Eiding and Abetting (full article)
Here’s my Jewish Link article for this week.
Avoda Zara opens with the Mishnah restricting commerce with idolaters three days before their Eid / festival. The concern is that you’ll cause him to thank his idol during the festival. All texts I’ve seen, both printings and manuscripts, spell “their festivals” as אֵידֵיהֶן, with an initial aleph, but the gemara describes this spelling and pronunciation as a matter of dispute.
Rav and Shmuel, first-generation Amoraim who operate in Bavel after the Mishnah has been completed, and who interacted with its compiler, the Tanna Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, endorse different spellings. It’s either aleph / אֵידֵיהֶן or ayin / עֵידֵיהֶן. We don’t know which version was said by which Amora.
The Talmudic Narrator / Stamma informs us that, either way, the Mishnah reads correctly and has not been corrupted, לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ. After all, there are Biblical negative connotations to eid spelled with both ayin and aleph. With aleph it means calamity (Devarim 32:35); with ayin it means witnesses (Yeshaya 43:9), in that it testifies to their sin. In typical fashion, the Stamma explains why each didn’t adopt the other’s verse / spelling. Next, it undermines the Yeshaya 43 basis for ayin explanation, since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets it positively about Israel. This leads Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua, a fifth-generation colleague of Rav Pappa, to identify a different negative ayin spelling verse, Yeshaya 44:9.
Dating the Analysis
Often, I ascribe late authorship to the anonymous Stamma, suggesting that he could even be post-Ravina and Rav Ashi, to the Savoraic or even Geonic era. This is especially so when he reacts to Ravina / Rav Ashi statements. However, conservatively, we can only date each Stamma instance’s scholastic generation, the terminus ad quo, as equal to or later to of the Amoraim to whom he reacts. Similarly, if an Amora reacts to a Stamma, then the Stamma’s generation terminus ad quem should be equal to or earlier than the Amora’s. Here, he reacts to first-generation Amoraim and is reacted to by a fifth-generation Amora, so that’s a plausible generational span.
Still, sugyot can sometimes be constructed in a misleading way, in which the Stammaic material is interjected to frame the ideas behind Amoraic statements. That is, perhaps Rav and Shmuel said their statements, with אֵידֵיהֶן having an obvious negative sense. Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua used a Biblical verse to show a negative connotation to עֵידֵיהֶן with an ayin. Then, the Stamma backfilled Biblical verses for both, and explained why another seemingly appropriate verse was not selected. This Stamma could then post-date the fifth generation.
Yet, there’s something very fifth- and sixth-generation in character to the statement מַאן דְּתָנֵי … לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ, וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי … לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ, that either version of a Tannaitic text is not a corruption. In Eruvin 61a and Yevamot 17a, third-generation plain Rav Nachman says it, but this could be construed as a mistake for fifth-generation Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rava’s student. Perhaps in limited contexts, plain Rav Nachman is “bar Yitzchak”. In Sukkah 50b, it is sixth-generation Mar Zutra, Rav Pappa’s student. In Beitza 35b, it is first Mar Zutra, then Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Finally, in Bava Kamma 60a and 116a, it’s Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Since Mar Zutra and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak Amoraim grappled with competing Talmudic variants, it’s logical that discussion of Mishnaic variants happened then, along with fifth-generation Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua weighing in. We can wonder how much of the Stammaic material also developed then.
General Ayin Confusion
The parallel Yerushalmi seems to address the second Mishnah, Avoda Zara 1:2, speaking of אֵידֵיהֶן such as Calends and Saturnalia. Who pronounces the ayin is seemingly known. Rav says עֵידֵיהֶן and Shmuel says אֵידֵיהֶן. (All our texts then follow Shmuel.) In explanation of each “מָאן דְּאָמַר”, the Yerushalmi’s Narrator cites both the calamity and witness verses are cited, with Yeshaya 44:9 for עֵידֵיהֶן. I’m not sure how this impacts dating the analysis.
The Yerushalmi continues. Regarding “extending” a city (Mishnah Eruvin 5:1) Rav says מְאַבִּרִים
and Shmuel says מְעַבְּרִין. Stamma: like adding a limb vs. like a pregnant woman. Regarding Mishnah Berachot 8:6, that one doesn’t recite a havdalah blessing on a lamp until he “derives benefit” from its light, Rav said יְאוּתוּ and Shmuel says יְעוּתוּ, with the Stamma providing Biblical verses showing the agreeable vs. knowledge meanings.
This grouping of Rav / Shmuel disputes evinces a general ayin / aleph confusion. Could the disputes actually be merely phonological, with agreement about meaning? That is, both ayin and aleph are guttural letters. Even though many Ashkenazim don’t pronounce either letter, they each actually have a distinct pronunciation. For instance, the aleph is a glottal stop. Try saying “butter”, but in the Cockney accent, dropping the “tt” – "bu'er".
Now, as we see in Galilean Aramaic in Yerushalmi, there was a tendency to weaken or entirely elide guttural letters (aleph, heh, chet and ayin), or to replace one guttural for another. Berachot 32a describes how Sages in Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s academy wouldn’t discriminate between aleph and ayin, and how this led to a specific derasha. Perhaps there was genuine confusion in these Mishnayot, by Sages who flipped these letters or elided them entirely, so one version is indeed מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ / corrupted.
Guttural Fluidity vs. Cacophemism
There are a few ways to claim that a variant isn’t corrupted. First, we can claim that עֵיד and אֵיד are both valid words for Festival, and indeed the same word. Both are guttural letters, and in the natural cause of language development, consonants in the guttural group can switch. This is not just for the sake of derashot. Rather, each is a valid spelling of the word. Random examples include עַבְעָבִות and אַבְאָבִית, a disorder of the stomach; עַגְמָה and אַגְמָה, grief; and עֲדַק and אֲדַק, to be fastened, stick to.
Jastrow has two entries and roots for עדה. The first, related to Biblical Hebrew יעד / designate, means appointed meeting, assembly, court, or prayer meeting. The second עדה relates to עדות, testimony. In Jastrow’s entry for עֵיד, he relates it to Biblical Hebrew עוּד / to turn, return, recur; defines it as anniversary and (idolatrous) festival, and notes the comparison to עדה.
My point is that עֵיד need not be negative. For instance, Muslims celebrate Eid al-Fitr to mark the end of Ramadan and Eid al-Adha after the Hajj pilgrimage. They certainly don’t consider the word negative. We, as well, have appointed events, מועדים. The Rav / Shmuel spelling disputes don’t carry semantic distinctions, and אֵיד is also a neutral word for Festival.
The opposite of a euphemism is a cacophemism, used to express a negative or disrespectful stance about something. Chazal do view it appropriate to mock idolatry (Sanhedrin 63a), and Rabbi Akiva interprets וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם as an instruction to give idols a derogatory nickname (Avoda Zara 46a). If so, changing the word’s pronunciation to אֵידֵיהֶן could have been deliberate, to call these Festivals calamities. But עֵיד stands in its neutal meaning. Finally, Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua weighed in to suggest that the neutral עֵידֵיהֶן was also a cacophemism, by highlighting a Biblical verse of condemnatory testimony regarding idolatry.