We are soon to encounter such an example in Ketubot. There is a statement how many people are required for the funeral of a talmid chacham. Someone say 600,000 just as when the Torah was given. This person is either Rav Sheshet, Rabbi Yochanan, or Rabbi Ami. I posit that only one of them said it, and the others are a result of scribal error.
Determining who said it is quite important in general, in a halachic sense. Just to give this as an example, an earlier conflicting statement is attributed to Rav, and we would rule like Rabbi Yochanan over Rav. But we might not do the same for Rabbi Ami. Or we might see Rav Sheshet as a batrai, latter opinion, and rule like him.
Rif in Moed Katan:
Our gemara in Megillah:כמה כל צרכוAnd how much is "all it needs?"
אמר שמואל בר אוניא משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי
ואמרי לה תריסר אלפי גברי ומינייהו שיתא אלפי שיפורי
עולא אמר כגון דחייצי גברא מאבולא ועד סיכרא
רב ששת ואיתימא רבי יוחנן כנתינתה כך נטילתה
מה נתינתה בששים רבוא אף נטילתה בששים רבוא
והנ"מ למאן דקרי ותני אבל למאן דמתני לית ליה שיעורא
Shmuel bar Unia cited Rav: 12,000 men and 6,000 shofar-blowers. And some say {that he said} 12,000 men and of them 6,000 shofar-blowers.
Ulla said: Such as will make a wall from the city to the cemetery.
Rav Sheshet, and some say, Rabbi Yochanan {said}: As the giving of it {the Torah}, so should be its taking away {when a scholar dies} -- just as its giving was with 600,000, so too its taking away is with 600,000.
And these words are {to honor} someone who knows Mikra or Mishna, but one who knows gemara {following Rif's previous definition}, there is no {upper} measure.
וכמה כל צורכו אמר רב שמואל בר איניא משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי ואמרי לה תריסר אלפי גברי ומינייהו שיתא אלפי שיפורי עולא אמר כגון דחייצי גברי מאבולא עד סיכרא רב ששת אמר כנתינתה כך נטילתה מה נתינתה בששים ריבוא אף נטילתה בס' ריבוא ה"מ למאן דקרי ותני אבל למאן דמתני לית ליה שיעורא
Our girsa in Ketubot:
וכמה כל צרכו אמר רב שמואל בר איני משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי ואמרי לה תליסר [תריסר] אלפי גברי ומינייהו שיתא אלפי שיפורי עולא אמר כגון דחייצי גברי מאבולא ועד סיכרא רב ששת ואיתימא רבי יוחנן אמר נטילתה כנתינתה מה נתינתה בששים רבוא אף נטילתה בששים רבוא וה"מ למאן דקרי ותני
אבל למאן דמתני לית ליה שיעורא:
Rif in Ketubot:
וכמה כל צרכו אמר רב שמואל בר איויא משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי ואמרי לה תריסר אלפי גברי ומנייהו שיתא אלפי שיפוריאמר רב ששת ואיתימא רבי אמי ואיתימא רבי יוחנן כנתינתה כך נטילתה מה נתינתה בששים ריבוא אף נטילתה בששים ריבוא
והנ"מ למאן דקרי ותני אבל למאן דמתני לית ליה שיעוראThe Sages learnt {in a brayta}: We interrupt study of Torah for the funeral procession and for the bridal procession. They said about Rabbi Yehuda beRabbi Illai that he interrupted Torah study forthe funeral procession and for the bridal procession.
Where are these words said: Where he does not have all that is necessary for him, but if he has all he requires, we do not interrupt.
And how much is "all he needs?" Rav Shmuel bar Ivia cited Rav: 12,000 men and 6000 trumpeters. And some say 12,000 men and among them 6000 trumpeters.
Rav Sheshet, and some say Rabbi Ammi, and some say Rabbi Yochanan, said: Like its {=the Torah's} giving, so too its taking away. Just as its giving was with 600,000, so too its taking away is with 600,000.
And these words refer to one who read {Torah} and learned {Mishna}. But one who learns {gemara -- this follows Rif's earlier definition of the term}, there is no measure.
Thus, some version have just Rav Sheshet, some have Rav Sheshet and Rabbi Yochanan, and one (only in the Rif's version of it) have Rav Sheshet, Rabbi Yochanan, and Rabbi Ammi. The most satisfying course of development would be that it started as Rav Sheshet, which is why some texts have just that; then due to scribal error Rabbi Yochanan arose, and Talmudic texts noted the variants; and finally Rabbi Ammi came into the picture, and the Talmudic text before the Rif specifically in Ketubot (for he does not have it elsewhere) made mention of all three.
Sometimes, we have something approximation the following scenario. Amar Rav, and some say Rav Shabtai. Then the statement is something that begins Shabtotai. What happens is that the scribe began writing Shabtotai at the end of the line, ran out of space, marked it with dots above the letters or an apostrophe, and began the word on the next line. But the next scribe in line thought Shabt' to be Shabtai, and so produced Rav Shabtai who said the statement. Later scribes then note both statements. Other times, apostrophes used for shorthand can be expanded inappropriately.
When telling this over to my wife, she immediately suggested the following dittography at play. (Dittography is where the scribe accidentally duplicates words from elsewhere in the manuscript.) She suggested that the name Sheshet, if it comes from anywhere, would come from shishim of shishim ribo. While some texts have a samech, others spell out shishim. It certainly is plausible that the text was originally attributing Rabbi Yochanan, the scribe wrote Amar R"Y Shish..., to match how Rav says 12,000, then realized his mistake that he put the number first, and so put dots over the word. The next scribe would see רי שש אמר and read it as ר' שש' אמר, and get Rav Sheshet Amar.
I would draw the following scenario. Initially, as we indeed have in one Talmudic text, it was רב ששת אמר. Often enough, titles such as Rav, Rabbi, and Rabban are written in shorthand as R'. In one manuscript, due to a scribal error, the ששת was lost. At that point, the text would not make sense since we know it is not Rav, who earlier spoke, and it is not Rabbi, a Tanna, arguing here. The shmitchik would be interpreted as a yud as in R"Y and be expanded to Rabbi Yochanan. Then, we would have the two variants, and Talmudic texts would say Rav Sheshet veitema Rabbi Yochanan. (Either of the scenarios in the aforementioned paragraphs would give us this.)
How does Rabbi Ammi come onto the scene? Well, look at manuscripts and you will see that amar and amrei are often written in shorthand as אמ' פ, aleph mem shmitchik. Thus, it might have been something like ר"י אמ' ש, or ר' אמ' ש which would be expanded to Rabbi Ammi. Thus we have the third personality.
Thus, we in this instance, see the development of Talmudic variants in action.
Sometimes, we have something approximation the following scenario. Amar Rav, and some say Rav Shabtai. Then the statement is something that begins Shabtotai. What happens is that the scribe began writing Shabtotai at the end of the line, ran out of space, marked it with dots above the letters or an apostrophe, and began the word on the next line. But the next scribe in line thought Shabt' to be Shabtai, and so produced Rav Shabtai who said the statement. Later scribes then note both statements. Other times, apostrophes used for shorthand can be expanded inappropriately.
When telling this over to my wife, she immediately suggested the following dittography at play. (Dittography is where the scribe accidentally duplicates words from elsewhere in the manuscript.) She suggested that the name Sheshet, if it comes from anywhere, would come from shishim of shishim ribo. While some texts have a samech, others spell out shishim. It certainly is plausible that the text was originally attributing Rabbi Yochanan, the scribe wrote Amar R"Y Shish..., to match how Rav says 12,000, then realized his mistake that he put the number first, and so put dots over the word. The next scribe would see רי שש אמר and read it as ר' שש' אמר, and get Rav Sheshet Amar.
I would draw the following scenario. Initially, as we indeed have in one Talmudic text, it was רב ששת אמר. Often enough, titles such as Rav, Rabbi, and Rabban are written in shorthand as R'. In one manuscript, due to a scribal error, the ששת was lost. At that point, the text would not make sense since we know it is not Rav, who earlier spoke, and it is not Rabbi, a Tanna, arguing here. The shmitchik would be interpreted as a yud as in R"Y and be expanded to Rabbi Yochanan. Then, we would have the two variants, and Talmudic texts would say Rav Sheshet veitema Rabbi Yochanan. (Either of the scenarios in the aforementioned paragraphs would give us this.)
How does Rabbi Ammi come onto the scene? Well, look at manuscripts and you will see that amar and amrei are often written in shorthand as אמ' פ, aleph mem shmitchik. Thus, it might have been something like ר"י אמ' ש, or ר' אמ' ש which would be expanded to Rabbi Ammi. Thus we have the third personality.
Thus, we in this instance, see the development of Talmudic variants in action.
No comments:
Post a Comment