Week in Review
On Daf Yomi, there’s Mapping Descriptors to Names in Sanhedrin 17b, which is itself mostly a list of previous posts and articles. Essentially, Sanhedrin 17b is a pivotal sugya, in that nicknames like “The Sharp Ones of Pumbedita” are mapped to particular Amoraim. These names appear across Shas, so these mappings are very useful. There’s also some question about how the Talmudic Narrator revised some of these identifications.
In James Randi on the Sanhedrin, I suggest that a sorcery expert should be on the Sanhedrin to be able to discern trickery and sleight of hand in evidence. Also, that Rav — actually Ravina according to manuscripts and the parallel sugya — did not fail in his effort to fulfill being metaher a sheretz. That, of course, an accurate proof is not possible, but the challenge is to generate convincing proofs via logic, while knowing how to debunk them, just as a sorcery expert can debunk sorcery. Being able to spot bugs in computer logic or flaws in halachic reasoning is best done by someone engaged in such erroneous reasoning. I then relate this to ChatGPT and pesak.
In David Betrothing with a Loan, I recognize a disparity between the simple peshat in sefer Shmuel and the midrashim in the gemara; but also distinguish between the ideas of named Tannaim (and one named Amora, Rav Pappa), and the Talmudic Narrator’s contribution. I reread the Tannaitic statements and show how the kiddushei ta’ut can work with the simple peshat of pesukim in sefer Shmuel — what Shaul meant by David becoming a son in law with “two” vs. “the second” daughter; how David’s intent when slaying Goliath was perhaps not to marry into the king’s family, vs. that it was but he suddenly became bashful; and how the act of service, rather than the additional riches or the physical foreskins were the basis for each of these royal marriages.
In Scaring Them? Or Creating a Sense of Awe? I suggest that there is a spurious derasha inserted by a scribe, based on misunderstanding le’ayem, which led our entire understanding of Rav’s position astray. Rav actually meant something that works well on a straightforward peshat, that the prophet Shmuel was trying to scare the Israelites off of the ill-advised plan. Indeed, there’s good manuscript support for this.
In Forgoing a King’s Honor, I write more about the spurious derasha and the idea of respect / awe for a king. Not only doesn’t Rav say this derasha, Rav Ashi in the original sugya doesn’t say it either. It is Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna who says this. Then, I summarize an earlier article on Ketubot showing the development of Rav Ashi’s statement, and how a king may indeed forgo his own honor.
The Sons of Rachava is my Jewish Link article, covering Sunday’s daf. I discuss some background to Rabbi Shimon’s discussion of the historical development of the decree invalidating either gatherers or merchants of Shemitta produce, as found in Tosefta. Actually, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda had variant traditions, so this was a harmonization.
Also, who were the sons of Rachava? It turns out that they are arguing with Rav Yehuda (bar Yechezkel), their great-grandfather.In a post on the parasha, I discuss the One Shechem that Yosef got over his brothers, and how it might refer to the city of Shechem on a peshat level, either directly or multivalently, rather than a shoulder / sloping mountain / portion.
