Week(s) in Review
It has been a while since I had a review post — I think about three weeks. Here is a summary of some recent posts.
In terms of Jewish Link articles, there is:
Rabbi Yitzchak as Reish Lakish’s Student (full article, summary post) in which Rabbi Yitzchak says “Shkoyach! And Rabbi Yochanan concurs!” The gemara wonders whether this means Reish Lakish disagreed, then suggests, depending on internal textual variant, that Reish Lakish was either waiting or drinking while Rabbi Yochanan spoke. This pattern occurs thrice in Talmud Bavli, so we consider that. Also, is the assumption that Reish Lakish disagrees founded on Rabbi Yitzchak’s status as his partial student? Finally, looking at Yerushalmis, do we get Rabbi Yochanan’s position accurately? And, does he have a disputant?
That summary post leads with a follow-up analyzing the second of such sugyot where they suggest Reish Lakish was drinking, with deeper quotes of the Bavli and Yerushalmi.In Lending out my Midrash Says (full article, summary), I discuss writing down of Oral Law; how and where et la’asot works to override that; the particular case of sifra de’aggadeta as written Oral Torah; tracing rejection towards eventual acceptance across generations; variants which may suggest Rabbi Yochanan did or didn’t accept sifra de’aggadeta; and whether our local sugya actual addresses such narrative midrashic works or really discusses barber’s scissors.
In Eiding and Abetting (full article, summary), as we begin the masechet Avoda Zara, I consider the variant of eidehem with an initial aleph or ayin; see the Yerushalmi parallel; and consider whether it is a legitimate alternate word, a dialectal corruption, or a cacophemism.
For this week, Elapsed Messianic Years (full article). A specific sugya mentions 2000 years of mashiach, but due to our sins, X years of that have already elapsed. In oral accounts, it seems that those elapsed years were updated. That apparently stopped happening in a written text, so what year is written there? Ktav HaYad Herzog has the earliest year of any known Talmudic manuscript, 778 CE, but the date of copying is much much later. The same for other manuscripts. Does that mean that we should give an early-date but late-copied manuscripts special consideration?
On parashat hashavua, there have also been a few posts.
On Bemidbar, Chayav Mita as Non-Literal, what should we make of the midrashic idea that Nadav and Avihu died because they didn’t have kids. Torah Temimah explains why that cannot be meant absolutely literally, and I take that as a jumping off point for explaining how the feel of this is homiletic, rather than a real absolute violation and punishment.
On Naso, Animals or Wagons, I translate Rashbam’s commentary correctly. Regarding the nesi’im’s gift, he does not mean that צב refers to animal-driven carts. Rather, he means Rashbam is arguing against a universal meaning of tzav. Here, it is army-oriented wagons, which can travel a long distance. A translation correction.
On Beha’alotecha, Your Personal Trumpets? No, that is not what Chizkuni means. Rather, when Moshe is told to make for himself trumpets, the idea is that it is for his benefit. Not because he would have to search after the trumpets he’s lent out, but because that way, the people he wants assembled will come to him. He does not need to send after them, the people. Again, a correction of a translation.
On Shelach, What is Bothering Chizkuni? That is, Chizkuni would not bother to say that the initial letter bet of a word in a verse is a bet rather than a vet. That is so obvious as to not require saying. Rather, since the penalty of years corresponding to the number of days the scouts spent exploring, בְּמִסְפַּ֨ר הַיָּמִ֜ים, we might have thought that a kaf was appropriate. Again, a correction of a translation.
In Korach, One Donkey, or One Person’s Donkey. This began as an article about applying first order logic and its formalisms to Talmud, especially Shevuot, but I decided to suppress the article. It was too complex. Instead, the first part focuses on לֹ֠א חֲמ֨וֹר אֶחָ֤ד מֵהֶם֙ נָשָׂ֔אתִי. Does the echad modify the chamor or the meihem? We analyze. Both are possible and different commentators (Rashi, Rashbam, Chizkuni) explain differently. In the process, I correct the Rashbam and Chizkuni translations.
Also, the meaning of Korach Took. He gathered people for an action, or a null verb gathering people, and at the end, there’s the actual verb. I think Rashbam says the former, while I hold the latter. Regardless, I correct the English translation of Rashbam, which is so far off that it almost feels like it was based off an alternate text.
Also, Rashbam discusses the position of gam in Biblical phrases, that we should often mentally reorder it. By גמים שבתורה הפוכין, he does NOT mean that create a contrast with what was stated previously.
Then, there are typical Scribal Error posts, often focused on the Daf Yomi. These include:
Abaye cannot speak with Rav Yehuda. So why does the gemara say he does? Is this a scribal error, or is this meant in a rhetorical sense, whom he is addressing. On Shevuot 35a.
In The Hidden Derashot of Midvar Sheker Tirchak, I argue, and I think demonstrate, that a brayta is not just saying, “In scenario X, should you lie? No, the Torah says not to lie!” Rather, it iterates almost comprehensively through possible midrashic meanings and applies them. For instance, tirchak as the opposite of titztaref, joining together with in a group; of physically distancing; derashot involving the preceding verse.
In Rav Ovadia Yosef and Looking at Female Litigants, I discuss a famous claim about Rav Yosef — that he was so frum that he never looked at any of the female litigants that came before him in court — and argue that the overall theme in our sugya in masechet Shevuot goes against this. For instance, it would demoralize one litigant, thus creating inequality in their ability to present their case; and strip the judge of ability to assess the credibility of one side over the other. In our sugya, for instance, Rav Nachman wanted to accord honor to Rav Huna’s wife by standing, but didn’t want to show favoritism which would demoralize the other litigant, so he had someone throw a duck at him.
In The Prohibition of Mocking Greta, I explain why I think a statement allowing mockery specifically of idolatry (and perhaps of a scatological nature) does not really establish that every other mockery is forbidden. That was not the statement’s focus / intent. Mockery can be a powerful tool to deflate bad or dangerous ideas, including anti-Israel and pro-Hamas views. This has been a recent public debate among certain rabbis.
In Rav Sheshet Feigns Ignorance, I explain the invoking of “And David laid up these words in his heart” (I Samuel 21:13) applied to Rav Sheshet. Unlike the standard explanation that here, Rav Sheshet endeavored to investigate the correctness of a certain halachic position in Tannaitic sources, I instead look to the context where David feigned madness. Here, Rav Sheshet is famous as a master of brayta, yet he asks someone (perhaps from the “enemy” camp), from a later generation, if he knows any braytot that would support or argue against a position. That means that the follow-up analysis isn’t Rav Sheshet but his younger interlocutor.
In Uncensored Printings for Avodah Zarah, I promote the Venice text over the Vilna. In Vilna, oved kochavim and avodat kochavim appear to censor other terms, but those terms target specifically idolaters, which isn’t always the case. E.g. a gentile who learns Torah is of elevated status, more so than a kohen, levi, yisrael who does not. It is not talking about someone who at the same time violates one of the seven Noachide laws. Plus, several distinct terms get mapped to that same censored term. Nuance can come from analyzing texts that are precise.
I note three eponymous attributions in Avodah Zarah — Rabbi Yitzchak and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak discussing שחוק, and Rav Chama discussing cheima, and link to one of several of my Jewish Link articles discussing the phenomenon and its explanation — It’s the Eponymy, Stupid.
