This week, Scribal Error posts were:
The Rav Ashi alternative, on Sanhedrin 23a. First, it’s Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, but that turned to R’ Ami and R’ Asi, which was interpreted in Vilna Shas incorrectly as the title “Rav”. Also, at the end, does Rabbi Yochanan reply to them? We see the genesis of an ika de’amrei, where there are manuscripts without the alternative text. That’s what it means, a merged-in oral or textual tradition. In it, it is suddenly Rav Ashi, not Rabbi Yochanan, who reflects upon the earlier statement. This either is in his role as Talmudic Redactor, so the equivalent of kedi, or as a misunderstanding of an injected Rava → Rav Asi, who does appear above.
In Three Talmudic Versions on Sanhedrin 24, we consider three versions of the same story, with variations in the precise question and the participants. I show how the second two are pivots on the first, and suggest that it is not just Sura, Pumbedita, but a third location as well, for Talmudic Recensions that are being merged.
In Rav Yehuda by Himself or Citing Rav on Sanhedrin 25, we first consider which Rabbi Zeira’s Father this is. Then, we wonder at the disparity of the primary text where Rav Yehuda says the statement by himself, and the secondary sugya where it’s brought in, but with him citing Rav. Manuscripts resolve this issue.
In Would Rav Truly Cite Pumbeditan Variants, on Sanhedrin 28, we contrast Artscroll’s treatment with Rav Steinsaltz’s. The latter is correct - Sura and Pumbedita might have variant versions of Rav’s statement, so we see the Suran vs. Pumbeditan Talmud. The former, that Rav is quoting these Suran vs Pumbeditan variants, seems rather unlikely.
In a follow-up, Indeed Rav Did Not Cite Pumbeditan Variants, we see the Yerushalmi’s version of the story, with similarities and differences. For instance, Rav went to market on behalf of his uncle, and the question was asked by Rabbi Yochanan. More importantly, he is asked two questions, and the Suran and Pumbeditan variants actually are selections of his two answers.
In Is the Resh Lakish Intercalation Story Fictional, on Sanhedrin 26, I consider Rabbi Binyamin Lau’s suggestion that it is parody, based on issues with the story and the participants not otherwise existing. I explain my disagreement.
My Jewish Link article for the week is about Sanhedrin 33, Sunday’s daf, about erring in matters of “Mishnah” and errors in weighing opinions. I suggest that “Mishnah” means accepted canonized corpus, and that “weighing opinions” has to do with selecting the proper oral / written girsaot of established Tannaitic / Amoraic statements. This was a follow-up and expansion of an earlier Scribal Error post with similar title, focused just on the weighing opinion part.
In Censored Rashbams on parashat Shemot, I react to how Rashbam is presented in Eliyahu Munk’s translation. For instance, why not translate his interpretation of vayishretzu? Also, they didn’t increase in proportion to the affliction, as the translation suggests, but they just persisted in increase.
Finally, adding to the series on operationalizing pesak, with a mind to the question of whether ChatGPT’s pesak is valid, I discuss how the gemara considers gemir and sevir to be not just necessary but sufficient. I think that is what leads Rav Herschel Schachter to say that mechanical computation of pesak should be technically fine, assuming accuracy in data and calculation. Meanwhile, Rav Netanel Wiederblank argues in a recent YU Torah To-Go that it shouldn’t work. I suggest that this is a cheftza / gavra distinction that they are making. I side with Rav Schachter here.
