Last Week In Review
Here are some recent posts on Scribal Error. I am playing some catch-up, so here it what I might have posted approximately on Friday.
In Alternative Dispute Templates, and Rabbi Nechemiah, we see variants in whether it is Tanna Kamma followed by Rabbi Nechemiah, vs. Rabbi Nechemiah followed by Chachamim. We consider Mishnaic dispute templates more generally, and whether there are any real differences between the two. Sanhedrin 78a.
In Flattening to Heretics, we consider how, while generally minim becomes the less offensive tzedukim, here, two different groups out of five instances get flattening → minim. The loss of Sadducee and Cuthean impacts our understanding of the sugya somewhat. E.g. “you have falsified your Torah.” Sanhedrin 90b.
In Lips Moving in the Grave, there’s a famous statement that when you quote a talmid chacham’s Torah, his lips move in the grave. This is Rabbi Yochanan citing Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. Or is it? What if, as per a manuscript, someone else initially said it? Sanhedrin 90b.
In Lions, Mosquitoes, and Emergent Behavior, I point out how a Rava / Rav Ashi dispute could correspond to whether we consider a hive, or a slime mold, or any entity made up of smaller and simpler entities, but whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts — whose behavior is much more complex — should be considered its own organism.
In Working Within Superstition, I understand Rabbi Yossi HaGlili (in constrast to Rabbi Akiva) to be aligned with Ibn Caspi. That of course, Hashem would not give power to idols. Rather than argue with an unsophisticated hamon am, who might well be tricked by idolatrous charlatans, concede that these idols are exhibiting actual power, but that Hashem gave them this power in order to test you.
Many manuscripts of Talmud actually have Nevuchad Netzar as two separate words, and this might reflect how it would appear in Tanach.
In Shaving Sennacherib and Midrashic Figurativism (article), I consider the Verse in Yeshaya and the Midrash in Sanhedrin that adds lots of color. I think both Verse and Midrash were figurative. Rambam thinks they are figurative. But I think it somewhat likely that Rashi took the Verse as figurative and the Midrash as literal. Also, Rambam does not label everyone a fool who takes even a single midrash literally or who believes even a single midrash was authored as being historically true. Rather, he is discussing theological / philosophical / physical impossibilities.
