Discover more from Scribal Error
But first, a relevant Scribal Error post. We read on today’s daf (Kiddushin 36b) about a Rabbi Yoshiya de-dareih:
חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת סוֹטָה וּנְזִירָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּדָרֵיהּ: לָא תֵּיתֵיב אַכַּרְעָךְ עַד דְּאָמְרַתְּ לִי לְהָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָא: מִנַּיִן לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה? מְנָלַן?! בְּגוּפַהּ כְּתִיב: ״וְהֵנִיף אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״! אֶלָּא: תְּנוּפָה בִּבְעָלִים מְנָלַן?
§ The mishna teaches that these mitzvot apply specifically to men but not to women, except for the meal-offering of a sota and a nazirite woman, which these women wave. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., the amora who was his contemporary, not the tanna with the same name who lived earlier: Do not sit down until you explain this statement to me; from where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Gemara expresses surprise: What is the meaning of the question: From where do we derive it? It is written in the chapter dealing with a sota itself: “And he shall wave the meal-offering” (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owners? Perhaps only the priest waves it?
and Rashi explains why disambiguate that it is of his generation — to the exclusion of the fifth-generation Tanna.
לרבי יאשיה דדריה - שהיה בדורו אמורא כמותו ויש להבין מכאן שעדיין בימי ר"א היה רבי יאשיה בר פלוגתיה דר' יונתן קיים להכי איצטריך למיתני לרבי יאשיה דדריה לאפוקי ר' יאשיה קשישא:
I wonder whether it is actually a place, Darei, and so is not the third-generation Amora. But regardless, here’s an earlier post about the topic, from Sotah. That dareih doesn’t mean generation but age, and it is to the exclusion of a different Amora, who is older that Rabbi Eleazar. See here:
The other day I went to the fruit store next to Grand and Essex supermarket, and I saw a new feature:
They had brand new blue shopping carts, replacing the old red ones. And they were all connected to one another via a chain. You had to insert a quarter into the slot to take out a cart — it detached the chain on the other side. You get your quarter back when you return the cart, via a similar mechanism.
I am regularly very good about returning my cart, even across the parking lot. A lot of people are not. They leave the carts next to their car, taking up a parking spot in an often crowded parking lot, or bunched up in odd areas in the parking lot. This forces people to return their cart.
I don’t always carry a quarter with me. What if I, or someone else, doesn’t happen to have change.
The time / awkwardness of operating the mechanism
Sometimes, as I’m taking the cart back to the return area, someone asks if they can have the cart. This lets them have a cart and saves me the time. I’d imagine that people will be more reluctant to surrender their quartered carts, or if someone else put in the quarter, it can stay that way, so they (or the next person) will not bother returning the cart
It is like the really wealthy say about parking fines. “You can’t park there - the sign says that there is a $300 fine.” “No, I can park here — it just costs $300 to do so.” I wonder whether the truly inconsiderate won’t worry about the 25 cents it costs to not have to return their cart, especially in a wealthier area.
It is unfortunate that people could not just be considerate of their own accord, without this inducement which carries a bunch of costs.
Scribal Error is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.