Several Emendations on Sanhedrin 103

Sanhedrin 103 is long and relatedly full of aggadah, so there are plenty of scribal variants that are relevant. Let us quickly run through the first three of them I noticed. Perhaps more later.

(1) Hashem hearkened to him vs. tunneled for him:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וַיֵּחָתֶר לוֹ״? ״וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשָׂה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּמִין מַחְתֶּרֶת בָּרָקִיעַ, כְּדֵי לְקַבְּלוֹ בִּתְשׁוּבָה, מִפְּנֵי מִדַּת הַדִּין.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And he prayed to Him; and He made an opening for him” (II Chronicles 33:13)? Instead: And He received his entreaty, should have been written. Rather, this teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, crafted for him a type of opening in Heaven in order to accept him in repentance. It was necessary for Manasseh to enter the World-to-Come in a clandestine manner, due to the attribute of justice that sought to prevent his entry by claiming that his sentence was irreversible.

The ayin and chet are both gutturals, so a switch-off between them is quite plausible. Not only as a matter of midrash, but on a peshat level, as a matter of etymology, we often see one replacing the other.

The problem is that our text of Divrei Hayamim actually has וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ with an ayin. Artscroll has a nice footnote detailing options, such as that Rabbi Yochanan had this variant text, or that really it should read וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ followed by וַיֵּחָתֶר לוֹ, meaning that it is a midrashic rereading with gutturals switching off. Indeed, we find some text like this, and here is a sample I took on my phone:

Notice how Karlsruhe Reuchlin 2 and Vatican 171 have this. Specifically, Vatican 171 has it (last column), without the מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. And Reuchlin 2 has I, but then in a later pass, the same or different scribe made marginal emendations (in square brackets for us) to bring us to the problematic text.

This seems plausible to me, and seems most likely. Still, Divrei Hayamim does have lots of variations from Melachim, and we can wonder how many are scribal errors, and how this might be a legitimate difference between Rabbi Yochanan’s text and our current Masoretic text.

(2) Vav vs. Daled in velo / delo.

שָׂחַקְתִּי עִם אֲמַצְיָה וְנָתַתִּי מַלְכֵי אֱדוֹם בְּיָדוֹ. הֵבִיא אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי בוֹא אֲמַצְיָהוּ מֵהַכּוֹת אֶת אֲדוֹמִים וַיָּבֵא אֶת אֱלֹהֵי בְּנֵי שֵׂעִיר וַיַּעֲמִידֵם [לוֹ] לֵאלֹהִים וְלִפְנֵיהֶם יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְלָהֶם יְקַטֵּר״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי, בְּכַיי לֵיהּ לְמָר וְלָא יָדַע, חֲיַיכִי לְמָר וְלָא יָדַע, וַוי לֵיהּ לְמָר דְּלָא יָדַע בֵּין טָב לְבִישׁ.

I smiled upon Amaziah and I delivered the kings of Edom into his hand. In response, he brought their gods and bowed to them, as it is stated: “And it came to pass after Amaziah came from striking the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir and set them up to be his gods and prostrated himself before them, and burned incense to them” (II Chronicles 25:14). The response to victory in war was the same, idol worship. They are incorrigible. Rav Pappa says that this is in accordance with the adage that people say: I cried for the master and he did not know, I smiled for the master and he did not know; woe unto the master who does not know the distinction between good and bad. The Jewish people also resorted to idol worship both when God rewarded them and when He afflicted them.

This quoted text from Rav Steinsaltz / Sefaria is correct.

Artscroll preserves the incorrect Vilna text that has דלא ידע in all three cases, even as they note that they are translating according to the text in Ein Yaakov that has ולא in the first two and דלא in the last.

I cried for the master who does not know == with a daled

I cried for the master and he did not know == with a vav

Indeed, you will only see the daled in printings, not any manuscript. Manuscripts either have a vav or no letter at all.

Presumably, it was the influence of the last דלא that caused the corruption of the first two instances.

(3) The mnemonic.

סִימַן: עַל שְׂדֵה, (בָתִּים) [כִּתִּים], לֹא תְּאוּנֶּה.

§ The Gemara cites a mnemonic for the following statements that Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: By the field, houses, shall not befall.

Here, again, Rav Steinsaltz has the right text, emending batim to kittim.

Kittim works well for the second statement of Rav Chisda citing Rabbi Yirmeyah bar Abba,

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע כִּיתּוֹת אֵין מְקַבְּלוֹת פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה: כַּת לֵצִים, כַּת שַׁקְרָנִים, כַּת חֲנֵיפִים, כַּת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. כַּת לֵצִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״מָשַׁךְ יָדוֹ אֶת לֹצְצִים״. כַּת שַׁקְרָנִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״דֹּבֵר שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִכּוֹן לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי״. כַּת חֲנֵיפִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא לְפָנָיו חָנֵף יָבוֹא״. כַּת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגֻרְךָ רָע״, צַדִּיק אַתָּה וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע.

Apropos the previous statement, the Gemara cites an additional statement. And Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that four groups do not receive the Divine Presence: This pertains to the group of cynics, the group of liars, the group of flatterers, and the group of slanderers. This pertains to the group of cynics, as it is written: “He withdrew His hand with cynics” (Hosea 7:5), indicating that God distanced Himself from them. This pertains to the group of liars, as it is written: “He that speaks falsehoods shall not be established before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7). This pertains to the group of flatterers, as it is written: “That a flatterer shall not come before Him” (Job 13:16). This pertains to the group of slanderers, as it is stated: “For You are not a God who desires wickedness; evil shall not dwell with You” (Psalms 5:5), which means: You are righteous, and there will be no form of evil in Your dwelling.

Artscroll notes the confounding aspect of the mnemonic, that it is unclear how “houses” corresponds to the second Rav Chisda statement. They note that Dikdukei Soferim notes variant texts that lack the mnemonic entirely.

But see how Yad HaRav Herzog has the correct text. What is still a slight disparity, that confounded the copyist into changing the kaf into the similar bet, is that rather than kittim, we should expect kittot.