Miriam of Tadmor and the Extraneous "They Said"
On Nazir 47a, two interesting girsological variants. The Mishnah, as we have it, reads:
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלָיו אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים וְנִטְמָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סוֹתֵר אֶת הַכֹּל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו וְיִטְהָר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמִרְיָם הַתַּרְמוֹדִית שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ עַל בִּתָּהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְהָלְכָה וּמָצְאָה שֶׁמֵּתָה. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר.
MISHNA: With regard to one on whose behalf the blood of one of his nazirite offerings was sprinkled on the altar, and he became ritually impure before bringing the rest of his offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: His impurity negates the entire tally, and he remains a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: An incident occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod who was a nazirite, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.
Where is Tarmod? Rav Steinsaltz explains that it is really Tadmor, and that some manuscripts indeed have Tadmor. We see mention of it in II Divrei Hayamim 8:4:
וַיִּ֥בֶן אֶת־תַּדְמֹ֖ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וְאֵת֙ כׇּל־עָרֵ֣י הַֽמִּסְכְּנ֔וֹת אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּנָ֖ה בַּחֲמָֽת׃
He built Tadmor in the desert and all the garrison towns that he built in Hamath.
Dr. Henry Abramson discusses it on his daf yomi video on Yevamot 16, where it is located, how it is spelled. If we look there, the letters or resh and dalet are also exchanged.
עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּמְקַבְּלִים גֵּרִים מִן הַקַּרְדּוֹיִין וּמִן הַתַּרְמוֹדִים.
Second, that the halakhic rulings for the territories of Ammon and Moab in Transjordan, although similar to those of Eretz Yisrael, are not exactly the same, as their residents tithe the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. The total abandonment of fields in the seventh year does not apply in Ammon and Moab, as they are not part of Eretz Yisrael. Instead, in those areas one must bring the poor man’s tithe to the paupers of Eretz Yisrael, as there are no tithes in Eretz Yisrael in the Sabbatical Year. Lastly, Haggai testified: And one accepts converts from the Karduyin and the Tarmodim, without concern that there might be Jews mingled among them, which could render them mamzerim and prohibited from entering the community.
It is also called Palmyra, which is either a translation, of tamar → palm, or else a transliteration, with the t → p, and the d (or r) → l.
Munich has like our printed text. It is Vatican 110 that has Tadmora as we would expect. Thus:
So too the Mishna in Yerushalmi. How could one turn into the other? If it is an unfamiliar word, and the daled and resh look similar, it is an easy orthographic error. (The same orthographic similarity occurred in Paelo-Hebrew, as I discuss and demonstrate in this parshablog post on the Duel between Reuel and Deuel.)
The same Miriam incident is mentioned in the gemara as it cites and analyzes the Mishnah. And the printings and manuscripts are consistent in how they spell the place name. However, we cannot say the same for Vatican 110 because it omits the Miriam incident from the gemara, stopping after the first שמע מינה which after all sufficed.
Another interesting girsological variant appeared in the same Mishnah. At play is whether the Sages disputing Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus) cited the incident with Miriam of Tadmor in their favor, or whether the Mishnah’s redactor cited this in their favor.
Our printed Mishnah, matched by all the variants of the Mishnah at Hachi Garsinan, have אמרו לו מעשה, “they said to him: there was an incident”, as quoted above. Our printed Yerushalmi has the same.
However, every time the Mishnah is quoted in the gemara, it is not אמרו לו מעשה but rather ומעשה נמי, “and there was also an incident”. Thus:
וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּמִרְיָם הַתַּרְמוֹדִית שֶׁנְּזָרֵק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, וּבָאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּהָ עַל בִּתָּהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְהָלְכָה וּמָצְאָה שֶׁמֵּתָה, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara cites the rest of the mishna, which also indicates that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the offerings. And an incident also occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and notified her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
We see this in the Vilna Shas:
and the Venice printing:
and Munich 95:
Again, as mentioned above, Vatican 110 doesn’t repeat the Miriam story as a second piece of evidence towards its שמע מינה.
Finally, if we look at Ktav Yad Kaufmann, we find something curious:
The text is just as we have it in the gemara’s citation, without אמרו לו. Well, not exactly, since it is not ומעשה and doesn’t have נמי. Still, it is presented as standalone. That, as a marginal note, a scribe added אמרו לו, matching the text to the Mishnah accompanying the gemara.
Which variant do you think is original?