Talmud Bavli - Scribal Error? some minor questions...
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz
Despite the title of the post, I am not claiming to have discovered an
authentic "scribal error" in the Talmud, but I do have a minor
question about differences...
I was recently reading through tractate Sanhedrin for an article I'm
going to do for my site, and in 110a I came across a part that read
(roughly) as follows:
V'amar Rabi Levi: "masoi sh'lsh me'ot pardot l'vanot hayu maftchot
shel beyt g'nazaiv shel Qorach, V'khulhu aqlidei v'qilfei d'ghilda."
Rough translation: And Rabbi Levi said: "The keys to Korah's treasure
house was a load for 300 white mules and the keys and locks were
leather."
Well, I wanted to be sure of the translation (I'm not fluent in
Hebrew, as I'm sure others may have guessed), but all I had to work
with was a Shtainsaltz edition of Tractate Sanhedrin that was entirely
in Hebrew. So, to find an English translation, I did a bit of a
switch. I found out that the same passage also appears in tractate
Pesachim (119a), and I had access to Artscroll's edition of Pesachim
which was English and Hebrew. Anyway, when I was looking through it, I
noted some minor differences in the Hebrew. The first word of Rav
Levi's statement, "masoi," is spelled mem-sin-ALEPH-vav-yod, while the
Shtainsaltz edition does not have the aleph. Also, the Artscroll
edition says simply "maftchot beyt g'nazaiv," leaving out the "shel"
that appears in Shtainsaltz' Hebrew edition.
Now, of course I know these are minor issues. I know that even in
editions of the Torah there are versions that may have just a kholam
instead of a vav with a kholam, and stuff like that, so this should
not be surprising. The questions I have are, however, as follows:
1. I was not comparing two editions of the same tractate, so does this
difference between Pesachim and Sanhedrin actually exist? Or did
Shtainsaltz or Artscroll make a mistake? (NOTE: unfortunately, I do
not have a Shtainsaltz edition of Pesachim, or an Artscroll edition of
Sanhedrin - talk about irony)
2. If this is an actual difference between the same story in two
tractates (not an error by Adin Shtainsaltz or the editors of the
Artscroll edition), is this sort of thing common? I know that it is
not a major issue, as both versions give a nearly exact quote (and in
no way is the message lost or altered by the differences), but I am
curious as to how common something like this is. I know that
throughout the Talmud quotes come in different forms (and if you
compare Midrash Rabbah to the Talmud you can get the same quote from a
sage with even greater differences), but I'm curious about specific
examples of nearly exact quotes, with spelling variants...
3. Can anyone recommend a good book/source on the oral transmission of
the Talmud before it was put into writing?
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah
Charles Vitez
"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" <abuk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:7d1337a8.02062...@posting.google.com...
The extra aleph in "m'sui" per Pesachim exists. The (superfluous ?) "shel"
in Sanhedrin is not repeated in Pesachim.
***
> 2. If this is an actual difference between the same story in two
> tractates (not an error by Adin Shtainsaltz or the editors of the
> Artscroll edition), is this sort of thing common? I know that it is
> not a major issue, as both versions give a nearly exact quote (and in
> no way is the message lost or altered by the differences), but I am
> curious as to how common something like this is. I know that
> throughout the Talmud quotes come in different forms (and if you
> compare Midrash Rabbah to the Talmud you can get the same quote from a
> sage with even greater differences), but I'm curious about specific
> examples of nearly exact quotes, with spelling variants...
***CV reply***
I am by no means an expert, just a shass owner (now on CD as well).
There is no difference and it is pretty clear that exactly the same "moral
of the story" is being repeated.
However, my explanation of the textual differences is that the word "m'sui"
is an aramaic word (which we translate as "load"). The aramaic is being
transliterated into hebrew and, in such cases, the phonetics can differ even
though the same word is being used.
The use of "shel" twice in "shel beit geneizov shel Korah" as in Sanhedrin
seems to me to be the more correct usage, but even if the first "shel" is
omitted (which is quite common usage in hebrew) the phrase cannot be
understood in another way.
***
>
> 3. Can anyone recommend a good book/source on the oral transmission of
> the Talmud before it was put into writing?
***CV comment***
I am afraid not, but do let me know if you come across one. However, I would
recommend the Daf Yomi leaflets to you. There is an archive at
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/dafyomi2/index.htm
though m'seches Sanhedrin is not covered.
***
Micha Berger
: 1. I was not comparing two editions of the same tractate, so does this
: difference between Pesachim and Sanhedrin actually exist? ...
Nearly all editions are offsets or computer enhanced versions of the
version of the text published in the 19th century in Vilna, the "Vilna
Shas". So, the texts will probably be in common.
However, scribal errors are frequent. Within the Vilna Shas itself we
find textual variants -- words that appeared in some of their sources
that they thought should be omitted are put in parenthasis, words that
were only in one or two earlier version or mentioned by commentators but
they thought should be included are put in square brackets. Later (relatively)
editions of the Vilna Shas also have comments on the side of the page
about textual variants.
So it is possible you found a textual issue. However, it's unlikely you
found one that others missed. Possible, but with the number of searchers,
unlikely.
: 2. If this is an actual difference between the same story in two
: tractates (not an error by Adin Shtainsaltz or the editors of the
: Artscroll edition), is this sort of thing common? ...
The Talmuds are conversations. Different rabbi's quotes were redacted
together and even the redaction process involved centuries of debating
rabbis.
I think the more likely scenerio is that there were two version of the
story told, and each version found a place in a different volume.
: Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah
Not too many Abduls ask Talmud questions in these parts. Welcome!
-mi
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.
Chaim Yankl
sharing a love for the object in their vision but they do not necessarily
love each other; love is two looking at each other. What is the source of
your aphorism, why can't we be looking at God and He at us and what is the
direction you would have us and God looking to?
Micha Berger
: Two who look in the same direction are either a team of sorts or individuals
: sharing a love for the object in their vision but they do not necessarily
: love each other; love is two looking at each other. What is the source of
: your aphorism, why can't we be looking at God and He at us and what is the
: direction you would have us and God looking to?
See the discussion we had just last week about this quote. (Funny how no
one noticed it for months, and then come Tammuz it gets discussed twice.)
The quote is from "The Little Prince."
The thought piece is to suggests that loving Hashem includes "looking
in the direction He does". "Making His will your will". If you define
that love in terms of looking to G-d, then one could claim to acheive
that goal while ignoring a large percentage of the mitzvos.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Fiona
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote in message
>Now, of course I know these are minor issues. I know that even in
>editions of the Torah there are versions that may have just a kholam
>instead of a vav with a kholam, and stuff like that, so this should
>not be surprising. The questions I have are, however, as follows:
There is no such thing as a "vav with a holam" in the Torah, Holam is a
vowel point, there are no vowel points in the Torah. If it has vowel points
it is a Humash, not a Sefer Torah, a subtle but important difference.
However, what you are refering to is variant spellings, not textual
differences. There are many words in the Torah that are spelled differently
in different passages, but these passages are the same in all Sifrei Torah.
Every word maps to its itself in all copies of the Torah (including spelling
"mistakes"), if it does not, the Sefer is passul (invalid). Again a subtle
but important difference.
This is why the accusation that "Ezra changed the Torah" is false. At the
time of Ezra there were hundreds of thousands of Sifrei Torah spread across
the Jewish world, they were all identical, but the common man no longer used
the Katv Ivri (ancient Hebrew script) they were written in. He therefore
permitted that new ones could be written in Ktav Arami (Aramaic script), but
it was a one-to-one font mapping. Aleph (Ktav Ivri) became Aleph (Ktav
Arami), he did not change the language, or a single letter of a single word
(even "misspelled" words), he changed the font but he did not change the
font mappngs.
Fiona
Fiona
Fiona
Micha Berger wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:33:07 +0000 (UTC), Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah
al-Murtad Shabazz <abuk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: 1. I was not comparing two editions of the same tractate, so does this
>: difference between Pesachim and Sanhedrin actually exist? ...
>
>: Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah
>
>Not too many Abduls ask Talmud questions in these parts. Welcome!
Wait till you see where he is going with it....
My thoughts on scribal differences: before Guttenberg, everyone in the world
(except the Chinese) relied on hand copying, and the People of the Book had
more books and a more literate population than most. The Gemara (the
Completion) was redacted between 70-500 CE (approx), together with the
Mishnah it makes the Talmud. The Talmud was redacted in two separate places,
Babylon and Israel (then called Palestine by the Romans). The version
redacted in Israel became known as the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Babylonia
version the Talmud Bavli. Even for the sections that are in both versions
there are textual differences. (Actually, version is probably not the right
word as in many ways they are separate books with some overlap, e.g. the
Yerushalmi contains long discussion on agriculture that are missing in the
Bavli).
No one knows the date when the final letters were added to either version,
but for the whole vague period books, chapters, and sections were floating
around the Jewish world being studied and learned. It was shareware, if
anyone wanted a copy, they copied their own by hand. Those manuscripts that
were looked after better than others have come down to us as "authoritative"
versions, no matter what their original scribal source. Unlike the Torah,
where scribes had to serve long apprenticeships before they were allowed to
copy Torah scrolls, anyone could (and did) copy the Talmud.
By virtue of being the first "mass" produced edition, printed with moveable
type, the Vilna Edition became pretty much the "authorized" version of the
Talmud Bavli. It is a masterpiece of typesetting, one of the many wonders of
the literary world. No one else has anything that approaches it in depth,
scope, or utilitarian beauty.
Which version of the text is correct? Who knows, it is hidden in the mists
of time. And does it matter anyway? Talmud means Study and resolving textual
conflict is part of that learning process.
The whole purpose and process of the redaction of the Talmud (Gemara), was
convergence, not divergence.
Fiona
Micha Berger
: There is no such thing as a "vav with a holam" in the Torah, Holam is a
: vowel point, there are no vowel points in the Torah. If it has vowel points
: it is a Humash, not a Sefer Torah, a subtle but important difference.
I thought cholam is a vowel which the mesoretes in Tiberias decided to
denote with a vowel point.
What does the word refer to, the vowel or the symbol?
-mi
--
Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd. (Tirana, Albania)
poster. -RMS ]
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:afcbnb$da395$2...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...
Abdul Khinzeer - should be abd ul-khinzeer - servant of the pig. Offensive
Kalb'ullaah - should be kalb'ullah - dog of Allah. Highly offensive.
al-Murtad - may be infidel
Shabazz - Malcolm X's Muslim name.
Schmuck - says it all.
Troll, have you not any Scandinavian bridges to sleep under?
Ian
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
In article <afifrj$ers22$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:07:12 +0000 (UTC), Fiona <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: There is no such thing as a "vav with a holam" in the Torah, Holam is a
>: vowel point, there are no vowel points in the Torah. If it has vowel points
>: it is a Humash, not a Sefer Torah, a subtle but important difference.
>
>I thought cholam is a vowel which the mesoretes in Tiberias decided to
>denote with a vowel point.
>
>What does the word refer to, the vowel or the symbol?
Good question (but let's try to steer clear of the semiotic
philosophical questions here about the nature of a name or a
symbol... :-) To sharpen the question (or perhaps to answer it), we
also have what seems like a single vowel sound which is notated
differently with or without a waw and comes with two different names:
shuruq (with a waw) and qubuss (without). *If* they are really the
same vowel/sound, then the name must refer to the symbol. But if
not...there are *two* vowel sounds here (and I have more research to
do in order to daven properly! :-)
-Shlomo-
Micha Berger
: Good question (but let's try to steer clear of the semiotic
: philosophical questions here about the nature of a name or a
: symbol...
Here it's a historical question, as the vowel predates the symbol
by millenia.
: To sharpen the question (or perhaps to answer it), we
: also have what seems like a single vowel sound which is notated
: differently with or without a waw and comes with two different names:
: shuruq (with a waw) and qubuss (without). *If* they are really the
: same vowel/sound, then the name must refer to the symbol...
Actually, the historical name for both is shuruq. The shuruq malei
(full shuruq, with a vav) was also called melupum, whereas the shuruq
chaseir (deficient shuruq, without a vav) was also called qubutz. This
parallels the other vowels that have malei vs chaseir pairs: chiriq,
tzeitzei, and cholam. The qubutz is unlike the other deficient forms in
having its own symbol for the simple reason that it alone is replacing
a sign that would otherwise be in the middle of a now-omitted letter.
BTW. modern Hebrew uses the names shuruq (for malei) and qubutz (for
chaseir), the chareidi community tends to use the melupum (for malei)
and shuruq (for chaseir).
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>>Fiona <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>: There is no such thing as a "vav with a holam" in the Torah, Holam is a
>>: vowel point, there are no vowel points in the Torah. If it has vowel points
>>: it is a Humash, not a Sefer Torah, a subtle but important difference.
>>
>>I thought cholam is a vowel which the mesoretes in Tiberias decided to
>>denote with a vowel point.
>>
>>What does the word refer to, the vowel or the symbol?
>
> Good question (but let's try to steer clear of the semiotic
> philosophical questions
What kinda questions?
> here about the nature of a name or a
> symbol... :-) To sharpen the question (or perhaps to answer it), we
> also have what seems like a single vowel sound which is notated
> differently with or without a waw and comes with two different names:
> shuruq (with a waw) and qubuss (without). *If* they are really the
> same vowel/sound, then the name must refer to the symbol. But if
> not...there are *two* vowel sounds here (and I have more research to
> do in order to daven properly! :-)
Shlomo I wouldn't worry that you and 99.999999999999% of the Jewish
People are praying "properly". You are. You may want to pray with
more gramattic preciseness. Your choice.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Michael Shimshoni
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org% writes:
%On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 18:36:55 +0000 (UTC), Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson) <arg...@cs.biu.ac.il> wrote:
%: Good question (but let's try to steer clear of the semiotic
%: philosophical questions here about the nature of a name or a
%: symbol...
%
%Here it's a historical question, as the vowel predates the symbol
%by millenia.
%
%: To sharpen the question (or perhaps to answer it), we
%: also have what seems like a single vowel sound which is notated
%: differently with or without a waw and comes with two different names:
%: shuruq (with a waw) and qubuss (without). *If* they are really the
%: same vowel/sound, then the name must refer to the symbol...
%
%Actually, the historical name for both is shuruq. The shuruq malei
%(full shuruq, with a vav) was also called melupum, whereas the shuruq
%chaseir (deficient shuruq, without a vav) was also called qubutz. This
%parallels the other vowels that have malei vs chaseir pairs: chiriq,
%tzeitzei, and cholam. The qubutz is unlike the other deficient forms in
%having its own symbol for the simple reason that it alone is replacing
%a sign that would otherwise be in the middle of a now-omitted letter.
%
%BTW. modern Hebrew uses the names shuruq (for malei) and qubutz (for
%chaseir), the chareidi community tends to use the melupum (for malei)
%and shuruq (for chaseir).
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the origin melupum? In
what language? If in Hebrew or Yiddish, how it spelled with
Hebrew letters?
%Micha Berger Time flies...
Michael Shimshoni
Charles Vitez
not. Who cares, it is an interesting point.
Since I had never studied Sanhedrin, I would never have stumbled on the fact
that Mr Whatisname has stumbled on. And these points are quite important in
gaining a better understanding of the dynamics of the gemara. Perhaps I
should add that the philological differences are minor and probably totally
unimportant, but the duplication in two tractates is an important question
(unsolved by me at least).
When the gemara came to be redacted there were attractive pieces of prose
which the compilers did not quite know how to place, but did not wish to
abandon either. It is important to understand that what we now have before
us started life as students' notes of lectures. But students of what
gigantic mental capacities? Some of the discourse is lost and some was
abandoned as unsuitable by the redactors and the work is incomplete (after
all some of the mishnayot are not even the subject of gemara).
It is very unusual for such a piece - the Korah treasure story - (not to my
mind with a very earth shattering moral) to have found its way into two
discussions - where in both it is, let's be frank about it, pretty
peripheral. [It is, however, by no means unique.]
In Pesachim it barely fits in. There is a prior reference to Joseph
garnering all of the treasures of the world and where it has ended up
(incidentally a very interesting slant on world history to that date). We
are then told a different (or maybe the same with a different spin) aggadah
that Korah inherited part of Joseph's treasure (our duplicated piece).
In Sanhedrin, as I read it, Korah is the exemplar of lawlessness. The man
with abundant gifts who has gone to the bad. It is perhaps not too
surprising therefore that all known references to Korah appear somewhere in
Sanhedrin.
As I say, an unsolved mystery, which I am grateful to Mr Whatsisname for
bringing to my attention.
Charles Vitez
"Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd. (Tirana, Albania)" <icsrc...@matrix.ru> wrote
in message news:afia5m$elaib$1...@ID-98143.news.dfncis.de...
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
In article <2002Jun3...@mm.huji.ac.il> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>arg...@cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) writes:
>> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>>>Fiona <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>: There is no such thing as a "vav with a holam" in the Torah, Holam is a
>>>: vowel point, there are no vowel points in the Torah. If it has vowel points
>>>: it is a Humash, not a Sefer Torah, a subtle but important difference.
>>>
>>>I thought cholam is a vowel which the mesoretes in Tiberias decided to
>>>denote with a vowel point.
>>>
>>>What does the word refer to, the vowel or the symbol?
>>
>> Good question (but let's try to steer clear of the semiotic
>> philosophical questions
>
>What kinda questions?
>
>> here about the nature of a name or a
>> symbol... :-) To sharpen the question (or perhaps to answer it), we
>> also have what seems like a single vowel sound which is notated
>> differently with or without a waw and comes with two different names:
>> shuruq (with a waw) and qubuss (without). *If* they are really the
>> same vowel/sound, then the name must refer to the symbol. But if
>> not...there are *two* vowel sounds here (and I have more research to
>> do in order to daven properly! :-)
>
>Shlomo I wouldn't worry that you and 99.999999999999% of the Jewish
>People are praying "properly". You are. You may want to pray with
>more gramattic preciseness. Your choice.
Touche'!
-Shlomo-
Sammy
news:2002Jun3...@mm.huji.ac.il...
>You may want to pray with
> more gramattic preciseness. Your choice.
I think 'Precision' would be more precise here.
( I couldn't resist! :o) )
--
Help Klal Yisroel:
http://www.chofetzchaimusa.org
http://www.beingjewish.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>
>>You may want to pray with
>> more gramattic preciseness. Your choice.
>
> I think 'Precision' would be more precise here.
>
> ( I couldn't resist! :o) )
I'm glad you didn't, but I like "preciseness". It's longer! :-)
Fiona
Micha Berger wrote in message ...
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: There is no such thing as a "vav with a holam" in the Torah, Holam is a
>: vowel point, there are no vowel points in the Torah. If it has vowel
points
>: it is a Humash, not a Sefer Torah, a subtle but important difference.
>
>I thought cholam is a vowel which the mesoretes in Tiberias decided to
>denote with a vowel point.
>
>What does the word refer to, the vowel or the symbol?
Too be even more pedantic, when you say "vowel" do you mean the vowel sound,
or the concept? Do all communities pronounce this invisible vowel, i.e.
non-pointed vowel, the same? In fact does the symbol signify a particular
sound or a concept, such as Holam=<VowelSound>, where VowelSound is a
location specific replaceable value? Therefore Russians might pronounce it
H<oy>lam, Yemenites H<ei>lam, and Western Europeans H<oh>lam, but the Torah
and Humash specific values remain the same and constant regardless of actual
sound value.
Fiona