שאלו את בן זומא בתולה שעיברה מהו לכ"ג מי חיישינן לדשמואל דאמר שמואל
יכול אני לבעול כמה בעילות בלא דם או דלמא דשמואל לא שכיחא אמר להו דשמואל לא שכיח וחיישינן שמא באמבטי עיברה והאמר שמואל כל שכבת זרע שאינו יורה כחץ אינו מזרעת מעיקרא נמי יורה כחץ הוה
This is an interesting gemara, and not just because it speaks of virgin birth and a sort of immaculate conception. If I am not mistaken, Ben Zoma was a Tanna of the first third of the second century, while Shmuel was born in 165 CE (about the last third of the second century) in Bavel. I don't know that they would have even met, or that they would have asked Ben Zoma a question based on a claim of Shmuel. It seems likely, then, that the statement of Shmuel was brought in to clarify. But if so, this would be stammaitic, and the initial gemara would be left with just the question and Ben Zoma saying that the case is not shchiach. And the implication clearly would be about intercourse without breaking the hymen, which the gemara helpfully supplies. And if so, the case of the ambatya would also likely be from the setama digemara. It would seem to be so anyway on stylistic grounds."They asked Ben Zoma: A virgin who became pregnant, what is the law regarding her marrying a high priest? Do we consider that that Shmuel said, for Shmuel said, 'I am able to have many intercourses without blood'; or perhaps, that of Shmuel is uncommon? He said to them: It is not common. And we are concerned that she became pregnant in a bathtub. But Shmuel said: Any semen which does not shoot out like an arrow cannot make pregnant. Initially, it did shoot out like an arrow."
All this as a lead-in to another planned post about the status of the midrashic, or else "midrashic" work, The Alphabet of Ben Sirah.
4 comments:
The Gemara assumes that the idea articulated by Shmuel would already have been known by tradition in previous generations, although obviously not with attribution to Shmuel.
The Gemara was composed after the time of Shmuel, so when it presents the question it formulates the discussion in terms of Shmuel's viewpoint because, at that point in history, these concepts were already associated with Shmuel.
An analogy can be drawn to almost any discipline with a history, in which we might ask "what would Aristotle say to this argument of Kant", presupposing that he would have considered and disposed of the same problem in some way, despite not ever having heard of Immanuel Kant.
Even within the realm of Talmud Torah in general, we routinely ask "how would Rishon X resolve the problem raised by Acharon Y", despite the fact that Rishon X couldn't possibly have read Acharon Y's book, we generally assume he would have anticipated the objection that we now associate with Acharon Y, and we refer to it as Acharon Y's argument for the sake of simplicity and convenience.
Totally unrelated question I have wanted to pose for a while: Do you know of any historical research as to the identity of the author of the "Rashi Commentary" on the Midrash Rabba? I can't find any information on whether the commentary attributed to Rashi is indeed authentic - although I see that the Aharonim on the page assume it is.
"The Gemara was composed after the time of Shmuel, so when it presents the question it formulates the discussion in terms of Shmuel's viewpoint because, at that point in history, these concepts were already associated with Shmuel."
indeed. although i wonder whether מגילה מגילה ניתנה or whether it was all at once at the end. that is, often you can detect an earlier "gemara" which was before the amoraim or savoraim, with its own internal logic, and one that sometimes differs from the eventual (re-)interpreted meaning. if this entire concept was indeed the oral meaning until it was eventually encoded, then (whoever they is) would readily make use of Shmuel. on the other hand, if it was a tradition without elaboration, then the elaboration, or both elaborations, could be from sevara.
"Do you know of any historical research as to the identity of the author of the "Rashi Commentary" on the Midrash Rabba?"
alas no; indeed, i was wondering the same thing.
kt,
josh
furthermore, besides being a farfetched case (the ambatya) which everyone grapples with, i would assume that the text would have to originally stated something without shmuel.
that is, from a linguistic perspective, look at the statement:
שאלו את בן זומא בתולה שעיברה מהו לכ"ג מי חיישינן לדשמואל דאמר שמואל
Shaalu is Hebrew. She-Ibra, using a shin to mean "that", is Hebrew. And this is a tradition about a Tanna! So we would expect it to have been written, or recorded, at an earlier time.
It then continues in *Aramaic*. Look at "chayshinan", and the Aramaic dalet for "that" in de-"Shmuel". it is almost as if one were written in block print, and the other in rashi script.
that is, there are clearly two different levels at play, with the latter clarifying the earlier. (and i would say that usually these later insertions/clarifications are non-destructive of the original text.)
kt,
josh
Post a Comment