשְׁטָא שְׁמֵיהּ, וְלָא הֲווֹ מְשַׁנֵּי בְּדִיבּוּרַיְיהוּ, וְלָא הֲוָה מָיֵית אִינִישׁ מֵהָתָם בְּלָא זִימְנֵיהּ. נְסֵיבִי אִיתְּתָא מִינְּהוֹן, וַהֲווֹ לִי תְּרֵין בְּנִין מִינַּהּ.

§ Concerning the lack of truth, Rava says: Initially I would say that there is no truth anywhere in the world. There was a certain one of the Sages, and Rav Tavut is his name, and some say Rav Tavyomei is his name, who was so honest that if they were to give him the entire world, he would not deviate from the truth in his statement. He said to me: One time I happened to come to a certain place, and Truth is its name, and its residents would not deviate from the truth in their statements, and no person from there would die prematurely. I married a woman from among them, and I had two sons from her.

There is some uncertainty about whether the Amora in question was Rav Tavut or Rav Tavumei. We can try to place him, but it would be helpful to see who he interacts with him. And we think that it is Rava who relates this story, and what Rav Tavut / Tavyumi said to him. It is indeed Rava, in printings.

However, manuscripts all seem to have Ravina, who would either be fifth-generation (if Ravina I) or seventh-generation (if Ravina II).

The exception seems to be Reuchlin 2,

I wouldn’t grant thhis minority reading much credence, as other manuscripts outweigh it.

Note BTW that the אמר on the first line is actually am’ r’, that is, a shorthand for amar rabba, then with Rabba repeated on the next line.

I’ll also note that, a bit later in the gemara, there is another Rava in printings,

תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, דּוֹר שֶׁבֶּן דָּוִד בָּא בּוֹ, הָעַזּוּת תִּרְבֶּה, וְהַיּוֹקָר יְעַוֵּת, וְהַגֶּפֶן יִתֵּן פִּרְיוֹ וְהַיַּיִן בְּיוֹקֶר, וְנֶהֱפָכָה כׇּל הַמַּלְכוּת לְמִינוּת, וְאֵין תּוֹכֵחָה. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵין בֶּן דָּוִד בָּא עַד שֶׁתִּתְהַפֵּךְ כׇּל הַמַּלְכוּת לְמִינוּת. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי קְרָא? ״כֻּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן טָהוֹר הוּא״.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Neḥemya says: During the generation that the son of David comes, arrogance will proliferate and the cost of living will corrupt people so they will engage in deceit. The vine will produce its fruit, and nevertheless, the wine will be costly. And the entire gentile monarchy will be converted to the heresy of Christianity, and there will be no inclination among the people to accept rebuke. This baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The son of David will not come until the entire kingdom will be converted to heresy. Rava says: What is the verse from which this statement is derived? It is the verse: “It is all turned white; he is ritually pure” (Leviticus 13:13). One is a leper and ritually impure only if he has a leprous mark, however small, but not if his skin is completely leprous. Similarly, the world will be redeemed only when the Jewish people reach their lowest point.

but Ravina / R’ Avina in all the manuscripts except Reuchlin, which again has Rava.

So this is a shortening edit operation, from רבא → רבינא.

(3) Finally, there is a Rav vs. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, which was transformed into Rav vs. Shmuel, which seems like quite a leap! Thus:

אָמַר רַב: כָּלוּ כׇּל הַקִּיצִּין, וְאֵין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בִּתְשׁוּבָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: דַּיּוֹ לָאָבֵל שֶׁיַּעֲמוֹד בְּאֶבְלוֹ. כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה – נִגְאָלִין, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין נִגְאָלִין. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִם אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה אֵין נִגְאָלִין? אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַעֲמִיד לָהֶן מֶלֶךְ שֶׁגְּזֵרוֹתָיו קָשׁוֹת כְּהָמָן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה וּמַחְזִירָן לְמוּטָב.

§ Rav says: All the ends of days that were calculated passed, and the matter depends only upon repentance and good deeds. When the Jewish people repent, they will be redeemed. And Shmuel says: It is sufficient for the mourner to endure in his mourning to bring about the coming of the Messiah. Even without repentance, they will be worthy of redemption due to the suffering they endured during the exile. The Gemara notes: This dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the Jewish people repent they are redeemed, and if not they are not redeemed. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If they do not repent, will they not be redeemed at all? Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will establish a king for them whose decrees are as harsh as those issued by Haman, and the Jewish people will have no choice but to repent, and this will restore them to the right path.

Once again, printings have Shmuel, as well as Reuchlin 2. Meanwhile, all the other manuscripts have Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

What I think is happening here is that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is of course correct, and original. But, at some point, a scribe got confused. And then, the substitution was not due to any similarity in the pronouncing or writing of the name. Rather, forget Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi entirely. Who was it? Well, he’s arguing with Rav, so I guess the disputant must have been Shmuel. This is an interesting type of substitution to watch out for.