Out of Order?

Student should follow teacher, no?

Yesterday’s daf (Nedarim 83a) began breaks down different aspects of nazir. If a woman vows nezirut, her husband may annul it. Yet, they ask, surely only the wine prohibition should be deemed inuy nefesh, and not the chartzan and zag of the grape. Yet, her husband can nullify it all. Shouldn’t this disprove Rabbi Yochanan’s assertion that he can only nullify that aspect of neder which constitutes deprivation?

The Steinsaltz translation renders chartzan and zag as grape seeds and grape skins, respectively. This calls to mind an old parshablog post about chartzan and zag, and whether Chazal knew the meaning of Hebrew words. There is a Tannaitic dispute in a Mishnah in Nazir 34b:

אֵלּוּ הֵן חַרְצַנִּים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן זַגִּים הַחַרְצַנִּים אֵלּוּ הַחִיצוֹנִים הַזַּגִּים אֵלּוּ הַפְּנִימִים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְעֶה כְּזוֹג שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה הַחִיצוֹן זוֹג וְהַפְּנִימִי עִינְבָּל

The mishna discusses the meaning of these terms: Which parts are ḥartzannim and which are zaggim? The ḥartzannim are the outside parts, the skin of the grape, while the zaggim are the inner parts, the seeds. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: The opposite is the case and this is the mnemonic so that you should not err: It is like a bell [zog] worn by an animal, in which the outer part, which corresponds to the skin of a grape, is called zog, and the inner portion of the bell, the clapper, which corresponds to the seeds in a grape, is called inbal.

A French Protestant theologian and philologist, Jacques Gousset, used this dispute to attack the credibility of Chazal’s understanding of (Biblical) Hebrew words, for otherwise, how could this be a dispute? Shadal counters by pointing out that elsewhere, in Yerushalmi, they assume like Rabbi Yehuda, and that this is the continuing linguistic tradition. Only Rabbi Yossi, with his Babylonian origin, tries to employ etymological analysis to arrive at a meaning and ignore the hamon am’s usage.

---

Also on 83b, I was momentarily confounded by the order of attributed statements in a three-way disagreement.

We have third-generation Ulla, then fourth-generation Rava, and finally Rava’s primary teacher, third-generation Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. This inversion of order should typically raise red flags, and opinions are regularly listed in chronological order. Rava should be last. Also, why should the student precede his teacher? Indeed, we might suspect that the text should read “Rabba”. However, I checked manuscripts and both Munich 95 and Vatican 110-111 have Rava.

The answer is apparent if we keep reading. Nedarim 84a begins with:

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וּבַעַל לָאו בִּכְלַל בְּרִיּוֹת הוּא? וְהָתְנַן: ״נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים״ — יָפֵר חֶלְקוֹ, וּתְהֵא מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, וּתְהֵא נְטוּלָה מִן הַיְּהוּדִים.

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman: And is a husband not included in her reference to people? But didn’t we learn otherwise in a mishna (90b): If a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of intercourse with me is prohibited to all Jews, her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the part that affects him. She would be permitted to him, and she may engage in intercourse with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to all.

And then the objection is elaborated upon. And then, either the Talmudic Narrator or Rav Nachman bar Yaakov himself responds**.

Thus, it is within Rav Nachman’s opinion that there is turbulence. It is smoother to order the opinions in this non-chronological manner, so that the discussion can follow after a full presentation of opinions, and then have the opinion under discussion as the most recent.

---

I mentioned above that either the Talmudic Narrator or Rav Nachman bar Yaakov himself responds. To elaborate on that a bit…

Our printed texts have אֵימָא לָךְ, spelled out. The Bach removes the words אֵימָא לָךְ. I’d note that א”ל as a common shorthand could be אֵימָא לָךְ, which I’d read as Talmudic Narrator volunteering on behalf of the Amora. Or it could be אמר ליה, which would continue named Amoraic discussion.

Here is a columnar comparison of the Munich, Vatican, and Parma manuscripts:

Munich and Parma have the ambiguous א”ל. Vatican has אמ’ ל, which cannot expand to aima lach, but could to an identical amar lach or else amar leih.

Vatican 110