Goyz II Min

Censorship on Gittin 45

A regular feature of our Vilna Shas is the censorship of certain words pertaining to gentiles. It often doesn’t make that much difference, but on occasion it does.

Such is the case for Gittin 45, where goy (gentile, from the Biblical word meaning nation) appears in manuscripts and is replaced with oveid kochavim. There are implications of the person being an idolator or simply a non-Jew. (On this particular daf, it doesn’t become min, but the title was just too tempting. Apologies.)

So, we have:

דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יֵשְׁבוּ בְּאַרְצְךָ פֶּן יַחֲטִיאוּ אוֹתְךָ לִי״ – יָכוֹל בְּגוֹי שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַסְגִּיר עֶבֶד אֶל אֲדוֹנָיו אֲשֶׁר יִנָּצֵל אֵלֶיךָ מֵעִם אֲדוֹנָיו״, מַאי תַּקָּנָתוֹ? ״עִמְּךָ יֵשֵׁב בְּקִרְבְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״.

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the residents of the Land of Canaan: “They shall not dwell in your land lest they make you to sin against Me, for you will serve their gods; for they will be a snare to you” (Exodus 23:33). One might have thought that the verse is also speaking of a gentile who accepted upon himself not to engage in idol worship, and is teaching that such a gentile may not dwell in Eretz Yisrael as well; therefore the verse states: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave who escaped to you from his master” (Deuteronomy 23:16). The baraita understands that the verse is speaking in metaphoric terms about a gentile who has come to Eretz Yisrael, escaping his idolatrous past. The baraita continues: What is this gentile’s remedy? “He shall dwell with you in your midst” (Deuteronomy 23:17). This teaches that as long as he accepts upon himself not to engage in idol worship, he may remain in Eretz Yisrael.

This is far different from an oveid kochavim (star worshipper) who commits not to engage in avodat kochavim.

Though it is possible that this is also included, for repentance is always possible.

[By way of interjection, the next segment contrasts me’im adonav in the Biblical verse with me’eim aviv.]

וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: הַאי ״מֵעִם אֲדוֹנָיו״?! ״מֵעִם אָבִיו״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: בְּמוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

And the explanation of the verse in the baraita is difficult for Rabbi Yoshiya: This expression employed in the verse: “From his master,” is imprecise if it is speaking about a gentile who abandons idol worship, as it should have stated: From his father, as a father is a more apt metaphor for the religion in which one was raised. Rather, Rabbi Yoshiya explains differently and says: The verse is speaking of one who sells his slave to a Jew who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the continuation of the verse: “He shall dwell with you,” means that he does not go to his new master outside of Eretz Yisrael, but is emancipated and remains in Eretz Yisrael.

A marginal note in Masoret HaShas notes that other manuscripts, as well as the yalkut, has elohav, his god / gods.

On Hachi Garsinan, that is what they have in all manuscripts save Vatican 140, which has aviv. (Printings all have aviv.) I’m not sure if this is censorship or if it is a mere scribal error, since both אביו and אלהיו begin and end the same, and the lamed or heh might get confused with the vet. All the more so, the alef and lamed often get merged into a ligature, which can lead to a scribe missing the lamed’s existence, and then trying to figure out the word, arriving on aviv. Thus, in the Arras manuscript:

See how that lamed in the ligature almost disappears?]

This goy → oved kochavim becomes an issue becomes an issue as well later on. It happens throughout, but here is another one, from Gittin 45b:

סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ גּוֹי – תָּנֵי חֲדָא: יִשָּׂרֵף, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: יִגָּנֵז, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: קוֹרִין בּוֹ!

The Gemara asks: With regard to a Torah scroll that was written by a gentile, it is taught in one baraita: It should be burned, and it is taught in another baraita: It should be interred, and it is taught in another baraita: One may read from it. There is a three-fold contradiction concerning the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile.

לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּתַנְיָא ״יִשָּׂרֵף״ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: סְתָם מַחְשֶׁבֶת גּוֹי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: That which is taught in a baraita, that it should be burned, is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The unspecified intentions of a gentile are for idol worship, and therefore everything he wrote is assumed to be written for the sake of idolatrous worship and must be burned.

The Vilna Shas has oved kochavim throughout.

These changes make critical differences, as we try to distinguish between min, kuti, yisrael mumar, yisrael meshumad, and perhaps goy or oveid kochavim.

All manuscripts have that a gentile’s typical intent is for idolatry, as opposed to what may seem less of a stretch, that the idol-worshiper’s typical intent is for idolatry.

Finally, there is the mumar / meshumad divide. A meshumad had the implication of a Jewish apostate, one who (in more modern times) had converted to Christianity, but might indicate someone who follows a different religion. A mumar may be more neutral, a Jewish person who act against Jewish law, either due to his / her desires or as an act of rebellion against God.

The correct text is meshumad:

וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא ״יִגָּנֵז״ – הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתָנֵי רַב הַמְנוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת שֶׁכְּתָבָן מִין, וּמָסוֹר, גּוֹי, וְעֶבֶד, אִשָּׁה, וְקָטָן, וְכוּתִי, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד – פְּסוּלִין; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״–״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּקְשִׁירָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְשִׁירָה אֵינוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה.

And that which is taught in a baraita, which said that it should be interred, is the opinion of this tanna, as Rav Hamnuna, son of Rava of Pashronya, taught: A Torah scroll, phylacteries, or mezuzot that were written by a heretic or an informer, a gentile or a slave, a woman or a minor, or a Samaritan or a Jewish apostate, are unfit, as it is stated: “And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand…and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:8–9). From this juxtaposition, one can derive the following: Anyone who is included in the mitzva of binding the phylacteries, i.e., one who is both obligated and performs the mitzva, is included in the class of people who may write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot; but anyone who is not included in the mitzva of binding is not included in the class of people who may write sacred texts. This baraita equates the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile to the halakha of Torah scrolls written by these other types of people, which are interred.

though the Vilna Shas has mumar, presumably as a result of censorship. Here is Arras manuscripts: