Rava Said (To Him), and the Yad HaRav Herzog Manuscript

In my post from motza’ei Shabbat, I discussed how printings have an erroneous directed speech from Rava to Rav Yehuda, and from from Ashi to Rava, something not possible since their lifetimes did not overlap.

Most manuscripts disagreed with the word ליה, but there was one exception, the Yad Harav Herzog manuscript.

My impression thus far, in this and other posts, is not supporting this manuscript — others seem to have stronger readings — and that it generally tracks with the printed version.

So, I thought I’d check into the identity of this manuscript. Dr. Menachem Katz has a complete manuscript list (and elsewhere, a complete printing list) on Hachi Garsinan, and here are the details.

Ms. Yad Harav Herzog
Jerusalem, Yad HaRav Herzog 1
Cat. no. 7837
151 paper pages.

Manuscript contains tractates Sanhedrin, Makkot and most of tractate Ta'anit.

A Yemenite manuscript from the 16th century. Partially punctuated with Tiberian and Babylonian vocalization marks. The manuscript contains clues as to the dates of the The complete manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud – Version 2 (2019) Introduction: The Friedberg project for Talmud Bavli variants - 'Hachi Garsinan' -26- manuscript that this mss was copied from: Inside "five hundred and ninety" (830) and on the parchment "five hundred and thirty-eight" (778). These dates are the earliest known to us of any manuscript of the Talmud.

Partial punctuation and many comments in the margins regarding readings, parallels and even commentaries and Poskim.

Mishnayot are divided, the order of the chapters in tractate Sanhedrin is 11, 10. Basic text of tractates Sanhedrin, Makkot and Ta'anit in Ma'agarim, the historical dictionary.

(According to: M. Sabato, Sanhedrin)

So, 16th century, but copied from the earlier known manuscript. I’ll keep that in mind, to give it consideration. But still, a poor reading is a poor reading, and compare with the earlier printed Talmuds. The Venice printing was around 1520-1523, so also 16th century. It then seems as if many of the problematic readings already were present around that time, and were copied into the printed editions.

---

While discussing manuscripts, we might as well survey some of the ones we’ve been referencing on Sanhedrin. One such manuscript is Florence 8-9. I see now that we are dealing in particular with Florence 9, the second volume. To quote from the same pdf:

Ms. Firenze 8-9
Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II.1.8–9 (3.[b])
Cat. no. 468

Two volumes are written on parchment

The first volume comprises 314 pages containing most of tractate Bava Kama and tractate Bava Metzia. The second volume comprises 349 pages that contain mos tof tractates Bava Batra and Sanhedrin and tractate Shevuot.

Ashkenazic manuscript from before the mid-13th century.

The scribe was "probably an ignorant scribe who didn't understand what he wrote and therefore there are many errors…" (D.S. Sanhedrin, p. 4). The manuscript was influenced by Rashi's commentary but in some places the manuscript preserved a unique and apparently original reading.

The Mishna was copied at the beginning of the chapters.

(According to: Friedman, haSocher; Ms. Firenze; M. Sabato, Sanhedrin)

This is something to look out for, the matching of Rashi’s commentary. It precedes Yad HaRav Herzog but obviously not the manuscript it was copied from.

Munich 95, which is on all of Shas. He writes a lot about it, but I’ll quote the beginning:

Ms. Munich 95
München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. hebr. 95
Cat. no. 7204
577 parchment pages.

The only manuscript that contains the entire Talmud Bavli. The central part of the manuscript is the Babylonian Talmud, although there are other works in the first and last pages (at the beginning: Baraita d'Melechet HaMishkan, Piyyut and Seder Olam Rabbah. At the end: minor tractates, Seder Tannaim ve Amoraim, bank orders and legislative enactments from Rabbenu Tam and Rabbenu Gershom).

Semi-cursive Ashkenazi script. Written in 1342, probably in France. The textual tradition is Ashkenazic, and follows the interpretation of Rashi in many instances. This manuscript contains many errors (Diqduqe Sofrim) Many names are not written precisely, and the textual tradition of the Talmud was edited in many places on the basis of parallel versions (Friedman).

The manuscript contains a large number of abbreviations. The manuscript was prepared with great care and precision and represents a revolutionary change in the way the Babylonian Talmud was inscribed (Friedman, Ketzad Medaqdeqin).

One final one to mention is what I’ve been calling Reuchlin 2 in shorthand. Again, quoting:

Ms. Karlsruhe
Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Reuchlin 2 (9)
Cat. no. 7293
96 parchment pages.

Manuscript contains most of tractate Sanhedrin.

Ashkenazic manuscript from the 13th century. The manuscript is full of errors as a pomegranate is full of seeds, most of them omissions, some of which have been corrected in the margins. The main significance of the manuscript is that it is not influenced by the Rashi's commentary and is the only manuscript representing an Ashkenazic tradition prior to Rashi.

The Mishnayot were copied at the beginning of the chapters.

(According to M. Sabato, Sanhedrin)

So this is something to look out for, the matching to Rashi’s tradition, and maybe comparing with Reuchlin.