Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Shabbat 28a: Tachash and Sasgevana

The gemara discusses the tachash:
[To revert to] the main text: 'R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin23  of an unclean animal be defiled with the defilement of tents?'24  What is his problem?25 — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: His question relates to the tahash which was in the days of Moses,26 — was it unclean or clean? R. Joseph observed, What question is this to him? We learnt it! For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was declared fit.
I discuss the identity of the tachash here. In this parshablog post, I discuss how Onkelos understood tachash, as sasgona. This might be an animal or a color. In a follow-up post, I discuss how Rav Yosef understood tachash as sasgona.

Perhaps the most important quote from those posts:

Turning back to Onkelos and sasgona, I would would note that sas is worm in Aramaic and thatgevan is color, such that it may simply refer to a color of the sas worm. I could also point to the word argaman, which is Aramaic is ar-gevan, perhaps of similar construction. So, Onkelos might not be intending to highlight a particular animal with this, or endorsing this Rabbi Nechemiah beast of multiple colors theory, despite how Rav Yosef interprets sasgevana in the gemara.

This is what Jastrow (page 1009) has to say about the word:

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Shabbat 26a: Murex trunculus, Cappadocia, and the authenticity of the Zohar

On Shabbat 26a:
ירמיהו נב, טז) ומדלת הארץ השאיר נבוזראדן רב טבחים לכורמים וליוגבים כורמים תני רב יוסף אלו מלקטי אפרסמון מעין גדי ועד רמתא יוגבים אלו ציידי חלזון מסולמות של צור ועד חיפה:
But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers [kormim] and husbandmen [yogbim].3  'Kornim:' R. Joseph learnt: This means balsamum gatherers from the En Gedi to Ramah. Yogbim: These are those which catch hilazon4  from the promontory of Tyre as far as Haifa.5
We see from here, ציידי חלזון, that the chilazon is something which has to be caught. Indeed, the gemara elsewhere (Shabbat 75a) discusses tzeida of the chilazon. And on 74b, that the issur of tying derived from the Mishkan is that they would tie nets to catch the chilazon.

Some have tried to use this to demonstrate that the murex trunculus snail could not possibly be the chilazon. They are wrong. Here is the proper response to this assertion:


A bit later on the same amud, we find Cappadocia:
גופא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אין מדליקין בצרי וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר צרי אינו אלא שרף מעצי הקטף ר' ישמעאל אומר כל היוצא מן העץ אין מדליקין בו ר' ישמעאל בן ברוקה אומר אין מדליקין אלא ביוצא מן הפרי ר' טרפון אומר אין מדליקין אלא בשמן זית בלבד עמד רבי יוחנן בן נורי על רגליו ואמר מה יעשו אנשי בבל שאין להם אלא שמן שומשמין ומה יעשו אנשי מדי שאין להם אלא שמן אגוזים ומה יעשו אנשי אלכסנדריא שאין להם אלא שמן צנונות ומה יעשו אנשי קפוטקיא שאין להם לא כך ולא כך אלא נפט אלא אין לך אלא מה שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין
[To turn to] the main text: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may not kindle [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say: Balsam [zari] is merely the sap of resinous trees. R. Ishmael said: All that proceeds from trees, one may not light. R. Ishmael b. Berokah said: One may light only with the produce of fruit.11  R. Tarfon said: One may light [the Sabbath lamp] with nought but olive oil. Thereupon R. Johanan b. Nuri rose to his feet and exclaimed, What shall the Babylonians do, who have only sesame oil? And what shall the Medeans do, who have only nut oil? And what shall the Alexandrians do, who have only radish oil? And what shall the people of Cappadocia12  do, who have neither the one nor the other, save naphtha? But you have nought else but that concerning which the Sages said, One may not kindle [therewith].13
As Soncino notes, this is a district of Asia Minor. From the context here and in other places Cappadocia is mentioned, it is clear that Cappadocia is outside of Eretz Yisrael. It appears here alongside those of Bavel, Maday, and Alexadria.

See what I write on parshablog about Cappadocia and the authenticity of the Zohar. The Zohar seems to assume that Cappadocia is a place inside Eretz Yisrael. And in defense of the Zohar, a modern writer points to this very gemara!

So, where are you on Shabbat?

Via Yeranen Yaakov:



While she is on 26b, I've fallen a bit behind. I only caught up to 26a this morning, thanks to Hurricane Sandy.

Barzilai takes note of it, it modified form,



(note the changed font in the last panel and form of the textbox) and relates it to the Schenirer/Scherman Effect.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Shabbat 17-18: Bet Shammai vs. Bet Hillel on melacha completed on Shabbat

The Mishna on 17b:
מתני' ב"ש אומרים אין שורין דיו וסמנים וכרשינין אלא כדי שישורו מבעוד יום וב"ה מתירין
BETH SHAMMAI RULE: INK, DYES AND ALKALINE PLANTS17  MAY NOT BE STEEPED UNLESS THEY CAN BE DISSOLVED WHILE IT IS YET DAY;18  BUT BETH HILLEL, PERMIT IT. 
What is the nature of their dispute. Bavli, Yerushalmi, and Tosefta discuss it.

In Bavli, daf 18a:
דאמר רב אושעיא אמר רב אסי מאן תנא שביתת כלים דאורייתא ב"ש היא ולא בית הלל לב"ש בין קעביד מעשה בין דלא קעביד מעשה אסור לבית הלל אע"ג דקעביד מעשה שרי 
Now, however, that R. Oshaia said in R. Assi's name, Which Tanna [maintains that] the resting of utensils is a Biblical precept? It is Beth Shammai: then according to Beth Shammai, whether it [the utensil] performs an action or not, it is forbidden, while in the opinion of Beth Hillel even if it performs an action it is permitted. 
Thus, Bet Shammai will prohibit the completion of labor on Shabbat by vessels which belong to you, even though you do no action yourself on Shabbat. And Bet Hillel permit. One can connect this to various pesukim. Indeed, when Rav Yosef tries to bring the idea of shevisas keilim, he cites a brayta with a derasha:
א"ל רב יוסף ולימא מר משום שביתת כלים דתניא (שמות כג, יג) ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו לרבות שביתת כלים
The context of this pasuk:
יב  שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂיךָ, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת--לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ, שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ, וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן-אֲמָתְךָ, וְהַגֵּר.12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
יג  וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם, תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ; וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ, לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל-פִּיךָ.13 And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

Thus, the preceding pasuk was about Shabbat. I could argue that on a peshat level, this וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם, תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ is a summary pasuk, inclusive of matters not only of Shabbat but shemitta and shochad and sheker, or even and specifically matters unmentioned. But one can see the derasha binding to the immediately preceding pasuk, with the word וּבְכֹל acting to include. And furthermore, if we are going to include something, consider that the immediately preceding pasuk declared that not only shall you not work, but neither shall your ox and ass work. It is not a far stretch to say that all of one's possessions shall not work.

This, then, is the dispute between Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai make this derasha while Bet Hillel do not.

Of course, this assessment of the root of their dispute is not universal. While Rav Assi, and Rav Oshaya, explained it this way, we see a bit earlier the dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef:
ת"ר פותקין מים לגינה ע"ש עם חשיכה ומתמלאת והולכת כל היום כולו ומניחין מוגמר תחת הכלים (ע"ש) ומתגמרין והולכין כל היום כולו ומניחין גפרית תחת הכלים (ע"ש עם חשיכה) ומתגפרין והולכין כל השבת כולה ומניחין קילור ע"ג העין ואיספלנית על גבי מכה (ע"ש עם חשיכה) ומתרפאת והולכת כל היום כולו אבל אין נותנין חטין לתוך הריחים של מים אלא בכדי שיטחנו מבעוד יום מאי טעמא אמר רבה מפני שמשמעת קול א"ל רב יוסף ולימא מר משום שביתת כלים דתניא (שמות כג, יג) ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו לרבות שביתת כלים
Thus, Rabba does not wish to give shivitat keilim as a reason, because this brayta must be according to Bet Hillel. But Rav Yosef does not appear to care. If so, both Bet Hillel and Beit Shamai maintain this prohibition of shevitat keilim, and we must explain their dispute otherwise.

If we look to the Yerushalmi, we see the following accounting:
דף יא, ב פרק א הלכה ה משנה  ב"ש אומרים אין שורין דיו וסממנים וכרשינן אלא כדי שישורו מבעוד יום וב"ה מתירין:
דף יא, ב פרק א הלכה ה גמרא  ומה טעמהון דבית שמאי (שמות כ) ששת ימים תעבוד ועשית כל מלאכתך.  כל מלאכתך גומרה מבעוד יום.  ומה טעמהון דב"ה.  ששת ימים תעשה מעשיך וביום.
The Yerushalmi continues to show how they apply each other's pesukim. See inside.

Bet Shammai says:
ח  שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד, וְעָשִׂיתָ כָּל-מְלַאכְתֶּךָ.8 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;

If I may intrude into Bet Shammai, who says כל מלאכתך גומרה מבעוד יום, this is a careful reading of the pasuk. As a translation, שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד, six days you shall work, וְעָשִׂיתָ כָּל-מְלַאכְתֶּךָ, "and you will have done all of your work."

Meanwhile, Bet Hillel's pasuk is one which appeared above:

pasuk:
יב  שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂיךָ, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת--לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ, שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ, וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן-אֲמָתְךָ, וְהַגֵּר.12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
יג  וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם, תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ; וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ, לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל-פִּיךָ.13 And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.


He is taking the juxtaposition of uvayom, to show that you may even do the work on the Yom HaShevii. In what manner? Where the work continues of its own accord.

Some meforshim, perhaps suffering from Bavli bias, read shevisas keilim into Bet Shamai.
מתני' ב"ש אומרים אין שורין דיו וסממנים לעשות מהם צבע וכרשינן מאכל בהמה. ואומרים ב"ש שאסור להשרות אותם במים  אלא כדי שישורו מבעוד יום אלא אם תסתיים שרייתם מבעוד יום וב"ה מתירין ובגמרא נראה טעם מחלוקתם. גמ' ומה טעמהון דבית שמאי? שנאמר (שמות כה) ששת ימים תעבוד ועשית כל מלאכתך ודורשים ב"ש כל מלאכתך גומרה מבעוד יום ואסרה תורה שמלאכתך תיעשה בשבת, אפילו אם המלאכה לא נעשית על ידך אלא ע"י כלים שלך, סוברים שגם הכלים צריכים לשבות ומה תעמהון דב"ה? ששת ימים תעשה מעשיך וביום כלומר, יש מלאכות שמותר שתיעשנה גם ביום השביעי, כגוך לשרות דיו וכיו"ב שהמלאכה נעשית מאליה. 
This seems possible, but not necessarily required.

The Tosefta has a slight variant:
ואלו עמדו בתשובתן אלא שב"ש אומרים (שמות כ) ששת ימים תעבוד ועשית כל מלאכתך שתהא כל מלאכתך גמורה מע"ש ובה"א (שמות כג) ששת ימים תעשה <מלאכה> [עושה] אתה כל ששה.
The square brackets are the words to include, a pointy brackets are words to exclude, according to whichever scholars decided it. (I haven't seen the manuscripts or sevara behind this.) Note the word uvayom is not included. I am not sure how specifically to darshen this. Perhaps Bet Shammai say that the work must be completed during the six days, while Bet Hillel hold one can work with direct action all six, and if it then completes on its own, that is not action that you took. I am not sure.

If we wished to listen to the word in pointy brackets, we would get a completely different derasha for Bet Hillel. This would point to Shemot 35:2:
ב  שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יִהְיֶה לָכֶם קֹדֶשׁ שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן, לַיהוָה; כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בוֹ מְלָאכָה, יוּמָת.2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death.

What is special about this pasuk is that תֵּעָשֶׂה  it is in the passive. Not "you shall do" but "shall be done". The tav in the beginning of the word תֵּעָשֶׂה is not indicative of masculine second person singular "you shall", but is indicative of feminine third person, since melacha is feminine "she shall".

Join that with the word וּבַיּוֹם, which we saw Bet Hillel darshen above, and we see a manner in which work can be done on Shabbat, even as you are not the one actively doing it.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Shabbat 14: When was the first enacted?

On Shabbat daf 14:
'And the hands'? — Because hands are fidgety.17  It was taught: Also hands which came into contact with a Book18  disqualify terumah, on account of R. Parnok['s dictum]. For R. Parnok said in R. Johanan's name: One who holds a Scroll of the Law naked19  will be buried naked. 'Naked!' can you really think so? Rather said R. Zera, [It means] naked without good deeds.20  'Without good deeds!' can you really think so?21  Rather say, naked, without that good deed [to his credit].22
Which was first enacted? Shall we say that the former was first enacted?23 But since this was first enacted, why was the other too needed? — Rather the latter was first decreed, and then it was enacted in respect of all hands.
This last argument, as to which decree was enacted first, seems difficult. Impurity for hands in general is only in a stam case, where people are not being careful of what their hands touch. But if they remain cognizant, hands are not rendered impure.

This is a halacha recorded even in the Rambam's Mishneh Torah:
A person may wash his hands in the morning and stipulate that [the washing will be effective] for the entire day. Thus, he will not have to wash before each time he eats. [This rule applies] only when he does not divert his attention from his hands. If, however, he diverts his attention from them, he must wash them whenever it is required.
And this, not because it is such a farfetched case. (Based on Chulin daf 106. Maybe this is only for tahara for chullin, and not for terumah though?)

Meanwhile, ritual impurity from touching a sefer means that, once one is being careful not to touch items, he also should not touch a sefer.

If so, there seems to be no strong proof that the impurity of sefarim was enacted first!

Indeed, Tosafot ask this question on 14b:
כיון דהך גזור ברישא הא תו למה לי. ואם תאמר והא נפקא מינה לנוגע בספר מיד אחר נטילה ולא הסיח דעתו ואפילו הכי ידיו טמאות משום דרבי פרנך ויש לומר דמשום הא לא היו גוזרין דמילתא דלא שכיחא היא שיגע בספר מיד אחר נטילה ומיהו השתא דגזור ידים מחמת ספר ברישא אפילו נוגע סמוך לנטילה גזרו עליה שלא חלקו:
and they answer that it is not shchiach, because it needs to be immediately after washing hands before hesech hadaat, which is farfetched. But it need not be so immediate, and need not be farfetched.

As is often the case, Tosafot's question is extremely strong, and the answer not so much so. I would endorse the question and leave it as a strong question on the setama degemara, who suggested this idea.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Shabbat 13a: Why Ulla kissed his sisters' bosoms

On Shabbat 13a:
'Ulla, on his return from the college,20  used to kiss his sisters on their bosoms; others say, on their hands. But he is self-contradictory, for 'Ulla said, Even any form of intimacy is forbidden,21  because we say, 'Take a circuitous route, O nazirite, but do not approach the vineyard.'22
I think that with a bit of contemplation we can resolve this contradiction in Ulla's position. The action of Ulla is somewhat local, though not necessarily entirely so. We can understand how this entire section might have been imported from a foreign sugya, based on the discussion immediately above, which is about "approaching" and those who are near of kin:
Come and hear: And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a woman who is a niddah:18  thus a woman who is a niddah is assimilated to his neighbour's wife: just as his neighbour's wife, he in his garment and she in hers is forbidden, so if his wife is a niddah, he in his garment and she in hers is forbidden. This proves it. Now, this disagrees with R. Pedath. For R. Pedath said: The Torah interdicted only intimacy of incestuous coition, as it is said, None of you, shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.19
There is a parallel sugya in Avoda Zara 17a where this whole discussion repeats. However, we see that statement of telling a nazir to avoid the vineyard from other Amoraim (e.g. in an exchange between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Assi).

However, it is the setama who is arranging this contradiction, and the setama usually bases himself on something we can find elsewhere by itself. Yet we search and do not find the isolated statement. Perhaps one could say that the isolated statement was obliterated, because in all cases the gemara decided to oppose the action with the statement.

However, what I think really happened is that the statement was made in an entirely different context, in Pesachim about certain types of Chametz.

ש[דתניא] ר' יוסי אומר שורן בחומץ וחומץ צומתן כי אשמעינן ליה לרבי יוסי הני מילי דאיתיה בעיניה אבל על ידי תערובת לא עולא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אסור משום לך לך אמרינן נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב

I think the gemara took that position of Ulla as a general principle, thus extrapolating to conduct toward one's relatives. But Ulla only applied that approach in limited circumstances, not relating to conduct toward one's sisters.

By the way, bosom vs. hand is a girsological issue, and that is what "some say" means. Different manuscripts have either a yud or a chet there. I can't speak towards which is more plausible. I lean towards hand, but that might be my cultural bias at work. Certainly bosom is something that would spark more of an objection, but indeed, under lectio difficilior, that might be a reason it is less original. At the end of the day, I don't know.

Also consider that the gemara's statement that ופליגא דידיה אדידיה could have influenced such a mess-up towards hands from bosoms.

Shabbat 12a: Lice and teaching a trade

On Shabbat 12a:
Our Rabbis taught: If one searches his garments [on the Sabbath] he may press [the vermin] and throw it away, providing that he does not kill it. Abba Saul said: He must take and throw it away, providing that he does not press it. R. Huna said, The halachah is, he may press and throw it away, and that is seemly, even on weekdays. Rabbah killed them, and R. Shesheth killed them.21  Raba threw them into a basin of water. R. Nahman said to his daughters, 'Kill them and let me hear the sound of the hated ones.'22
Rashi explains that when these Amoraim killed them, it was on Shabbat. Tosafot note that Riva says this refers to the week, and that it is going on Rav Huna, but that we rely on Rashi.

I think we can find support for Rashi in the parallel Yerushalmi, Shabbat 7b-8a (with interpolated commentary by the excellent Yedid Nefesh):
ולא יפלה וכו' אפילו בחול אמור שאינה דרך כבוד. תני המפלה את כליו המנקה את בגדיו מהכינים בשבת נוטל וזורק את הכינה ובלבד שלא ימלול שלא ילחץ אותה באצבעותיו להתיש כוחה שמא יהרוג אותה. אבא שאול אומר מולל וזורק יכול למלול להתיש כוחה שלא תבוא אליו שוב ובלבד שלא יהרוג. חזקיה אמר, ההורג כינה בשבת כהורג גמל ומשמע שאוסר למלול. שמואל מקטע ידה ורגלה ויהב לה קומי מיניקה היה קוטע את ידיה ורגליה של הכינה שלא תחזור אליו ומניחה ליד הספל, אבל לא היה הורג אותה. ר' יוסי בי ר' בון יהיב ליה גו צלוחיתא הניח את הכינה בצלוחית של מים. ואע"פ שתמות שם, סובר שהריגת כינה אינה אלא שבות, לכן מתיר בשינוי. ושואל א"ר שמעון בן חלפתא, ולא מחלזון שמענו וחלזון? הרי עיקר דין הריגת בע"ח לומדים מחילזון, והרי לחילזון יש לו גידים ועצמות ולכינה אין גידים ועצמות, ומדוע חייב בכינה? ועונה ולא כן תניוכי לא כן למדנו כל דבר שאין לו גידים ועצמות אינו הי יותר מששה חדשים ומזה שהכינה חיה יותר מששה חדשים כנראה יש לה גידים ועצמות! 
Shmuel's action would appear to be not to kill it, but Rabbi Yosi bei Rabbi Bon would seem to parallel that of Rava, of throwing into a basin of water.

Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta was a Tanna, a contemporary of Rabbi, so he would not be asking on Rabbi Yossi bei Rabbi Bon, an Amora.

I suppose one could intepret Shmuel and R' Yossi bei Rabbi Bon in context of the afilu bechol, in the beginning, but the context in Yerushalmi does seem to strongly support that this was on Shabbat.

Why would one be allowed to kill lice on Shabbat? Rashi says:
מאכולת - כינה:
מתירין - כדמפרש טעמא בפרק שמונה שרצים (לקמן דף קז:) מאילים מאדמים דמשכן מה אילים פרים ורבים אף כל שפרה ורבה וכינה אינה פרה ורבה אלא מבשר אדם היא שורצת:
That is, lice spontaneously generate from human flesh. The famous question is what do we say nowadays, once we know that lice do not spontaneously generate. The famous Science and Torah debate.

See this article by Rabbi Nosson Slifkin about this topic at Daat Emet: The Sweat-Louse, the Dirt-Mouse, and the Dong-Chong A Study of Spontaneous Generation in Jewish Law.

A bit later in the gemara, this:
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Vermin must not be killed on the Sabbath: this is the view of Beth Shammai; while Beth Hillel permit it. And R. Simeon b. Eleazar said likewise on the authority of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: One must not negotiate for the betrothal of children [girls],23  nor for a boy, to teach him the book24  and to teach him a trade,25  nor may mourners be comforted, nor may the sick be visited on the Sabbath:26  that is the ruling of Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel permit it.
Of course, we know the parallel Shabbat zemer. Check out this idea from Dr. Marc Shapiro, in a post on the Seforim blog:
I sympathize with Artscroll when confronted with the need to translate the words למנצח בנגינות in the song. It is obvious that the words make no sense. Until then the passage was speaking about what was permitted on the Sabbath and then you have למנצח בנגינות .

This is an old problem and while a couple of forced answers have been suggested, others have argued that what we have here a mistaken reading, and instead of למנצח בנגינות it should read וללמדו אומנות (perhaps even reading אומנות with a final holam in order to make it rhyme). The entire paragraph in Mah Yedidot is derived from Shabbat 150a, and there it states: משדכין על התינוקות ליארס בשבת ועל התינוק ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות. After seeing this, can anyone still have a doubt that the standard version is incorrect?

R. Mazuz is apparently unaware that others before him had already suggested that וללמדו אומנות was the original version,[3] but he is the only one to suggest why the text was changed. Although it strikes me as a bit far-fetched, he assumes that when people stopped teaching their sons a trade this verse became problematic, and therefore someone took it upon himself to alter the text.
Neat idea.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Shabbat 10a: Girding oneself for prayer

On Shabbat 10a:
R. Shesheth demurred: Is it any trouble to remove the girdle!4  moreover, let him stand thus [ungirdled] and pray? &mdash Because it is said, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.5 

See here about the Zoroastrian religious article, a kustig, which was a sort of girdle. Apparently, they were aware of it and interacted with Zoroastrians in this regard.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Shabbat 10-11: Rava bar Mechasya

We encounter on this daf the run of statements by Rava bar Mechasia citing Rav Chama bar Guria citing Rav. It is possible that these are simply a collection by Ravina and Rav Ashi of all such statements, all assembled into one location, but I suspect that they may have formed their own collection at an earlier stage. As we are informed:
R. Hisda was holding two [priestly] gifts of oxen in his hand.14  Said he, 'Whoever will come and tell me a new dictum in Rab's name, I will give them to him.' Said Raba b. Mehasia to him, Thus did Rab say: If one makes a gift to his neighbour he must inform him, as it is said, 'that ye may know that I the Lord sanctify you'. Thereupon he gave them to him. Are Rab's dicta so dear to you? asked he. Yes, he replied. That illustrates what Rab said, he rejoined, A garment is precious to its wearer.15  Did Rab indeed say thus! he exclaimed; I rate the second higher than the first, and if I had another [priestly gift] I would give it to you.
(It is funny that both of Rava bar Mechasya's citations are on target: first a statement about gifts, and then a statement about things which are dear.)

This incident may have been the impetus for Rava bar Mechasia to begin assembling such a collection of things he had heard from his teacher.

Rav was a first generation Amora, which would make Rav Chama bar Guria a second generation Amora and Rava bar Mechasia a third generation Amora, it would seem.

We see that Rav Chisda coexisted with Rava bar Mechasia, first because he interacts with Rav Chisda in the story above, and less so, but interesting to note, because Rav Chisda clarifies one of his statements:
Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: Fasting is as potent against a dream as fire against tow.10  Said R. Hisda: Providing it is on that very day. R. Joseph added: And even on the Sabbath.11
Rav Chisda was a third generation Amora himself. Rav Chisda lived in Bavel, and was first a student of Rav. After Rav's death, he studied under Rav Huna (second generation Amora) in Sura. They had a parting of ways:
The separation was brought about by a question from Rav Chisda as to the obligations of a disciple toward a master to whom he is indispensable. Rav Huna saw the point and said, "Chisda, I do not need thee; it is thou that needst me!". Forty years passed before they became reconciled.[11] Rav Chisda nevertheless held Rav Huna in great esteem, and although he had established a school built at his own expense in Mata Mehasya four years before Rav Huna's death,[12] he never published any decision during the Rav Huna's lifetime.[13] 
Also,
Rav Chisda also presided over the Academy of Sura for ten years following the death of Rav Yehuda,[15] or following the death of Rav Huna, according to Abraham ibn Daud.[16]
So he presided over both the academy of Sura and of the nearby Mata Mechasya. They are NOT the same place.

I have to wonder whether Rava bar Mechasia was not the son of someone named Mechasia, but was rather someone named Rava (in other words, Rabbi Abba) who lived in the town of Mechasya.

We see Rav Ashi, a sixth-generation Amora, who reopened the academy of Sura after Rav Chisda's death, pay heed to two statements of Rava bar Mechasia. (Regarding dreams and synagogue height.) Rav Ashi died in 427 CE.

Consider this gemara:
Raba b. Mehasia also said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: Every city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed, as it is said, to exalt the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof.2  Yet that refers only to houses; but as for towers and turrets, we have no objection. R. Ashi said: I achieved for the town of Mehasia3  that it was not destroyed.4  But it was destroyed!5 — It was not destroyed as a result of that sin.
I would posit that when Rav Ashi the statement, it was absolutely true. And where the setama degemara objects and responds that it was indeed destroyed, but for a different sin, that was at some later time.

If we look at the footnote in Soncino, we can get some idea as to the date of this destruction:
There is evidence that Mehasia was still standing in the second half of the seventh; consequently the destruction mentioned here must have been a partial one; ibid. p. 290.
Perhaps we are not talking about partial destruction, though. Perhaps whoever wrote this setama degemara was quite late. There is evidence of even Geonic insertions into the Talmud, and maybe this is one such insertion.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Shabbat daf 9: Bavel vs. Eretz Yisrael regarding the start of the meal


On Shabbat daf 9:
And when is the beginning of eating? Rab said: When one washes his hands; R. Hanina said: When he loosens his girdle. But they do not differ: the one refers to ourselves [Babylonians]: the other to them [Palestinians].16  Abaye said: These Babylonian scholars, on the view that the evening service is voluntary,17  once they have undone their girdle [to eat], we do not trouble them;18  but on the view that it is obligatory, do we trouble them? 
There is a machlokes between Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel as to which is the lan and which is the lehu -- which practice is that of the Babylonians and which of the residents of Eretz Yisrael. Rashi says that the loosening of the girdle is the Babylonian custom. Thus:
Rashi: the Babylonians were tightly belted, so they loosened the girdle before eating; but for the Palestinians this was unnecessary. R. Han. reverses it.
Indeed, we see elsewhere that wearing the girdle was a Babylonian practice. On the other hand, consider that Rabbi Chanina was an Amora of Eretz Yisrael. Back on the first hand, consider that Rabbi Chanina was not an Amora of Eretz Yisrael, but a Babylonian who traveled there. So was Rav. Also consider that Abaye rather explicitly associates the girdle with the Babylonians. And Rabbenu Chananel does not only reverse it, but gives both as options. (See on the daf itself.)

We can bring in the Yerushalmi (Shabbat 7a), and see for ourselves that they exclusively say washing.
ולא לאכול.  התחלת אכילה.  איזו היא.  רב אחא רבי בא בשם רבי משיטול ידיו.  רבי אחא אמר לקידוש איתאמרת.  רבי בא אמר לברכה איתאמרת.  רב נסב לידוי רמז חייא בריה למזוגא.  בעא מיתן ליה.  אמר ליה כבר התחלנו בסעודה.  דילמא ר' מיישא ורבי שמואל בר רב יצחק הוון יתבין אכלין בחדא מן כנישתא עילייתא.  אתא ענתא דצלותא קם ליה רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק מיצלייא.  אמר ליה ר' מיישא ולא כן אלפן רבי אם התחילו אין מפסיקין.  ותני חזקיה כל מי שהוא פטור מן הדבר ועושהו נקרא הדיוט.  א"ל והתניא חתן פטור.  חתן אם רוצה לקרות קורא.
As for myself, I am not so convinced by the gemara's ha lan ha lehu. It sounds like something the gemara intuited for itself from Abaye's following statement, that it is particular to Babylonian scholars, and then applied the idea of ha lan ha lehu from elsewhere. But Abaye is only ascribing the position of maariv as a reshus to those of Bavel, not the girdle.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Shabbat daf 6-7: Karmelit

At the bottom of Shabbat 6b, going on to 7a:
The Master said: 'But the sea, a plain, a colonnade, and a karmelith rank neither as public nor as private ground.' But is a plain neither private nor public ground? Surely we learnt: A plain: in summer it is private ground in respect to the Sabbath and public ground in respect to uncleanness;12  in winter it is private ground in both respects!13  — Said 'Ulla: After all it is a karmelith; yet why is it called private ground? Because it is not public ground.14  R. Ashi said: E.g., when it has barriers,1  and [this is] in accordance with the following dictum of 'Ulla in R. Johanan's name: An enclosure more than two se'ahs [in area]2  which is not enclosed in attachment to a dwelling place,3  even if it is a kor or two kor [in area],4  if one throws [an article] therein [from public ground] he is liable. What is the reason? It is a partitioned area, but it lacks inhabitants.5  Now, as for R. Ashi, it is well that he does not explain it as 'Ulla;6  but why does 'Ulla not explain it in accordance with his own dictum? — He answers you: if it has barriers, is it called a plain: [surely] it is an enclosure! And R. Ashi?7 — 'Private ground' is taught.8
This dispute between Rav Ashi and Ulla can be classified as a dispute between Bavli and Yerushalmi. Rav Ashi is the redactor of Bavli, while Ulla is an Amora from Eretz Yisrael. Indeed, if we turn to Yerushalmi, we will find that it is in line with Ulla. In Yerushalmi Berachot 5b (with the commentary of the always excellent Yedid Nefesh embedded):
ים ובקעה ואיסטווה מקום שיושבים הסוחרים לפני החנות ואסקופה מפתן שאצל הפתח, ורק אם רחב ד' טפחים, ואם אינו רחב הוה מקום פטור וכרמלית, אינן לא רשות הרבים ולא רשות היחיד. ואין נושאין ונותנין מטלטלים בהן מדרבנן ואם נשא ונתן בהן פטור. אמר רב יוסף אף אנן תנינן כולהן. ים, דתנינן תמן להלן פרק יא הזורק בים ארבע אמות פטור. לא סוף דבר לא רק אם זרק ד' אמות בים, אלא אפי' זורק בכל הים פטור לפי שכל הים נקרא כרמלית. בקעה, דתנינן טהרות פרק ו הבקעה, בימות החמה שאין בה זרעים רשות היחיד לשבת כי אין רבים מהלכים שם, לפי שאנשים רגילים ללכת במסילה ורשות הרבים לטומאה לעניין שספיקו טהור. ובימות הגשמים, רשות היחיד לכאן ולכאן כך היא הגירסה. כי השדה זרועה ואין נכנסים שם כלל. אם אומר את וכשאתה אומר שבימות הגשמים שדה זו רשות היחיד לכאן ולכאן, לא תהא טעונה הקפה כלי בהמה אם חנו שם איך צורך להקיף את המקום כדי שיוכלו לטלטל בתוכה דתנינן עירובין פרק א, שיירה שחנתה בבקעה הקיפוה כלי בהמה, מטלטלין בתוכה ואם רשות היחיד היא מדוע אמרו להקיף? אלא כרמלית היא, ומה שאמר רה"י הכוונה שאינה רה"ר.
That is, in analyzing the very same brayta as Bavli about the sea, plain, collonade, and karmelit, the Yerushalmi notes that it classifies it as non-reshut hayachid. And so it cites that other brayta about the plain (valley) in rainy vs. sunny season, where it is classified as reshut hayachid; and it concludes that it is not precisely reshut hayachid. Where Rav Ashi (=Bavli) would say no, it is a reshut hayachid, and we are dealing with where it has walls, the Yerushalmi says, similar to Ulla, that it could not be so, because otherwise we would not require an enclosure to be able to carry within it.

What is a karmelit, though? It appears as both the name of the class: karmelit; and as an item within the list of things which are karmelit. This is what prompts the following Bavli:
'And a karmelith.' Are then all these [sea, plain and colonnade] too not karmelith? — When R. Dimi came,9  he said in the name of R. Johanan: This is necessary only in respect of a corner near a street:10  though the masses sometimes press and overflow therein,11  yet since it is inconvenient for [general] use, it ranks as a karmelith.
I would adopt a slightly different approach. Something is certainly off if it is the class name and an item name, and pashut peshat in the brayta is not that it is listed merely to include an otherwise unmentioned item. If this were indeed so, then Tosafot's question would indeed be a strong question. Tosafot ask why they did not include tzidei reshut harabim. And Tosafot gives a good answer, but still, it is a good question that would have deserved mention in the gemara itself, I think.

More than that, what is the etymology of karmelit? The Yerushalmi has it as:
כרמלית, תני רבי חייא כתיב (ויקרא כג, יד) ולחם קלי וכרמל, ומפרש כרמל, רך מלא נמלל ביד אינו לא לח ולא יבש אלא בינוני. והכא וגם לעניינינו הכרמלית אינה לא רה"ר ולא רה"י אלא כרמלית.
It is an in between state. Rambam suggests likewise, giving the derivation as ke-armelit, "like a widow", who is neither married nor a never-married woman, but in an in between state. (The letters in lamnar, that is lamed mem nun resh switch off with each other, such that Hebrew Almana = Aramaic Armalta.) Both of these seem like folk etymologies, which are fanciful while speaking to the known implication or common usage of the term.

But I think there was an original real meaning of the term, which derives not from a Semitic language, but from some foreign tongue, perhaps Greek or Latin. And a karmelit was a type of place, just like a collonade or a valley. But, they seized upon karmelit as an exemplar for the whole group. At that point, rabbinic sorts of people forgot, on the whole, the original meaning of karmelit as specific domain X and instead treated it as class of domain Y.

So of course karmelit is part of the class of karmelit.

What is the specific (rather than class of) domain which is a  karmelit? Rabbi Yochanan, in Yerushalmi, speaks of it as a known type of place. Thus:
איזו הא כרמלית? רבי יסא בשם רבי יוחנן כגון חנותיה דבר יוסטיני החנות של בר יוסטיני.
None of the meforshim on the daf can really define the chanut of bar Yustini, because they don't have access to contemporary knowledge.

It is a logical guess to associate the two statements of Rabbi Yochanan, namely the one cited in Yerushalmi and the one cited in Bavli. Thus, when we see in Bavli:
When R. Dimi came,9  he said in the name of R. Johanan: This is necessary only in respect of a corner near a street.
I would say that this is not coming to give an inclusion of a new item, which is how it is most simply understood and how it presents a difficulty to Tosafot. Rather, Rabbi Yochanan, as an early first generation Amora who had contact with Tannaim, is defining for us what was known to be the literal karmelit. Which would make this the definition of the chanut of bar Yustini.

The years of Yustini to Justinian do not work out, but there is a famous courtyard later associated with Justinian, so maybe we can put the precise reference to a later writer: Justinian's Augustaion. To cite Wikipedia:
Originating as a public market, in the 6th century it was transformed into a closed courtyard surrounded by porticoes, and provided the linking space between some of the most important edifices in the Byzantine capital. The square survived until the late Byzantine period, albeit in ruins, and traces were still visible in the early 16th century.
The square dates back to ancient Byzantium, before its conversion into an imperial capital by Constantine the Great. When Roman EmperorSeptimius Severus (r. 193–211) rebuilt the city, he erected a large square surrounded by porticoes, hence named the Tetrastoon ("four stoas"). In the center of the square stood a column with a statue of the god Helios.[1] In the 320s, Constantine adorned his chosen new capital with many new monumental buildings. His activities included new structures around the Tetrastoon, while the Augustaion was likely carved out of its eastern part at that time, and named after a Porphyry column supporting a statue of his mother, the Augusta Helena.[1][2] The Augustaion was rebuilt in 459 under Emperor Leo I (r. 457–474), and again in the 530s, after being destroyed in the Nika riot, by Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565). In its original form, the square was open to the public and functioned as the city's food market (agora), but after Justinian's reconstruction, it became more of an enclosed courtyard where access was restricted. Byzantine writers from the 7th century on refer to it as explicitly as a court or forecourt (αὐλή, αὐλαία, προαύλιον) of the Hagia Sophia.[1][2]
...
Enclosed on all sides, the Augustaion was entered in its western and southern side, respectively through the Melete and Pinsos Gates, from the Mesē, the city's main thoroughfare.[1] Directly outside the square stood the Milion, the mile marker from which all distances in the Empire were measured. To its north, the Augustaion was bounded by the Hagia Sophia cathedral and the Patriarchal palace (Patriarcheion), to its east by one of the two Senate houses of the city, built by Constantine or Julian (r. 360–363) and rebuilt by Justinian with a porch of six great columns adorning its front.
Thus, if this is the same item the Yerushalmi refers to (!), then we are dealing with a square surrounded by porticos. Or a square, initially open to the public but later, an enclosed courtyard where access was restricted; where Justinian erected a column. We would need to work out the particulars, and scholars already have, for different time periods. But my guess is that this is somehow the karmelit to which Rabbi Yochanan refers.

Thus, this is a karmelis (3d reconstruction):