In yesterday’s daf, Rav Pappa proved, by analyzing a Mishnaic word, שְׁחַמְתִּית, which invokes the sun, and comparing it to the opposite color, white, as pertains to wheat, that the Sun’s natural color is red.
§ The mishna teaches that if the seller said that he was selling reddish-brown [sheḥamtit] wheat and it is found to be white, both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. The Gemara assumes that sheḥamtit means the color of the sun [ḥama]. Therefore, Rav Pappa said: From the fact that the mishna teaches: White, in contrast to sheḥamtit, and there are two types of wheat, one white and the other red, conclude from the mishna that this sun is red, not white. Know that this is the case, as it reddens in the morning and evening. And the reason that we do not see the red color all day is because our eyesight is not strong and we cannot discern the redness of the sun.
The Talmudic Narrator puts up a contrasting source and debunks it, though asks how that contrasting opinion / hava amina rejected by Rav Pappa would have potentially explained the Sun’s red color at sunrise and sunset. And it provides an answer, having to do with impact of the red of the roses of Gan Eden on one side and the fires of Hell on the other side.
Why do we care what color the Sun really is? Some say if one takes a neder on all red things. We can always invoke the halachic implication of someone who betroths a woman on condition the Sun is red.
But I think the real nakfa mina is its effect on Superman.
I pointed everyone to a Talmudology post on the scientific cause of the Sun appearing red. A sample, but read it there:
Here is the scientific explanation. At sunrise and sunset the light from the sun is not directly overhead, but from its position on the horizon it must pass through more of the atmosphere to reach our eyes, as you can see here.
You may recall that ever since Newton and his prism we have known that white light is made up of many different wavelengths, or colors of light (Figure 1 below). As the sun’s white light passes through our atmosphere, the shorter wavelengths of light are scattered (Figure 2).
Also, because I like to kvetch; because I was just talking in yesterday’s Scribal Error post about distinguishing Rav Pappa from the Stamma, I would take exception to that post’s summary of Rav Pappa and the Talmud.
That is, he writes:
Rav Pappa (the Babylonian sage who died in 375CE) took this a step further:
In the morning it becomes red as it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden, [whose reflections give the light a red hue]. In the evening the sun turns red because it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, whose fires redden the light. And there are those who say the opposite [in explaining why the sun is red in the morning and the evening, i.e., in the morning it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, while in the evening it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden.]
and then give Rashbam’s explanation of Rav Pappa in that context, that really it is red but this is only perceived at sunrise and sunset. As presented, it seems like this is connecting the two.
Shmuel ben Meir, known as Rashbam (d. ~1158) explained that "our eyes are not able to discern the colors very well because in the middle of the day the light is blinding. But in the morning and the evening, when the sun is less bright, we can see the redness of the sun."
מאור עינינו אינו ברור כל כך מתוך אור היום שמכהה עינינו אבל צפרא ופניא שהיום חשוך ניכר אדמומית החמה ורב פפא לפרש משנתנו בא אמאי מקרי שחמתית
According to Rav Pappa, the true color of the sun is red - but this true color can be seen only when the sun is at its least intense - in the evening and the morning. We have all experienced Rav Pappa's description: who cannot be moved by the sight of a blazing red sunrise or sunset? But what is the scientific explanation of these colors?
Similarly, below, he attributes this poetic view of the roses of the Garden of Eden to Rabbi Chiyya, who merely quotes Rabbi Yochanan about praying at the reddening of the sun elsewhere. Who says either of those early Israeli Amoraim believe the Talmud’s explanation of it, as opposed to it being e.g. descriptive of a specific experience, or even based on the description by the late Babylonian Stamma? Even the Talmud needn’t believe in this, as it is presented as וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק דַּעְתִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא, “and according to that which entered our mind initially, that the sun is white, doesn’t it redden in the morning and evening?” But that just explains the hava amina, not necessarily reflecting an actual Stammaic belief. I don’t see how one can write:
But today's page of Talmud reminds us that at least in talmudic Babylon, the Garden of Eden was not just a metaphor. It determined the very colors of the sun.
Now, the actual result of this is to make Rav Pappa say something scientifically incorrect, namely that the Sun is inherently red.
Scribal Error is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
