It has been several weeks since I wrote one of these summary posts, so I am playing catch-up. I’ll limit myself to about two weeks of material.
Ben Stada, on Sanhedrin 67. This was a censored section of Talmud, because some believe that Ben Stada is a coded reference to Jesus. I’m not entirely convinced. Regardless, I also discuss how he smuggled magic out of Egypt via tattoos, and relate it to sending RSA encryption algorithms out of the US.
Rav Hamnuna Loses His Oxen — an unlocked Jewish Link article, discussing an incident where Rav Hamnuna, associated with Sura academy, comes to the environs of Pumbedita and interacts with Rabba. The central point of the article is that the sugya’s purported question, of speech vs. action seems strange, because the contrast is to a later Mishnah. Meanwhile, the selfsame Mishnah that discusses action also discusses speech, omer. I resolve it somewhat by noting that mekabel / omer is not actually part of the Mishnah’s list of actions — it really ends by bowing, if we look at manuscript evidence.
In the Large Zayin in Nivchaz, on Sanhedrin 63, we consider the Talmud’s quoting of an idol as nivchan, maybe, vs. the pasuk having nivchaz. Rashi’s etymology seems to assume a nun. We look at manuscripts, as well as the enlarged zayin that resembles a nun sofit.
In Burning Incense to his Friend, Sanhedrin 65, we consider a variant that it isn’t burnt for a chabbar or to gather, but lechaveiro, to his friend.
In Why Yedidya, Sanhedrin 69, the Talmud’s quotation of a verse is off, and brings in words and information from the immediately preceding verse. Also, interpreting a varying citation chain; and Bet Shammai vs. Bet Hillel are about the impact of changing scientific reality.
In my Jewish Link article, Who Fashioned a Golem (article, summary) I explore whether it was Rabba or Rava who made the golem. I make the point that Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya, who supernaturally regularly created a calf to eat, may have been Rabba’s brothers.
The follow-up Jewish Link article was The Fellowship of the Golem (article, summary). Was the golem from chabbaraya, the sorcerers? Or, was it from the colleagues? Who are the colleagues, and could these be Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya? Was Rabbi Zeira or Rabba Abba, a lion of the fellowship
In Rav Chanina bar Sheila the Tunneler, Sanhedrin 72, I consider this Sage who Rav would not kill, even if he discovered him breaking into his home. What is their familial relationship?
In Speaking from Behind the Fence, about a love or lust-sick man, whom the Sages did not even permit to speak with a woman where she stood behind a fence, despite the doctors’ recommendation. It makes some sense that this woman was to naked behind the fence.
In Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi II, who gives Rava the gezeira shava of zima zima heina heina, it is specifically with the title “Rav”, meaning that it is the Amora, not the Tanna. I didn’t have time to translate, but there is lots that Rav Aharon Hyman wrote about him, that appears as images in this post. Maybe to be explored later.
Rethinking Rav Acha and Ravina is a self-suppressed article that I decided to publish as background to another post. In it, I question the textual assumptions that led Rav Aharon Hyman to assume that plain Rav Acha interacts regularly with Rav Ashi, making the identification that of Rav Acha bar Rava, rather than Rav Acha bar Rav. All those are in printings, but the manuscripts differ in each case. Changing to Rav Acha bar Rav would transform plain Rav Acha and Ravina from being associated from Ravina I to being associated with Ravina II.
That leads us to Rav Mesharshiya the Savora, who was the paternal grandson of Rav Acha bar Rav, and appears by name in a sugya. Also, develops some of the ideas in the preceding article a bit further, in terms of why Rav Acha bar Rav has the patronymic included.
On Ki Tisa and Eliyahu Munk’s translations, Censored Mixtures, where Rashbam labels something as “peshat” (which would be something contrary to Rashi’s translation), and Munk’s translation of the same simply replaces it with something that aligns with Rashi instead. Also, I get ChatGPT to agree that it is an act of censorship.
Then, in Ki Tisa and The Censored Speaking Golden Calf, Eliyahu Munk “fleshes out the author’s words”, but really changes what the Rashbam says. To quote myself, “I think that, according to Rashbam, idols were capable of speech via the impure spiritual forces. But that was just magic, but did not mean that they were channeling anything Divine. And that was the people’s error, misunderstanding the witchcraft-based speech. Eliyahu Munk would not like that, and so I think he interprets it as the idols being incapable of speech, even via witchcraft or impure spiritual forces. And the people’s error was thinking that they could, in some way, be capable of speech. And then, that that imagined speech would come from anything Divine.”
In my Jewish Link article, Between Blessed Be Mordechai (article, summary), I explain why the idea of drinking until we cannot distinguish between Arur Haman and Baruch Mordechai was not intended absolutely literally, to that literal degree. Also, I explain and prove a likely background, that in the days of the Amoraim, people would shout out Arur and Baruch (and zachur latov, etcetera), as they encountered each wicked or righteous person.
Also, in honor of Purim, a chat I had with ChatGPT guiding it in a halachic question. If you cause your LLM to be unable to distinguish between Arur Haman and Baruch Mordechai, do you fulfill your obligation (via shlichut)? Would this go against principles of ethical alignment?
This is long enough, so maybe another internal roundup post early next week to finish up…