Shabbat 31b: Rava's diyuk

On daf 29b, I discussed the variant in the Mishna from Ktav Yad Kaufmann:

With the word מפני written in the margins, Rabbi Yossi's position in the Mishna becomes somewhat ambiguous.

1. It could be that the word מפני is implicitly there, in which case Rabbi Yossi only exempts when he wishes to spare the lamp or oil, but not if he wishes to spare the wick.
2. It could be that Rabbi Yossi exempts in all three cases, including where he wishes to spare the wick. The only place he holds one liable is for the wick which he is making into a pecham, charcoal. That is, it is his intention to light and then blow out the wick, to as to make it more fit for subsequent lighting.

Now on 31b, we see both possibilities put forth by different Amoraim.

Ulla holds like position #1, maybe.

ר' יוסי כמאן ס"ל אי כר' יהודה ס"ל אפילו בהנך נמי ליחייב ואי כר"ש ס"ל פתילה נמי ליפטר אמר עולא לעולם כר' יהודה ס"ל וקסבר ר' יוסי סותר על מנת לבנות במקומו הוי סותר על מנת לבנות שלא במקומו לא הוי סותר א"ל רבה מכדי כל מלאכות ילפינן להו ממשכן והתם סותר ע"מ לבנות שלא במקומו הוא א"ל שאני התם כיון דכתיב (במדבר ט, יח) על פי ה' יחנו כסותר ע"מ לבנות במקומו דמי 

Ulla maintains that Rabbi Yossi really holds like Rabbi Yehuda. He holds that only where one does a destructive action in order to make a constructive action in its place. Try to figure out Ulla, and see Tosafot.

But Rabbi Yochanan and Rava clearly hold like position #2:

ור' יוחנן אמר לעולם כר"ש ס"ל ומאי שנא פתילה כדאמר רב המנונא ואיתימא רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בפתילה שצריך להבהבה עסקינן דבההיא אפילו ר"ש מודי דקא מתקן מנא אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני שנעשית פחם ש"מ:

That is, Rabbi Yochanan is asserting that in the general case of wick, Rabbi Yossi would indeed hold him exempt. It is only in the פתילה שצריך להבהבה that we are dealing. 

Then, Rava makes the diyuk in our Mishna. דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני שנעשית פחם ש"מ:

Note that when Rava quotes the Mishna, he does not include the word מפני. When he says what the Mishna does not say, he uses the word מפני. Some later hand corrupted Rava's statement. But at its core, it should read דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני. And stop there. You do not need to alternate between active and passive voice to make Rava's diyuk. Nor would the passive voice of שנעשית פחם necessarily be a convincing argument against the idea that it is a פתילה שצריך להבהבה, where he is מתקן מנא.

Shabbat 29b: Rabbi Yossi exempts in all of them except...

The Mishna at the bottom of Shabbat 29b:

מתני' המכבה את הנר מפני שהוא מתירא מפני נכרים ומפני ליסטי' מפני רוח רעה מפני החולה שיישן פטור כחס על הנר כחס על השמן כחס על הפתילה חייב רבי יוסי פוטר בכולן חוץ מן הפתילה מפני שהוא עושה פחם:

MISHNAH. IF ONE EXTINGUISHES THE LAMP BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF GENTILES, ROBBERS, OR AN EVIL SPIRIT,³⁴  OR FOR THE SAKE OF AN INVALID, THAT HE SHOULD SLEEP, HE IS NOT CULPABLE.³⁵  IF [BECAUSE] HE WOULD SPARE THE LAMP, THE OIL, OR THE WICK, HE IS CULPABLE. R. JOSE EXEMPTS HIM IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT IN RESPECT OF THE WICK, BECAUSE HE MAKES CHARCOAL.³⁶

The Mishna, as it stands, is difficult to understand, within Rabbi Yossi's position. Perhaps to be discussed when we encounter the gemara on this.

When I was in Dr. Tzvi Hirsch Shteinfeld's class, he pointed out that in Ktav Yad Kaufmann (here for full color), the girsa in the Mishna is slightly different, with a very different implication.

משנה

Budapest, Akademia , Kaufmann A 50

שבת ב ד - שבת ג ו

According to this manuscript, the word מפני is a later insertion. See how it was written into the margins. If so, Rabbi Yossi's position is that he is exempt in all of them, meaning that he exempts in כחס על הנר כחס על השמן כחס על הפתילה. To stress, he even exempts in כחס על הפתילה. He only holds one liable in the case of הפתילה שהוא עושה פחם. That is, the wick that he is trying to light and extinguish, specifically in order to make it into charcoal.

Dr. Shteinfeld then proves that this is indeed the girsa of the Mishna that  the Amoraim had, even if the setama degemara did not have it -- from the diyuk that Rava makes. See the section of the gemara on 31b, starting with "With whom does R. Jose agree? If with R. Judah...".

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.

Berachot 21b: The halacha is not like him or like them?

On Berachot 21b:

יבעיא להו מהו להפסיק ליהא שמו הגדול מבורך כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יהודה ור"ש תלמידי דרבי יוחנן אמרי לכל אין מפסיקין חוץ מן יהא שמו הגדול מבורך שאפילו עוסק במעשה מרכבה פוסק ולית הלכתא כותיה:

Or, in English:

The question was asked: What is the rule about interrupting [the Tefillah] to respond. May His great name be blessed?¹⁰  — When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said that R. Judah and R. Simeon¹¹  the disciples of R. Johanan say that one interrupts for nothing except 'May His great name be blessed', for even if he is engaged in studying the section of the work of [the Divine] Chariot,¹²  he must interrupt [to make this response]. But the law is not in accordance with their view.¹³

The actual statement from Rav Dimi is in Hebrew, and the setama degemara adds in, in Aramaic, ולית הלכתא כותיה, that the halacha is not like him.

Not that it really matters, but the halacha is not like who? Like the single person, Rav Dimi, or like the two people, Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazzi and Rabbi Shimon ben Abba?

Based on good manuscripts, it seems that it should be the plural, כותייהו, "like them".

Thus, we have the following. The first has כותיה:

Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale , II.1.7

But Munich has כותייהו:

As does this.

Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale , Heb. 671

Again, in this instance, it does not really make a difference lehalacha. It still is a good thing to check out in general.