Week in Review

Here are the posts from this week:

1. I ended the last roundup as follows, but I repeat it because I there is now a summary and follow-up post: In Shaving Sennacherib and Midrashic Figurativism (article), I consider the Verse in Yeshaya and the Midrash in Sanhedrin that adds lots of color. I think both Verse and Midrash were figurative. Rambam thinks they are figurative. But I think it somewhat likely that Rashi took the Verse as figurative and the Midrash as literal. Also, Rambam does not label everyone a fool who takes even a single midrash literally or who believes even a single midrash was authored as being historically true. Rather, he is discussing theological / philosophical / physical impossibilities.
   
   So, besides the fully unlocked article, there is now a summary post which might be slightly more accessible.
   

2. In my follow-up post, I mention a potential feminizing intent of the midrashist; also, the last paragraph of my article was concise and cryptic. It read:
   
   Here are some midrashim. Based on a juxtaposition of Avraham circumcising his household and Avraham sitting at his tent door in the sun’s heat, there’s a midrash (Bava Metzia 86b) that this was the third day to his brit, and Hashem was visiting the sick. The midwives in Egypt were Yocheved and Miriam, or Yocheved and Elisheva (Sotah 11b). Contra Rashbam, the brothers were the ones who drew Yosef from the pit (Bereishit Rabba 84). Esther was jaundiced, but Divine grace extended to her (Megillah 13a). Must we think these as intended allegorically, or else be fools?
   
   The point of enumerating these midrashim was to provide examples of various potentially “pareve” midrashim, or even simple peshat-level explanations of the verse. In the follow-up, I expand on each example and explain why it might not make sense to assert that this must be intended allegorically.
   

3. In Shimon ben Kosiva, with a Samech, I discuss how his actual name was spelled with a samech (see image in his own words), but hopes and then dashed expectations led to Kochva / star and Koziva / liar, disappointer, with a zayin. Also, a Talmudic manuscript has a brayta about Rabbi Akiva being his standards-bearer that people didn’t realize was Rambam’s source.

   

4. In Rav Pappa Explains the Goosebumps, we see how it is Rav Pappa, and not Rav, who explains Shmuel’s position, in Shmuel’s dispute with Rav. And how the phrasing used is consistent Rav Pappa across Sanhedrin.
   

5. In Bar Nafli, AKA Mashiach, we consider the alternate spelling / pronunciation, with an alternative aleph. Also, two other interesting edits, how Ravina turned into Rava (yawn), and how Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi turned into Shmuel (!!!)
   

6. In the paywalled preview of my Jewish Link article, Ravavahu Stands Firm, we acknowledge the existence of this seventh-generation Babylonian Amora, and how many instances of R’ Abahu, including in the past few pages in Sanhedrin, are actually this Amora, rather than the early, third-generation Amora of the Land of Israel, Rabbi Abahu.
   

7. Finally, in Rabbi Yochanan’s Medicine, I point out that no, Rabbi Yochanan does not render the verse’s terufah as terufah. Manuscripts all show he renders it as terufion, which means… something. Probably in a different language, like Latin or Greek. What might that mean? Once we know that, other pieces fall into place. The question of mai terufion is likely not there, framing it as something to be defined. And, the next statement by Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani is unrelated, and is simply weighing in with an alternative notrikon.