Zachor, Editing of the Talmud and of Wikipedia
[1] This morning, I listened to this shiur from Rav Herschel Schachter about Zachor. It begins with someone asking to dedicate the shiur li’iluy nishmas his relative, which Rav Schachter does, then mentions it’s also the yahrtzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu, as well as Rav Schachter’s own father, so it should be lezecher nishmas all of them. Anyway, lots of interesting material there, including an explanation of the midrash of Hashem shrinking the moon and needing atonement, in a way that doesn’t sound primitive or silly — rather, a matter of tzaddik vera lo.
In terms of Zachor, he discusses the whether women are obligated in hearing it, given that they are not obligated in waging the war. And quotes Rav Chaim Kanievsky who quotes the Chazon Ish who told his sisters that if they regularly weren’t makpid to hear the leining, they didn’t need to make a special effort to hear Zachor. A 1.5 minute clip:
The tie-in to Scribal Error is what Rav Schachter mentions at the end, about Rav Shlomo’le Vilna who checked the galleys of the Vilna Shas, and whose descendant Rav Markellus described the process, which was reading the gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot and comparing from memory, rather than other texts.
(He doesn’t say it here, but while something a super-genius is capable of, it still can introduce or preserve specific types of error. For instance, what about the Rabbi Eliezer turning to R”E and in the last instance Rabbi Eleazar, discussed recently on Nazir?
)
This testimony seems to contradict what we find on Wikipedia, about Rabbi Shlomo HaKohen of Vilna:
Rabbi Shlomo HaKohen was the editor of the Vilna Edition Shas, where he pored through various manuscripts to verify and establish an accurate version of the Talmud without the mistakes so prevalent in previous editions of the Talmud.[8]
This claim is sourced from “Letter by Letter: The Story of the Romm Publishing House and the Vilna Shas”, which is a broken hyperlink to chareidi.shemayisrael.com. That is, Yated Neeman.
We can still access that article via archive.org’s WayBack Machine, where the earliest archive of it was 2006. So here it is, written by Yated Neeman Staff.
Now, the article kinda-sorta says it, but not in so many words. First it does mention checking manuscripts:
Besides the tremendous amount of time involved -- the project took almost twenty years to complete -- and the great financial investment that had to be made, it was vital to involve those individuals who were foremost in every area of scholarship and craftsmanship that the new edition touched upon. Menachem employed the best proofreaders and the leading experts in deciphering manuscripts, among them some of the greatest talmidei chachomim in Vilna. The team was assembled with the guidance and supervision of Menachem and his partner and the huge project was launched.
and then:
This was one of the most difficult tasks, for which expert proofreaders were brought in. Among them were even some of Vilna's greatest sages. Among the best known of these was HaRav Shlomo Hacohen zt'l, author of Cheishek Shlomo, and also the author of the commentary Poras Yosef, both of whom served in the city as rabbonim. They and the other astute rabbonim, all experts in the work, devoted hours to ensuring that the Vilna Shas would not contain any of the mistakes that were so common in the other editions.
So note that the article mentions, perhaps separately, best proofreaders and leading experts in deciphering manuscripts, and among them (which group?) some of the greatest talmidei chachomim in Vilna. So presumably the Cheishek Shlomo is referenced. But when discussing him, it just says they devoted hours to avoiding error.
This paragraph existed in the Wikipedia entry from the earliest version, by the Wikipedia editor Rachak, who put 2 and 2 together.
This is one example of why I tell my students they cannot just pull information from Wikipedia, but need to research it a bit further. Are the sources cited trustworthy? Were the sources understood correctly, or were they reinterpreted?
[Update: See this follow-up post, which shows that these two claims are not necessarily contradictory. One refers to an initial establishing of the text, while the other refers to proofreading the galleys.
]
[2] Rav Schachter continues that Rav Shlomeleh Vilna had an idea that Kohanim would also be exempted from Zachor because, like women, they were exempt from waging war against Amalek. But he didn’t print it because someone told him it was wrong. And so some time is devoted to understanding how we see Kohanim are subject to the draft.
Some musings: What if Amalek no longer exists? Does the mitzvah of destroying Amalek still exist? (See R’ Avraham son of Rambam, Avnei Neizer, R’ Hayim Hirschenson. Or Ibn Caspi and Shadal) Not in terms of practically fighting Amalekites. But by extension, the mitzvah or reading parashat Zachor?
[3] There are some reviews out about a graphic novel for Megillat Esther, from Koren. Here is Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin’s review of it:
and here is Rabbi Dr. Stuart Halpern in Jewish Review of Books:
Embracing the shift to a different language and medium, rather than feeling restricted by it, is what enables the graphic novel to work as an engaging educational product.
That embrace and creative shift can be seen in the handling of the Koren Megillah’s more mature elements. Although the graphic novel is willing to engage with a certain level of violence (stabbings, hangings, and impalements are all depicted), the implicit sexual elements of the text are rendered as innocently as can be. The eunuchs are depicted as typical palace bureaucrats. The gathering of virgins for the king to find Vashti’s replacement seems as tame as a gathering of contestants on Persia’s Got Talent (contra Waldman’s more adult rendering, which has copious nudity). The harem where the women are kept seems like a nice spa.
[4] In preparation for this coming week, From AJS Review, here is Mitchell First’s article The Origin of Taanit Esther, and a shorter version on Seforim Blog.
Also a podcast, Seforim Chatter, where he discusses who Achashverosh and Esther were historically. He also discussed it with Yated (not available online) and The Torah (to which I don’t link).
[5] Also, I recently stumbled across Rabbi Dr. Richard Hidary’s YouTube channel, where he covers Daf Yomi. Check it out.