Sanhedrin 11: Where does Rav Pappa's statement end?

At the bottom of Sanhedrin 11a going on to the top of Sanhedrin 11b:

אמר רב פפא ^זרצו חדש רצו שלשים יום
 תא חזי מאי איכא בין תקיפאי קדמאי לעינוותני בתראי

This is typically understood, within the flow of the gemara, as two separate statements. That is, first Rav Pappa resolves a seeming contradiction within Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel as to whether they wait a month (29 days) or thirty days, and he says that it is up to them. Then, the setama degamara transitions to a new topic, contrasting the behavior of the earlier, purportedly arrogant Rabban Gamliel (who yet said that he and his colleagues saw fit to declare) and the later, purportedly humble Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (who said he saw fit by himself to declare). And the answer of the setama degemara is that דילמא בתר דעברוהו, perhaps it was after they had removed him (Rabban Gamliel) from office.

I would suggest that we read both of the above quoted statement as a single continuous statement from Rav Pappa. Rather than תקיפאי meaning powerful / arrogant, let it refer to the tekufa, the solar-based season. After all, one of the reasons for declaring an extra month is על התקופה. And קדמאי refers to relative earliness between the solar and lunar calendar. Further, rather than עינוותני meaning humble, let it refer to lunar time (an onah), and have בתראי refer to relative lateness.

That is, Rav Pappa is saying that we already have computed calendars and know how much it would be appropriate to correct to get them in sync, so use that number of days.

This does not seem to work with what follows. What would be the question from that brayta regarding Rabban Gamliel? (The question, we should note, is not made explicit.)  The answer certainly seems to speak to Rabban Gamliel's stature, of lack thereof, where it says

דילמא בתר דעברוהו

However, note the root עבר in the word דעברוהו. Sure, it means that he was removed from office. But isn't it odd that the topic under discussion here is עיבור השנה? Perhaps we can (poorly, as I am grasping here) reframe the question as why he used various seasonal signs rather than the calculation, or why he phrased something some way in his message. And the answer is that perhaps this was after he or they had already intercalated the year.

Praising those with whom you disagree (Bava Basra 176)

Today we finish Bava Batra. The Mishna (on the previous page) recorded a dispute, in a practical case, between Rabbi Yishmael and Shimon ben Nanas. After Ben Nanas presented his argument, Rabbi Yishmael praised Ben Nanas to the heavens:

To become a Chacham, one should study monetary laws. It is the greatest field in Torah; To learn monetary laws, one should study under Ben Nanas.

With such high praise, one might think that Rabbi Yishmael retracted. However, the gemara reports (via Rabba bar bar Chana) that not only did Rabbi Yishmael still hold firm in his position, the halacha is like him. And it turns out that even in the case of promise of repayment to save the borrower from choking, which was the comparison Ben Nanas offered, and which Rabbi Yishmael praised -- even there, Rabbi Yishmael disagrees, and the halacha is like Rabbi Yishmael.

This is a nice way to end a masechta, and is fitting for the three weeks. We can learn from Rabbi Yishmael's example. Even when we believe someone's halachic positions are wrong, we can still be polite to them, and even praise their character or thought process. All the while, holding true to what we believe is the correct halacha. And such niceness does not mean that we will lose the day.

________

Some thoughts about Rav Papa, especially after seeing the Rif and the Rosh. We saw on the previous daf that the Amoraim of Bavel were all aligned to say that Shibud is not Biblical, while all the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael were aligned to say that it was Biblical. And when, for a moment, it seemed that a statement of Rabba indicated the opposite, the gemara explained that he was explaining it according to what the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael held.

Then, we have Rav Pappa. He is the fifth generation, is thus Batrai, the halacha is like him, and he employs the word hilchesa. With whom does he align? Like Ulla that it is Biblical, or like Rabba that it is Rabbinic? The text of Rav Pappa in our gemara appears in the chart below, on the left hand side.

He stakes out a practical position regarding inheritors and purchasers, and the words he uses for each match exactly to what the gemara offers ("mai taama") to explain Rabba. And he is an Amora of Bavel. So it makes sense to place him as Shibud being Rabbinic. That is why a reason needs to be given to collect from the inheritors, of not closing the door before borrowers. If it were Biblical, then there would be no need to give a justification.

But the gemara in Kiddushin 13b has a different version of Rav Pappa, where his reason for inheritors is that Shibuda deOraysa, is Biblical! 

Rif and Rosh harmonize, and say it is not a dispute. Rather, Shibud is Biblical, but the reason the Rabbis didn't nullify it (as they did by purchasers, in the sefa) is the reason given, of not shutting the door before borrowers. This works. And there is a general trend of harmonizing sources to arrive at a globally optimal explanation.

There is a different derech halimud (IIRC popular in Spain before the expulsion) in which we identify the primary sugya where something is discussed and follow that. And look to a locally optimal explanation. And reasoning or interpretations from elsewhere, where it is brought it, are left there as interpretations brought to make things work.

In Kiddushin 13b, it definitely is a haavara, a transfer. The gemara introduces it that they hold (and are teaching here) that Shibud is Biblical, and then asks that they have taught this already once. Then it goes on to cite the foreign sugya, and ends with a slightly different version of Rav Pappa.

אלמא קסבר שיעבודא הוה דאורייתא והא פליגי בה חדא זימנא דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו מלוה על פה אינה גובה מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות ור' יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו מלוה על פה גובה בין מן היורשין בין מן הלקוחות צריכא דאי איתמר בהא בהך קאמר שמואל משום דלא מלוה כתובה בתורה היא אבל בהך אימא מודה להו לרבי יוחנן ולר"ל ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר ר' יוחנן דמלוה כתובה בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לשמואל צריכא אמר רב פפא הילכתא מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות גובה מן היורשין שיעבודא דאורייתא ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות דלית ליה קלא:

Also of interest is Tosafot there, who ask that Rav Pappa is different in Kiddushin and Bava Batra. But Tosafot's version of Bava Batra is different from ours:

Tosafot, Kiddushin 13b

Namely, they have explicitly in the sefa of Rav Pappa that Shibud is not Biblical. This is a quote from Tosafot, not an explanation by Tosafot. And they harmonize, but that is not our interest.

I would suggest further that, as in the case of Rabba, the primary statement by Rabba is positional, what to do in each case, as stated always in Hebrew. And the explanation (with mai taama for Rabba and bald for Rav Pappa) is the explanation by a setama, and that can be be more fluid across texts.

Women riding animals

As a followup to an earlier post, I would like to discuss the gemara in Pesachim 3a-b, about Tanach's description of woman riding animals. Here is the outline for my discussion.

I) Present the gemara and its translation.
II) Show that the portion discussion Rivkah, Tzipporah, and Avigail riding on animals is the setama degemara (post-Amoraim), on the basis of three features:
     a) transition from Hebrew to Aramaic
     b) anonymous
     c) an attempt to systematize the derasha
III) Explain why the setama's question is not a good question. That is, that the derasha was not claiming that 'sitting' is a general synonym for riding, just that in terms of tum'ah, it would be equivalent if one sat or rode on an item.
IV) Explain how the gemara's answer for Avigail is not a good answer, because while it might answer for רכבת, each of the suggested answers account for ותרכב which occurs later in the same perek in sefer Shmuel.
V) Even so, explain how this gemara is to be parsed without it forbidding women riding animals normally
VI) An alternative explanation of ישב vs. רכב
VII) How obscure sources are kvetched to obtain modern tznius rules

I) First, the gemara, Pesachim 3a-3b:

לישנא מעליא הוא דנקט וכדר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי לעולם אל יוציא אדם דבר מגונה מפיו שהרי עקם הכתוב שמונה אותיות ולא הוציא דבר מגונה מפיו שנאמר (בראשית ז, ח) מן הבהמה הטהורה ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה רב פפא אמר תשע שנאמר (דברים כג, יא) כי יהיה בך איש אשר לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה רבינא אמר עשר וי"ו דטהור רב אחא בר יעקב אמר שש עשרה שנאמר (שמואל א כ, כו) כי אמר מקרה הוא בלתי טהור הוא כי לא טהור תניא דבי רבי ישמעאל לעולם יספר אדם בלשון נקיה שהרי בזב קראו מרכב ובאשה קראו מושב ואומר (איוב טו, ה) ותבחר לשון ערומים ואומר (איוב לג, ג) ודעת שפתי ברור מללו מאי ואומר וכי תימא הני מילי בדאורייתא אבל בדרבנן לא תא שמע ואומר ותבחר לשון ערומים וכי תימא הני מילי בדרבנן אבל במילי דעלמא לא ואומר ודעת שפתי ברור מללו 

ובאשה לא כתיב בה מרכב והכתיב (בראשית כד, סא) ותקם רבקה ונערותיה ותרכבנה על הגמלים התם משום ביעתותא דגמלים אורחא היא והכתיב (שמות ד, כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על החמור התם

משום בניו אורחא הוא והכתיב (שמואל א כה, כ) והיא רוכבת על החמור התם משום ביעתותא דליליא אורחא הוא ואיבעית אימא משום ביעתותא דליליא ליכא משום ביעתותא דדוד איכא ואיבעית אימא ביעתותא דדוד נמי ליכא משום ביעתותא דהר איכא ובאורייתא מי לא כתיב טמא אלא כל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו משתעי בלשון נקיה כל היכא דנפישין מילי משתעי בלשון קצרה כדאמר רב הונא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא אמר רב משום ר"מ לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה וכל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו משתעי בלשון כבוד והא רוכבת ויושבת דכי הדדי נינהו וקאמר רוכבת רכבת כתיב

Or, in English:

He employs a refined expression, and in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: one should not utter a gross expression with his mouth, for lo! the Writ employs a circumlocution of eight letters20 rather than utter a gross expression, for it is said, of every clean beast . . . and of the beasts that are not clean.21 

R. Papa said: Nine, for it is said, If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth by night.22 Rabina said: Ten, [including] the waw of tahor.23 R. Aha b. Jacob said: Sixteen, for it is said, for he thought, Something hath befallen him he is not clean; surely he is not clean.24

The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language, for lo!, the case of a zab25 it is called riding, while in connection with a woman it is called sitting;26 and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle;27 and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely.28 

Why [quote] ‘and it is said [etc.]’?29 — [For] should you object, that is only in the case of Scripture,30 but not in the case of Rabbinical [discussions], then come and hear, ‘and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle’.31 Yet should you [still] object, that is only in reference to Rabbinical [discussions] but not secular matters, — then come and hear, ‘and it is said,and that which my lips know they shall speak purely’.

Now, is riding not written in connection with a woman, but surely it is written, And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels?32 — There it was natural through fear of the camels.33 But it is written, and Moses took his wife and his sons, and made them ride upon an ass?34 — There it was natural on account of his sons. But it is written, And it was so, as she rode on her ass?1 — There it was natural through fear of the night. Alternatively, there was no fear of the night, but there was fear of David. Another alternative: there was no fear of David either, but there was the fear of the mountain. 

Yet is not ‘unclean’ written in Scripture?2 Rather wherever they are equal[ly convenient], [Scripture] discourses in a refined language; but wherever more words would be required, the shorter phraseology is employed. As R. Huna said in Rab's name — others say, R. Huna said in Rab's name on R. Meir's authority: one should always teach his pupil in concise terms. And where they are equal he discourses in refined speech? Yet surely ‘riding’ [rokebeth] and ‘sitting’ [yoshebeth] are alike [in length], yet ‘riding’ [rokebeth] is stated? — Rakebeth is stated.3

II) That marked in red above is the setama degemara:

Modern scholars (as well as some traditional scholars, in some places) assert that certain parts of the gemara are later additions, from the time of the Savoraim or even Geonim. There are a few characteristics which can be used to identify this setama degemara.

a) Transition from Hebrew to Aramaic. Note how even the Amoraim, Rav Papa and Rav Acha bar Yaakov employ the word שנאמר, which is Hebrew. Meanwhile, throughout the red marked section, we have דכתיב, which is Aramaic.

b) Anonymous. The Aramaic analysis is not attributed to any named Amora.

c) Systematizing the derasha. The named Amoraim did not explain that this usage was the case across Tanach -- when making a homiletic point, once instance of divergence from the norm might be enough to teach the lesson -- nor did they explain why both derashot (ואומר) were required. Once the setama degemara steps in, its first concern is why both prooftexts were needed -- מאי ואומר. Its second concern is whether, across Tanach, women are described as riding. Its third concern is whether across Tanach 'not tahor' is consistently used, and if not, to explain why.

III) Why the setama's question is not a good question.

Following the lead of the aforementioned derashot, I will avoid saying that it is a bad question. But I don't believe that a good one.

The brayta had stated:

תניא דבי רבי ישמעאל לעולם יספר אדם בלשון נקיה שהרי בזב קראו מרכב ובאשה קראו מושב ואומר (איוב טו, ה) ותבחר לשון ערומים ואומר (איוב לג, ג) ודעת שפתי ברור מללו

The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language, for lo!, the case of a zab25 it is called riding, while in connection with a woman it is called sitting;26 and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle;27 and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely.28

The meaning of this is, in terms of tumah, we must deal with what a person has sat upon. And by the man, the zav, it speaks about merkav, riding, while by the woman, the zava, it speaks about moshav, sitting. They are functionally equivalent in terms of tuma. That does not mean that one is a synonym for the other, and that if I wanted to say "Ploni rode his horse to town", I could equivalently say "Ploni sat his horse to town." That is not the way Hebrew works.

So, when the setama asks ובאשה לא כתיב בה מרכב, the proper answer is: Of course riding is written by women, because women rode! Only by tumah, when the act of sitting and the act of riding were functionally equivalent in terms of transfer of ritual impurity would the Torah select sitting over riding.

IV) How the gemara's answer for Avigail is not a good answer.

The gemara asks that it seems, from Avigail's travel to David, that Tanach would describe women riding using merkav (and that it would do so even if they were riding side-saddle, where moshav would have been an acceptable synonym):

והכתיב (שמואל א כה, כ) והיא רוכבת על החמור התם משום ביעתותא דליליא אורחא הוא ואיבעית אימא משום ביעתותא דליליא ליכא משום ביעתותא דדוד איכא ואיבעית אימא ביעתותא דדוד נמי ליכא משום ביעתותא דהר איכא

But it is written, And it was so, as she rode on her ass?1 — There it was natural through fear of the night. Alternatively, there was no fear of the night, but there was fear of David. Another alternative: there was no fear of David either, but there was the fear of the mountain. 

The reference is to I Shmuel 25:20:

כ  וְהָיָה הִיא רֹכֶבֶת עַל-הַחֲמוֹר, וְיֹרֶדֶת בְּסֵתֶר הָהָר, וְהִנֵּה דָוִד וַאֲנָשָׁיו, יֹרְדִים לִקְרָאתָהּ; וַתִּפְגֹשׁ, אֹתָם.

20 And it was so, as she rode on her ass, and came down by the covert of the mountain, that, behold, David and his men came down towards her; and she met them.--

Her husband Naval had committed a trespass against David, and David was going to commit bloodshed in response. Covertly, without her husband's knowledge, Avigail visited David and appeased him.

a) This was at night, as we see in pasuk 34: כִּי לוּלֵי מִהַרְתְּ, ותבאתי (וַתָּבֹאת) לִקְרָאתִי--כִּי אִם-נוֹתַר לְנָבָל עַד-אוֹר הַבֹּקֶר, מַשְׁתִּין בְּקִיר, except thou hadst made haste and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light so much as one male.'.

b) This was in fear of David, because she knew that, if she did not act, he was going to massacre her household.

c) This was בְּסֵתֶר הָהָר, by the covert of the mountain, and a mountain pass might be more dangerous.

Thus, these are the three factors that the setama degemara suggests (via איבעית אימא) to account for why רכבת is used rather than יושבת. One of these fears would have caused her to ride in a way that would preclude describing it as יושבת.

The problem I have with each of these answers is that later in the perek, Naval dies and Avigail goes with her handmaidens to David, who marries her. How does she travel to him? ותרכב.

מב  וַתְּמַהֵר וַתָּקָם אֲבִיגַיִל, וַתִּרְכַּב עַל-הַחֲמוֹר, וְחָמֵשׁ נַעֲרֹתֶיהָ, הַהֹלְכוֹת לְרַגְלָהּ; וַתֵּלֶךְ, אַחֲרֵי מַלְאֲכֵי דָוִד, וַתְּהִי-לוֹ, לְאִשָּׁה.

42 And Abigail hastened, and arose, and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that followed her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.

There is no indication that this was at night. David wanted to marry her, so there was no fear of David. And there was no need for secrecy that would make her take mountain pass.

Perhaps the last two are not true. Perhaps out of honor for David, she "hurried". Perhaps this was the only path to David from her home, and בסתר means something else.

However, at the very least this is a complication in the gemara's answer.

At any rate, at the very end of the gemara, it appears that there is a retraction from the assessment that she rode in this manner, compelling the use of רכבת.

והא רוכבת ויושבת דכי הדדי נינהו וקאמר רוכבת רכבת כתיב

That is, the assumption here is that the author would still use יושבת, were רכבת not shorter by one letter. (See Tosafot grapple with the difficulty of this answer, since ישבת could also be written chaser.)

If so, then maybe all of these assumptions about women riding side-saddle in the hava amina would also fall away, since they are not necessary. Maybe not, and it is only regarding Avigail, where the assumption is now that she rode side-saddle. After all, there is still the fear of camels.

Here is a question, though, given the setama degemara's conclusion. The word ותרכב, which the gemara does not think to mention, is 5 letters. ותשב is four letters. This is both derech ketzara and lashon nekiyah. So why is it not used?

Making halachic or hashkafic conclusions based on this back-and-forth of the gemara, which I think has several flaws and does not accord with the opinion of the Amoraim, is ill-advised.

V) How to parse the gemara:

Though I gave my reasons for displeasure with the give and take of the gemara, let us run with it.

It is possible, with all this, that the only problem is in describing a woman doing these actions. While it might be true that, in general, women even in the days of Chazal rode side-saddle, that does not mean that, where the riding was not otherwise possible otherwise, they refrained from riding.

The statement of the brayta was just that one should use polite language:

The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language, for lo!, the case of a zab25 it is called riding, while in connection with a woman it is called sitting;26 and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle;27 and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely.28 

There was nothing in it that stated that it was forbidden, or improper, for women to actually ride. Only that it was improper to describe it, if alternative language was available. Or that it was better to select the more refined language.

Thus, we have Rabbenu Chananel explain:

That is, to translate Rabbenu Chananel:

And why did it not mention riding by a woman? For riding is with separation of the legs. And it is a way of disgrace for a woman, the mentioning of separation of the legs, in an instance where it was possible to describe the matter in a praiseworthy manner. But by riding on a camel, and the like, where because of fear she would fear to ride by way of sitting lest she fall, and so it is not possible to mention 'riding', there is no issue with it.

The gemara then asks about Scriptural instances of women described as 'riding'. Ignore my objection above, about synonyms. Why is Rivkah mentioned as riding, rather than sitting?

The gemara answers this by finding something very specific about this instance. Namely, it was על הגמלים, on a camel. This then forms an exception.

By making it exceptional, the gemara has transformed, or at least solidified, the definition of רכב and ישב. That is, prior to the question, we could assume that every form of riding, whether with legs split by a saddle or via side-saddle, could be called either רכב or more politely ישב. Now we see that only side-saddle (RIDE1) could be called either ישב or רכב, but the type of riding most people (men, certainly, and women at times) do can only be called רכב (RIDE2).

Once we have this definition, and where we committed to the specificity of camels, Tzippora forms a great objection, since she was on a donkey. The answer appears to be that, indeed, we would not have used רכב there due to politeness concerns, but it was a relevant word to use since Moshe's two sons were also involved in this riding.

But then we have Avigail, who was a lone woman, and it is רכב on a donkey, not a camel. The answer is to extend the ביעתותא, the fear. When making camels exceptional, it was due to a fear. So, we can find some other fear that would compel Avigail to similarly perform the more extreme 'riding', such that ישב would not be applicable. And so, based on textual cues, the gemara suggests three possible factors that could compel such fear: night, David, mountain.

At the very end of the gemara, there appears to be a possible retraction. For Avigail, one need not posit fear. Since they establish by tuma that brevity is also of value, they ascribe the use of רכבת to brevity. This is strange, since they already have an answer in place (ביעתותא) and because, as Tosafot points out (though answers as well), ישבת can also be written chaser.

Does this mean that generally women would engage in RIDE1, except for where there is fear? This seems to be the underlying assumption.

However, I don't think that this is the case, based on the way that prooftexts work. Once the gemara had defined RIDE1 (side-saddle) and RIDE2 (straddling), any instance of רכב was ambiguous, and could be RIDE1 or RIDE2, and so in asking the question, the assumption was made that it was RIDE1. In order to reject the premise of the question, the gemara repeatedly asserted that it was RIDE2, and provided textual cues which would force it to be RIDE2. The forcing of it to be RIDE2 (straddling) solidly answers the question. But that does not mean that, in the general case, women did not engage in RIDE2.

VI) An alternative explanation of ישב vs. רכב

An alternative is not that the gemara is speaking of different forms of riding, RIDE1 and RIDE2. Rather, ישב connotes detachment, while רכב connotes a greater engagement. If someone was merely sitting, they might fall off! Therefore, giving what was going on, the fear would compel greater attachment to the act of riding, and so רכב is the better term to use.

With this explanation, we have what I would deem a more consistent usage of אורחא היא, as purely referring to the normal pattern of speech, for Rivkah, Tzipporah, and Avigail.

VII) How obscure sources are kvetched to obtain modern tznius rules.

This give and take in the gemara is not cited lehalacha by the Rif, the Rosh, or the Rambam. The immediately preceding gemara, about using proper speech, is cited by them.

So even if one dismisses my objections to the gemara itself; and even if one interprets the gemara contrariwise to how I did above, and deduces that straddling while riding itself is improper, it is interesting that this gemara has been resurrected to prohibit modern activities (e.g. riding a bicycle or wearing pants), circumventing the absence of real discussion lehalacha by Rishonim.

Why does it surface in modern discussions of tznius? Because there is a vacuum. There is an lack of sources which talk about such issues. And modern halachic decisors end up going back to gemaras, or partial quotes of Rabbenu Chananel, and try to create new simanim in Shulchan Aruch on this basis.

I am not sure about the legitimacy of this approach.

Daf Yomi Pesachim daf 2-3: naghei vs. leilei

Back in 2006, I wrote a series of posts delving into the true meaning of the naghei / leilei gemara in the beginning of Pesachim.

I will link here to all eight posts, and also in this post repeat the text of the final post. It is really good stuff, so I would recommend checking it out.

1) The Ambiguous אור
2) Leilei Leilei Mamash
3) Naghei vs. Leilei
4) Naghei vs. Leilei - Based on Location?
5) Posts so far on the word אור
6) `or does NOT mean `oreta`
7) Mar Zutra's Proof
8) Reconstruction of the Original Sugya

The basic idea is that both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda were explaining that when the Mishna said Or -- which obviously meant night based on the very next Mishna which contrasted it to day -- that word Or was not the same as Aramaic Oreta, meaning late afternoon of the 13th. Rather, it meant Leilei / Naghei, when it was actually nightfall of the 14th. Mar Zutra tries to prove this very point from a Mishna in Keritut. But then, the setama degemara does not understand this point, conflates Oreta with Naghei / Leilei, and thinks that they are trying to argue against Or meaning Yom, that is day. And most of the Ta Shemas target that.

I repeat here my final post:

In previous posts, I addressed the true meaning of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda's statement about the definition of אור, showed how Mar Zutra's proof fit in to that end, and showed how a great many difficulties can be thusly resolved. What I would like to do it reconstruct the original sugya in the beginning of Pesachim, and explain what each statement means and how it fits in with the whole.

Reconstructing the original sugya is a fairly easy task in this instance. All that is involved is citing the statements by named Amoraim and omitting the rest, which is stamaitic.

The sugya I can reconstruct in this was is as follows:

דף ב, א משנה אור לארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר כל מקום שאין מכניסין בו חמץ אין צריך בדיקה ובמה אמרו ב' שורות במרתף מקום שמכניסין בו חמץ בית שמאי אומרים ב' שורות על פני כל המרתף ובית הלל אומרים שתי שורות החיצונות שהן העליונות:

דף ב, א גמרא מאי אור רב הונא אמר נגהי ורב יהודה אמר לילי

דף ב, ב גמרא מיתיבי מר זוטרא

דף ג, א גמרא המפלת אור לשמונים ואחד בית שמאי פוטרין מקרבן ובית הלל מחייבים אמרו <להן> [להם] בית הלל לבית שמאי מאי שנא אור שמנים ואחד מיום שמנים ואחד אם שיוה לו לטומאה לא ישוה לו לקרבן

תני דבי שמואל לילי ארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר

דף ד, א גמרא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בשעה שבני אדם מצויין בבתיהם ואור הנר יפה לבדיקה אמר אביי הילכך האי צורבא מרבנן לא לפתח בעידניה באורתא דתליסר דנגהי ארבסר דלמא משכא ליה שמעתיה ואתי לאימנועי ממצוה

Mishna:
The אור of the 14th we search for chametz by the light of a candle. Any place where we do not bring in chametz does not require searching. And regarding what did they discuss two rows in a wine-cellar? A place into which we bringchametz.
Bet Shammai say: Two rows over the entire cellar;
and Bet Hillel say:The two outer rows, that are the uppermost.

Gemara:
What is אור?
{We might think this is equal to its Aramaic cognate, אורתא, and thus means thelate afternoon of the 13th, going into the 14th, and thus the Mishna states אורלארבעה .עשר}
Rav Huna said: Naghei.And Rav Yehuda said: Leilei.
{Both agree, and are saying that אור means night and not late afternoon.}
Mar Zutra attempted to prove this {from the Mishna in Keritut 9b}: If a woman miscarries on the אור to the 81st. Bet Shammai exempt from a{n additional}korban and Bet Hillel require. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Why should the אור of the 81st differ from the day {=morning} of the 81st. If it is equivalent to it in terms of ritual impurity {that if she saw menstrual blood, she would be considered a niddah at this time}, should it not be equivalent to it in terms ofkorban?
{This proves that אור is night and not late afternoon, because late afternoon is still part of the 80th day and if she saw menstrual blood she would not be considered a niddah.}
Indeed - in the academy of Shmuel they taught {the Mishna as}: Leilei of the 14th we search for chametz by the light of a candle.
{Thus, it is clear that they regard אור to be leilei, which is not and not late afternoon. Now, why at night, and perhaps, why not earlier, in late afternoon?}
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: At the hour that people are found in their houses and the light of the candle is good for searching.
Abaye said: Therefore a Torah scholar should not begin his seder of learning on the אורתא of the 13th which goes into the נגהי of the 14th lest his learning draw him in and he will then come to neglect the precept.

Perhaps rather than מיתיבי we should have something along the lines of תא שמע. Also, perhaps one can argue on my interpretation of Abaye's usage of אורתא, and thus manage to undermine this entire tower I have just built up. Comments welcome. :)

How does *Rav Yosef* translate Tachash?

Is sasgona hyacinth-colored?

Summary: We saw in a previous post that sasgona is sky-blue. Did Rav Yosef, the expert Targumist, get this wrong? There are numerous other difficulties with the gemara, especially when compared with the parallel Yerushalmi. This post presents an admittedly extremely speculative reconstruction of the original sugya, in which a number of issues are resolved, and tala ilan becomes kala ilan.

Post: Some suggestions I make are more speculative than others. I want to make this clear, so that it does not undermine how people regard my methodology in general. In this post, I consider a gemara in Shabbos which discusses the identity of the tachash. I have a number of "difficulties" with this gemara, and I will first lay them out briefly here, even though their meaning might not be obvious until we encounter the gemara:

1) Rabbi Nechemia says that the tachash is kemin tala ilan. It is strange that the name of this animal is so close to kala ilan, an indigo dye, sky-blue, common in that time.
2) This, especially since as we saw in the previous post that sasgona was a dye which encompasses sky-blue, and that Josephus describes tachash as sky-blue.
3) It is strange for Rav Yosef, an expert in Targumim, to render sasgona in such a fanciful way, as the name of an animal which rejoices in its many colors, when there is a straightforward etymology (sas gavna, worm color) and a Persian etymology, which make it a specific color, such as sky-blue. (Yes, it could also mean scarlet, but regardless, it is a color.)
4) It is strange that while the beginning of Rav Yosef's statement uses Aramaic joiners (namely ד), the end part in which sasgona is explained uses Hebrew joiners (namely ש). This suggests setamaitic insertion/
5) It is strange that when Rav Yosef makes a statement and Rabbi Abba objects by citing a brayta, the response and reinterpretation is not does by Rav Yosef by name, but is anonymous, and only afterwards, does Rav Yosef seem to respond to this interpretation. Such anonymous Aramaic reinterpretation of sources, in the style of "like, but not exactly" is more setamaitic in style. And that Rav Yosef even appears by name later also suggests this.
6) According to the straightforward reading of the brayta, both Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah it is an animal rather than a dye. This is at odds with the Yerushalmi, in which one holds it is an animal and the other holds it is a dye.
7) In the parallel Yerushalmi, the objection that the tachash would seem to be an animal, and a non-kosher one at that, comes from a pasuk in Terumah which speaks of skins of tachash. This would parallel Rabbi Yehuda's part of our brayta, rather than Rabbi Nechemia's part? Why this disparity, and wouldn't it be nicer if the Bavli and Yerushalmi agreed?
8) The Yerushalmi resolves the question (of it seeming to be non-kosher) by answering that we hold like the one who holds it is a sky-blue dye; and indeed, cites a parallel dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia and chooses the one who says it is a dye. Wouldn't it be nicer if the Bavli and Yerushalmi agreed?

That is the short of it, but all of this difficulties and proofs make no sense until we see the relevant gemaras. The gemara in Bavli Shabbos 28a:

גופא בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין מאי קמיבעיא ליה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד. מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן והא תלא אילן טמא הוא ה"ק כמין תלא אילן הוא שיש בו גוונין הרבה ולא תלא אילן דאילו התם טמא והכא טהור א"ר יוסף א"ה היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא ששש בגוונין הרבה

Or, in English:

[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.

R. Abba objected: R. Judah said: There were two coverings, one of dyed rams' skins, and one of tahash skins. R. Nehemiah said: There was one covering²⁷  and it was like a squirrel['s].²⁸  But the squirrel is unclean!-This is its meaning: like a squirrel['s], which has many colours, yet not [actually] the squirrel, for that is unclean, whilst here a clean [animal is meant]. Said R. Joseph: That being so, that is why we translate it sasgawna [meaning] that it rejoices in many colours.²⁹

As discussed in the previous post, 'squirrel' is how they are translating tala ilan. But it is perhaps the genet, a spotted non-kosher animal of the civet family which hangs from trees.

One parallel Yerushalmi is here, in Shabbos 16b going on to the next daf, Shabbos 17a:

דף טז, ב פרק ב הלכה ג גמרא

רבי אלעזר שאל מהו לעשות אוהל מעור בהמה טמאה.  והכתיב ועורות תחשים.

דף יז, א פרק ב הלכה ג גמרא  ר' יהודא ור' נחמיה ורבנן.  ר' יהודא אומר טיינין לשם צובעו נקרא.  ור' נחמיה אמר גלקטינין.  ורבנן אמרין מין חיה טהורה.  וגדילה במדבר.

"Rabbi Eleazar inquired: May one make a tent of the skin of a non-kosher species of animal? But it is written {in Teruma, in Shemot 25:5}:

ה  וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים, וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים.

5 and rams' skins dyed red, and sealskins, and acacia-wood;

{and the assumption is that this is a non-kosher animal -- at the very least, an animal, as we might deduce from Yechezkel 16:10.} {In fact, this is a matter of Tannaitic dispute:} Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Nechemia, and the Sages. Rabbi Yehuda says it is taynin, and it was called after its color. {To cite Sacred Monsters by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, Korban HaEidah says that these are ordinary goat skins dyed in that color, and the Aruch relates this particular color to jacintha, the blue hyancinth flower.} And Rabbi Nechemia says it is galaktinin. {Once again, in Sacred Monsters, Rabbi Slifkin cites Rabbi Binyamin Musafia that this is gala + xeinon, meaning "foreign weasel.} And the Sages say it was a species of kosher wild animal, which lived in the wilderness."

{Note: If it is hyacinth, then we can understand Rabbi Yehuda's statement, that it was called taynin after its color, for the hyacinth color takes its name from the color of the hyacinth flower.}

This is fairly similar to our gemara, but our gemara differs in various respects. However, in the end, I want to claim that the gemara is actually almost precisely the same. However, I'd like to first consider the difficulties I raised above in greater detail.

(1) What is this תלא אילן? It seems to be a hapax legomenon, a phrase that one occurs in one instance, namely in this gemara in Bavli Shabbos. We can speculate as to its identity. After all, tala means suspend and ilan means tree, so it should be an animal which can hang from a tree. And the end of the gemara speaks of how it is joyous in its many colors, so we should look for a multicolored animal. Still, it is slightly (though not overwhelmingly) troubling that we have no way of really knowing its identity, while Rabbi Nechemiah makes the assumption that everyone knows what it is. Meanwhile, it would not be a hapax legomenon if the word were slightly different, קלא אילן, a known dye of a bluish color. Kemin kala ilan would mean a bluish sort of dye, not precisely kala ilan because that is the same hue as techelet, mentioned earlier, but a different bluish dye. This interpretation would not work with the gemara as it now stands, however.

(2) We can promote this niggling doubt to a slightly greater level of concern when we note that Rav Yosef defines says in the very same gemara that we translate, in shul when we read the Targum, techashim, as ססגונא. Note that it is singular, rather than plural as we might expect if there were multiple sasgonas as animals. And Shadal (in Ohev Ger, on Targum Onkelos) notes that there is no de- beginning, namely de-sasagona, and this makes it more of an adjective than a noun. Further, as we developed in the previous post, sasgona is a color, and likely is sky-blue. Thus, there are two references in this Bavli to dyes, both bluish. This interpretation of Rav Yosef would not work with the gemara as it now stands, however.

(3) Rav Yosef is the expert in Targum. Assuming that this is the true meaning of sasgona, blue, why would he get it so wrong? sas + gona = worm + color = whatever hue it is. Or, the Persian etymology. Regardless, it is an Aramaic word, and besides being an expert in etymology, he was an Amora of Bavel surrounded by Amoraim of Bavel. Surely they would know that it was a specific color, namely a bluish hue.

(4) There are features of Rav Yosef's statement which make me question whether he said it all, or if some of it is a later interpolation by the setama de-gemara. Namely, he says
 א"ר יוסף א"ה היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא ששש בגוונין הרבה.

The ד is Aramaic. The ש is Hebrew. The word gavnin (colors) must still be Aramaic, because this is pulling apart the (fanciful) etymology of the Aramaic word. Still, it is this latter part of the entire statement, the part which is in Hebrew,  ששש בגוונין הרבה, which forces us into the particular interpretation of Rav Yosef's remarks, and creates the gemara as it now stands. Without this statement, he might still simply be saying that "this is why we translate it sasgona". And that would still mean a bluish dye. This doesn't work out with the gemara as it now stands, of course, but it might be useful in some theoretical reconstructed gemara.

(5) When Amoraim have a conversation, I would expect each statement to be introduced by Amar Rabbi X, Amar Rabbi Y. Yet, considering our gemara, we have:

בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין 

מאי קמיבעיא ליה 

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה 

אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד 

מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן

 והא תלא אילן טמא הוא ה"ק כמין תלא אילן הוא שיש בו גוונין הרבה ולא תלא אילן דאילו התם טמא והכא טהור 

א"ר יוסף א"ה היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא ששש בגוונין הרבה

This entire statement, which I highlighted in red, should have been spoken by Rav Yosef. After all, it is his answer to Rabbi Abba's objection! Rather, it is an anonymous Aramaic statement which understands tala ilan to be an animal, and answers it by reinterpretation and harmonization, that of course the Tanna who said it was kemin tala ilan, like a certain non-kosher animal, meant that it was like but it differed in being kosher. This sort of anonymous Aramaic slightly-forced harmonization is characteristic of a setama de-gemara. Also, if Rav Yosef is saying it, should Amar Rav Yosef begin only after it? And why would he begin his statement with א"ה, "if so", as if he is responding to someone else? I suppose we could say that Rabbi Abba posed the objection and then Rabbi Abba answered it, but this is slightly irregular.

(6) According to this brayta, we have two positions, one from Rabbi Yehuda and one from Rabbi Nechemia:

רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים 

רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן

The objection is (seemingly) based on Rabbi Nechemiah in this brayta, that he holds it is a tala ilan. So he certainly maintains it is an animal. Rabbi Yehuda also would seem, on a simple level, to treat it as an animal, since he says אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים, putting orot eilim opposite orot techashim. This poses no problem since it could be this animal is kosher. (Like the Rabbanan of the Yerushalmi.) Or maybe it really is a dye, and the parallel is מאדמים  to תחשים. But if both are saying this is an animal, it is at odds with the brayta in the Yerushlmi, where one held it was a dye and the other that it was an animal.

(7), (8) This brings us to the Yerushalmi, and contrasting and comparing the parallel sugyot.

They actually line up rather nicely. Bavli is in one font and Yerushalmi is in another, as above:

(a)

בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין 

רבי אלעזר שאל מהו לעשות אוהל מעור בהמה טמאה.

Rabbi Eleazar (the Amora) poses a question about ritual impurity and tents. {J:  As an aside, I wonder if we could be gores אוהל מעור  as ohel moed mei'or, with the seemingly duplicated word removed; this could bring it closer to the Bavli.}

(b)

מאי קמיבעיא ליה 

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה

והכתיב ועורות תחשים

In Bavli, we clarify that his question was actually regarding Moshe's tachash. In Yerushalmi, this tachash will be used as a proof, under the presumption that it is a non-kosher species. {I think.}

(c)

אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד

Rav Yosef makes the assumption that it must be a kosher species, such that that Tachash must be kosher. {J: Maybe we could read this into the Yerushalmi's והכתיב ועורות תחשים.)

(d)

מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן

ר' יהודא ור' נחמיה ורבנן.  ר' יהודא אומר טיינין לשם צובעו נקרא.  ור' נחמיה אמר גלקטינין.  ורבנן אמרין מין חיה טהורה.  וגדילה במדבר

A brayta is brought. In the Bavli, it is Rabbi Nechemia who is difficult, since he refers to it as like a tala ilan. {J: is Yerushalmi's taynin a cognate of Bavli's tala ilan, in which case both are dyes?} In the Yerushalmi, it is Rabbi Nechemia who is difficult, since he explicitly refers to it as gala xeinon, which is a foreign weasel, presumably an extant, non-kosher species.

Thus, in both Bavli and Yerushalmi, the problem comes from Rabbi Nechemia saying it is a non-kosher species.

(e)
The Yerushalmi leaves this alone, that there is indeed a problem based on Rabbi Nechemiah, but it is a matter of Tannaitic dispute. We can hold like Rabbi Yehuda or like the Sages, which would then make it goat skin dyed blue, or skins of a kosher wild animal. Both would present no problem.

In the Bavli, we like to harmonize and make it work out for everyone. Therefore,

מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן

 והא תלא אילן טמא הוא ה"ק כמין תלא אילן הוא שיש בו גוונין הרבה ולא תלא אילן דאילו התם טמא והכא טהור 

א"ר יוסף א"ה היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא ששש בגוונין הרבה

And so it is really a kosher animal. The "problem" with this is that we know based on Yerushalmi that this is untrue. Rabbi Nechemia maintains it is a gala xeinon, a foreign weasel, which is a non-kosher animal. And by speaking of a special animal, there are echoes of a specially created animal only available at that time which would be the Rabanin.

There is this disparity between Bavli and Yerushalmi. This is not catastrophic. These are different Amoraim behind the Bavli and Yerushalmi. Still, it would be nice if we could make them accord with one another.

--------------------------------

I have two reconstructions. In the latter, I have to switch the positions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia. From what I recall, there are many times that the the positions are switched in different sources between this pair, so this is not so terrible. Still, I offer both reconstructions.

The first:

בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין 

מאי קמיבעיא ליה 

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה 

אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד 

מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר :שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין תלא אילן

א"ר יוסף א"ה היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא 

 '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.

R. Abba objected: R. Judah said: There were two coverings, one of dyed rams' skins, and one of tahash skins. R. Nehemiah said: There was one covering²⁷  and it was like a squirrel['s].²⁸  But the squirrel is unclean!-This is its meaning: like a squirrel['s], which has many colours, yet not [actually] the squirrel, for that is unclean, whilst here a clean [animal is meant]. Said R. Joseph: That being so, that is why we translate it sasgawna [meaning] that it rejoices in many colours.²⁹

To explain, Rabbi Abba objects just as above, based on the brayta. His objection is based on Rabbi Nechemiah, that this is like a tala ilan, a non-kosher animal which climbs on trees. This is like the Yerushalmi, where Rabbi Nechemiah identifies it as a foreign weasel, gala xeinon. There is no objection based on Rabbi Yehuda, since he gives no definition to עורות תחשים. We can take this as skins of a kosher animal. Or better, that techashim is a color and parallels מאדמים. The only problem is Rabbi Nechemiah.

Rabbi Yosef responds that indeed, this is a matter of Tannaitic dispute. But we hold like Rabbi Yehuda. And so, Rav Yosef said: Since this is so, we render the Targum of it as sasgana, which is a bluish dye. The Targum is supposed to accord with reality, which accords with halacha. So we don't pasken like Rabbi Nechemiah, and there is no issue.

The explanations crossed out above were from the setama, which did not know the etymology and meaning of sasgona, and assumed it was a kosher animal which took joy in its colors. Then, it transferred the idea of this animal to the ke-kala ilan animal discussion above, such that Rav Yosef was explaining Rabbi Nechemia, rather than rejecting him.

I rather like this interpretation, and don't think we need to go any further. However, for the sake of completeness, and in order to explore the possibility, I will a second interpretation.

In the second interpretation, there will be a cross between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia, and the question in our gemara will be based on Rabbi Yehuda. Further, tala ilan will become kala ilan:

בעי רבי אלעזר עור בהמה טמאה מהו שיטמא טומאת אהלין 

מאי קמיבעיא ליה 

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה תחש שהיה בימי משה קמיבעיא ליה טמא היה או טהור היה 

אמר רב יוסף מאי תיבעי ליה תנינא לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד 

מתיב רבי אבא רבי יהודה אומר :שני מכסאות היו אחד של עורות אילים מאדמים ואחד של עורות תחשים רבי נחמיה אומר מכסה אחד היה ודומה כמין קלא אילן

א"ר יוסף א"ה היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא 

'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.

R. Abba objected: R. Judah said: There were two coverings, one of dyed rams' skins, and one of tahash skins. R. Nehemiah said: There was one covering²⁷  and it was like a squirrel['s] indigo.²⁸  But the squirrel is unclean!-This is its meaning: like a squirrel['s], which has many colours, yet not [actually] the squirrel, for that is unclean, whilst here a clean [animal is meant]. Said R. Joseph: That being so, that is why we translate it sasgawna [meaning] that it rejoices in many colours.²⁹

To explain, Rabbi Abba objects from Rabbi Yehuda, who seems to assume that there were two types of skins, that of the dyed ram's skins and the skins of the tachash. This is in accord with the Rabbi Nechemia position of Yerushalmi. If it is an animal skin, we might then assume based on other cues that the tachash is a non-kosher animal. However, the position of Rabbi Nechemiah in Bavli is that it is a color, namely kala ilan. (Or, tala ilan, which might be a cognate of taynin.) Kala ilan is indigo, and kemin kala ilan is a bluish hue. This accords well with Rabbi Yehuda in Yerushalmi, who identified it as taynin, which is hyacinth, a bluish hue.

Rav Yosef then responds that indeed, we hold that it is a kala ilan type of color, which is why we translate it in Targum as sasgonin. And of course Rav Yosef, as an expert in Targum, is well placed to make such a statement.

While a Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Yehuda switch is not impossible (and if I recall correctly, not uncommon), and an emendation from tala ilan to kala ilan is not impossible, it is more difficult than the alternative. Still, it resolves even more of the "difficulties" I laid out above. I thought I'd spell out this possibility for completeness sake, but at the moment, I am leaning towards my first re-reading.