Scribal Error Week in Review
Here is Friday’s review of recent Scribal Error posts.
Creating a broken hyperlink, demonstrating how a scribal error created ke-de-amar X instead of ela amar X, via dittography from the end where ke-de-Rabbi Abba appeared. The names as well, Ravina and Rabbi Abba, were similar. ke-de-amar X is often the formula pointing to a different, primary sugya, where the quote first appeared. But here, we see how it can be incorrectly generated and not point anywhere.
In What about "Now"? But When is Now? we look at a series of veha’idna, “and now that the halacha is different”, together with text-internal variants of who spoke to whom. We examine who these people are and their respective scholastic generations, to see if it makes sense as a three-step development across time, or is a conversation within a single geneneration.
On Haircuts reacts to a story in the news about a Jewish boy’s peyot being cut off in a barbershop, relating it to halachot about the advisability of getting such haircuts performs and the halachic non-liability for the victim and his mother.
In Rav Nachman is out of order, we wonder at second- and third-generation Rav Nachman bar Yaakov of Nehardea reacting to third-generation Rabba and Rav Yosef of Pumbedita. This is an irregular occurrence. Also, all about Persian law and guarantors.
In Motivating a Chasurei Mechasra, we notice that according to Rabbi Yochanan, the “deficient” version of our Mishnah ascribes the ultimate halacha, again according to Rabbi Yochanan, to the usual winner, namely Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II. This case is exceptional, in that he doesn’t win. So that could motivate a “deficient” presentation. There’s also an alterative to the Talmudic Narrator’s deficient Mishnah theory, seen in the Yerushalmi, where they move Rabbi Yochanan’s statement to a different piska, Mishnaic quote.
In No Amoraim named Moshe, we encounter what seems to be the only Amora (whose father is) named Moshe. Still, I don’t think this was motivated by ideology. There may have been many others. We only see a subset, and different names appear in clusters in groups at different times.
I try my hand at a 17-minute video podcast about whether Ulla is arguing with Rabba or Rava, based on a a network of three connected sugyot where Rabba (or Rava) argues with Rav Nachman. Other evidence, like chronological order, or the level of respect Abaye accords them, plays into this.
In the parsha post, we examine how Eliyahu Munk reinterprets Rashbam in his English translation, so that Rashi doesn’t wish to revise / retract anything he’s written, nor innovate any peshat interpretations Chazal have not already uttered. This doesn’t work out with Rashbam’s actual words.
The Jewish Link article for this week is We Don’t Interpret First Instances. This looks at a dispute between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan, two Tannaim or Rabbi Yishmael’s academy. One invokes this principle of not interpreting the first of a repeated word. This seems related to an Aramaic version of the principle, chad legufei, but I’m not convinced its exactly the same. Also, unlike the Talmudic Narrator, I’m not convinced that everyone abides by the principle.
Sanhedrin begins! So we can wonder about the massive first Mishnah, which is an entire perek’s worth. And we can note semantic shift in translating bardelas as cheetah vs. hyena.