This week, we focused more on the daf, but let’s begin with parasha.
In Yitro’s multivalent joy, I considered the dispute of whether vayichad meant that he circumcised himself vs. that he developed goosebumps. Torah Temima weighed in as to textual clues as to Yitro’s mixed feelings. I discussed a grammatical analysis, and how the weirdness of vayichad instead of vayichd may have been interpreted midrashically as a dagesh chazak — thus continuing the preceding discussion of the mistranslation of Rashbam on vayichad. Finally, mixed feelings can be communicated by deliberately ambiguous text that can be interpreted as joy or consternation.
I post my article summary of Synesthesia at Har Sinai, which links the daf and Yitro. Where necessary, the witness shared the blasphemous expression. But, what about a Rishon expressing the idea that “perceiving the sounds…” does not mean literally seeing the sound waves?
For this week’s parasha, Mishpatim, there is Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk; and how Chizkuni proposes it means ripen, but Eliyahu Munk conceals it.
Turning to the daf, The World is Built on Incest suggests a not-so-hidden derasha. Sure, chesed means loving-kindness. And it can also mean shameful, either as the same of a separate root. I suggest that the verse in Vayikra with its fairly unique uses establishes chesed as a word meaning brother-sister incest, and that kind in particular. So, the world is built on that sort of incest, as Kayin married his sister.
In Was Rabbi Meir a Student of Rabbi Eliezer, I discuss Rashi who proposed this, based on a gemara in Beitza. I don’t find Rashi’s interpretation of the gemara convincing, and the generational difference (3rd vs. 5th) makes it unlikely. Rather, Rabbi Meir (and then Rabbi Yehuda) just discusses the underpinnings of a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania.
Then, in Rabbi Zakkai the Amora, I discuss Rabbi Zakkai’s identity — he’s a Babylonian, and not the Tanna by the same name. This fits in well with Rabbi Yochanan’s disagreement with him — “go teach that brayta outside”, and explain his alignment (in Yerushalmi, not Bavli) with the Tanna Rabbi Natan the Babylonian. He’s expressing the Babylonian position.
In a three-part series, we have:
Rava and Mistakenly Permitting Idolatry, that is, the position of בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר. He certainly takes a position about idol worship out of love / fear, but in context of distinguishing a shigegat maaseh from a heelem davar, בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר seems like a kvetch. Either with or without the word lecha after amar, Rava might not have actually uttered these words in this context.
In Rava as a Youngster, we explored the gemara’s noting a contrast between Rava here and his question to Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman answered there but Rava didn’t accept it. I suggested that Rava’s position could have evolved over time, and Rava as a young student to Rav Nachman might not have solidified his position, but that he was older when tussling with Abaye.
In Consistency in Rava saying באומר מותר, we consider a contrast (raised by Tosafot) about Rava’s attitude towards someone who mistakenly believes the act (murder, idolatry) is permitted. Should we transform speaker in the murder case into Rabba? We explore the limited manuscript possibilities. Or, might we not see a contradiction because Rava never actually said it here? Or, might this not be such a contradiction, and what motivated the Stamma was Rava saying what he said regarding murder?
In the meaning of mekayem, does mekayem mean that he took an oath (rather than a vow) from scratch? What if it means to prohibit, after taking a vow in an idol’s name, fulfilling it?
