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. :)

Daf Yomi: Pesachim 2a-3a: Reconstruction of the Original Sugya

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 bring chametz.
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 the late afternoon of the 13th, going into the 14th, and thus the Mishna states אור לארבעה .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 of korban?
{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. :)

Stay tuned for a treatment of whether one may in fact do bittul on Pesach itself, and perhaps an analysis of Shamma Freidman's article on this issue, mentioned by mavami in a comment.

Daf Yomi: Pesachim 2b-3a: Mar Zutra's Proof

On daf 2b-3a, Mar Zutra offers a proof that אור means אורתא as opposed to יממא:

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 מדקאמר ב"ה לב"ש מאי שנא אור שמונים ואחד מיום שמונים ואחד שמע מינה אור אורתא הוא שמע מינה

This is difficult for a number of reasons.

Firstly, this proof is surrounded on both sides by other מיתיבי's. Each of these others is an anonymous setama degemara. The sole exception is this proof by Mar Zutra. Thus, Mar Zutra appearing in the middle of a large segment of setama is a bit off. We find this upon occasion by Rav Papa, who is an interesting case in his own right.

Because this was unusual, I thought that perhaps this reference to Mar Zutra could be the result of a scribal error. If מיתיבי appeared at the end of a line, and there was not enough space to finish the word, the sofer would have repeated it on the subsequent line. If that repetition were mangled, it could produce something that could be mistaken for מר זוטרא. That is, we have the mem, and the tav could be mistaken for a resh and a separate zayin, and from there, it could produce מיתיבי מר זוטרא. However, I checked the manuscripts available online and they all had מיתיבי מר זוטרא or something close, and so we would only plead for this as a very last resort. Instead, we shall make every effort to incorporate the fact of Mar Zutra's authorship of the statement into any explanation of the sugya.

Secondly, why even bother to give this proof, if we have already provided sufficient evidence that אור means night? After the end of the proofs based on pesukim, the first proof based upon Tannaitic sources is:

מיתיבי: ר' יהודה אומר בודקין אור <לארבעה> [ארבעה] עשר ובארבעה עשר שחרית ובשעת הביעור מדקאמר רבי יהודה בודקין אור ארבעה עשר ובארבעה עשר שחרית אלמא אור אורתא הוא ש"מ

This is a citation of the third Mishna, in which both Rabbi Yehuda and his disputants, the Sages, use אור to mean night, for they both say that if he did not search on אור of the 14th, he should search in the morning of the 14th. And the gemara concludes שמע מינה, that we may indeed conclude from here that אור means night. If so, why does the gemara proceed to offer further proof? And why does Mar Zutra offer his proof, if this first proof is sufficient?

Rabbenu Chananel is bothered by this very question, and explains that although this first proof is sufficient, the gemara will demonstrate that one can prove that אור means night from other sources.

I believe that the question is stronger than the answer. After all, the proof from the third Mishna is more than sufficient. It, unlike the rest, shows the definition of אור specifically in the context of אור of the 14th when one should search for chametz. The only better proof is the final one, in which the academy of Shmuel (or of Rabbi Yishmael, depending on one's girsa) have a different version of the first Mishna, which is the very Mishna under discussion, which has לילי rather than אור. But all the rest are extraneous -- even if they show אור means night, we already have sufficient evidence in the present context.

Perhaps one can say that the gemara wishes to demonstrate comprehensively that אור always means night. Or perhaps the gemara's style is to offer a wide array of proofs, even where strictly unnecessary, perhaps even to highlight the meaning of אור in those other contexts.

Even so, Mar Zutra's proof seems unnecessary in the present context, and so I would consider it a difficulty with which we must deal.

Thirdly, once again approaching the sugya from the perspective of academic scholarship, we generally assume that the stama degemara was written much later than the statements by named Amoraim. If so, Mar Zutra I preceded the composition of the anonymous setatma degemara. Why then would Mar Zutra offer such a comparatively weak proof that אור means night? Mar Zutra could have offered the proof from the third Mishna of the present masechet, Pesachim, in the exact same context of searching for chametz during the אור of the 14th. Why bring proof from a Mishna in Keritut 9b, from the wording of Bet Hillel's argument?

Perhaps we could say that this is proof that the setama actually preceded Mar Zutra's statement. But in general, it has been demonstrated that setama follows named Amoraim chronologically.

Thus, it is difficult that Mar Zutra did not see fit to bring proof from the closer and in context third Mishna of Pesachim. Perhaps the third Mishna in Pesachim has some problem that renders it insufficient proof? We will consider this later.

Fourthly, Mar Zutra should not need to prove that אור means night as opposed to day, yet this is exactly what he does with this מיתיבי.

In this previous post, I noted that Hebrew אור is the cognate of Aramaic אורתא, such that it should be obvious that אור means night. Furthermore, the thrid Mishna makes it clear that אור means night as opposed to day. If Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda are telling us that אור means night, is this not obvious? Otherwise, it is like helpfully explaining that barzel is parzela, or asking how Bava Kamma can state that there are ארבעה אבות, when we only know of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, while the full phrase is ארבעה אבות נזיקין. What chiddush are Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda coming to teach us? In answer, I note Abaye's statement that a Torah scholar should not start learning in the late afternoon (אורתא) of the 13th which goes into the night (נגהי) of the 14th. Thus, אורתא means something different than נגהי. Since the Mishna begins אור לארבעה עשר, the night to the 14th, one might think this is the late afternoon of the 13th going into the 14th. Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna are teaching us the chiuddush that אור is not equal to אורתא. This is true of many cognates from different languages, in which they take on specific connotations in their respective languages. Thus, maison in French is a house, while mansion in English is a lange and fancy house. Thus, I demonstrate that the Amoraim had a specific meaning of אורתא - late afternoon - not shared by the setama degemara, and Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna are teaching us that this is not the implication of אור.

At odds with this theory is Mar Zutra's statement. He tries to prove that אור means night rather than day, rather that trying to prove that אור means night as opposed to late afternoon. But Mar Zutra, as an Amora, should be aware of this Aramaic implication of אורתא, and should then understand the import of Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna's statements. He should know how naghei differs from אורתא, since he is an Amora just like Abaye. Yet this entire line of proofs is there to show that אור must mean night rather than day, and operates under the initial assumption that naghei means day. Of course, once we conclude that אור must means night, the gemara reinterprets naghei to mean night, matching Abaye's usage of the term to mean night. However, as I said above, this should not even be a question to Mar Zutra. He should know אורתא is distinct from נגהי and thus understand the import of Rav Huna's statement, and barring that, he should at least recognize אור as the cognate of אורתא, such that it certainly would not mean day.

Solution:
I believe that if we take these difficulties together, a solution becomes readily apparent. Indeed, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda wish to teach us that אור is not the same as its Aramaic cognate אורתא and that rather than meaning late afternoon, אור means night. This is also what the academy of Shmuel attempts to teach with its variant of the Mishna, לילי לארבעה עשר. This resolves the fourth difficulty.

Mar Zutra knows this and desires to prove that אור means night rather than late afternoon. This is why Mar Zutra cannot simply cite the third Mishna. The third Mishna merely proves that אור means night as distinct from, and earlier than, morning (shacharit), but does not specify when exactly this night period is. One can read the third Mishna, without great difficulty, as stating that if he did not search in the late afternoon going into the 14, then he should should on the 14th in the morning.

The second difficulty was why Mar Zutra felt compelled to provide this prove from a Mishna in Keritut when a local Mishna which was even more to the topic had already addressed it. The resolution of this difficulty is that the third Mishna is not sufficient for what Mar Zutra wants to prove.

This also resolves the third difficulty, which is that if Mar Zutra preceded the setama chronologically, why did he not chose better proof of the third Mishna. In answer, the third Mishna does not prove what Mar Zutra wishes to prove.

How does the Mishna in Keritut prove what Mar Zutra desires to prove. Let us examine it again.

מיתיבי מר זוטרא 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 מדקאמר ב"ה לב"ש מאי שנא אור שמונים ואחד מיום שמונים ואחד שמע מינה אור אורתא הוא שמע מינה

This Mishna records a dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. (see summary here) If a woman gives birth to a baby girl, she has the status of niddah for the first 14 days. Then, until the 80th day, she does not have the status of niddah, even if she sees blood. On the 81st day, in the morning, she brings korbanot. Now, if she has another baby, or miscarries, within this time, she need not bring other korbanot, for anything born during this time, until the first korbanot are brought, is covered by the first korbanot.

At issue in the Mishna is what the law is when she miscarries on the night of the 81st day, where night precedes day in the Hebrew calendar, so that this is the night following the 80th day. On the one hand, she still has not yet brought the korbanot, since the korbanot may only be brought during the day. On the other hand, this may just be a circumstance particular to the bringing of korbanot, that they may not be brought at night. Indeed, we see that the time span in which she may see blood and yet not be declared a niddah expires at the termination of the 80th day.

Bet Shammai excuse her from an additional korban because she has yet to bring her korban. Bet Hillel object that this should not differ from ritual impurity which would result from seeing blood. Just as if she saw menstrual blood on the night of the 81st, she would be ritually impure, so too if she miscarried on the night of the 81st, she would need to bring an additional korban, for this time span has elapsed.

The way Mar Zutra's proof is typically taken, as as explained by the setama degemara, from the fact the Bet Hillel says that מאי שנא אור שמונים ואחד מיום שמונים ואחד, we may derive that אור is distinct from יום, and thus must mean night as opposed to day.

Since I posit that Mar Zutra is attempting to prove that אור means night as opposed to late afternoon, I will now demonstrate that one may prove this from the Mishna, and specifically from Bet Hillel's usage. If אור meant late afternoon, then Bet Hillel could not claim that if she saw blood she would be ritually impure, for the late afternoon is still part of the 80th day. Rather, אור must mean the night, during which time if she saw blood she would be ritually impure.

As I noted earlier, Mar Zutra could not prove the same thing from the third Mishna in Pesachim, for while that Mishna distinguishes between אור of the 14th and שחרית of the 14th, it does not distinguish between night and the late afternoon which precedes it.

Thus, we may well understand why Mar Zutra chose to put forth this proof, rather than prove from the third Mishna, or let the proof from the third Mishna stand alone.

We may now resolve the first difficulty, that of finding Mar Zutra embedded in a long segment of proofs by the setama. Mar Zutra was actually the first proof in the gemara, and he intended to prove that אור in the Mishna meant night rather than late afternoon. This was because he understood the terminology of Amoraim, since he lived during that time. He understood that Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna were trying to state that אור in the Mishna was dissimilar to its cognate in Aramaic, אורתא. He understood that נגהי as used by Rav Huna meant night, just as it meant night in Abaye's statement.

However, the setama degemara, composed a bit later, did not have the same definition of terms, since the meaning had shifted. אורתא now simply meant night, and it was unclear whether נגהי meant night or perhaps meant day. Therefore, Mar Zutra's proof was understood by the setama degemara to be a proof that אור meant night and not day. In response to this, the setama added its own proofs. It added a series of proofs from pesukim, and it added a series of proofs from Tannaitic statements, which demonstrated that אור meant night. The best proof of this was from the third Mishna in Pesachim, and so this was added to lead off the proofs from Tannaitic statements.

Stay tuned for another post reconstructing and explaining the original sugya, on the basis of what we have developed in these posts.

Daf Yomi - Pesachim 2a: `or does NOT mean `oreta`

The first Mishna begins אור לארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר. What does אור mean? The gemara begins מאי אור רב הונא אמר נגהי ורב יהודה אמר לילי קא סלקא דעתך דמאן דאמר נגהי נגהי ממש ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש. Then, the gemara goes off on a tangent, trying to demonstrate that אור means night or that אורmeans day. In the end, because of many strong proofs, the gemara concludes that this was not in fact a dispute of definitions but rather merely reflect a difference in dialect. Both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda agree that אור means night, but in Rav Yehuda's locale they call night leilei while in Rav Huna's locale they call night naghei.

However, at this point we should shout "Peshitta!" This is obvious! Of course אור means אורתא, night. Why should both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda feel compelled to tell us that אור means אורתא?

Tannaitic sources use אור to mean night. (The pesukim were ambiguous and furthermore were not using אור as a standalone noun for time of day.) Furthermore, the Amoraim, speaking Aramaic, use the word אורתא. At no time does אורתא mean daytime, only night. And Hebrew אור and Aramaic אורתא are cognates. It should be readily apparent that אור = אורתא, such that it should not be necessary for Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda to provide comment, or the academy of Shmuel to provide translation (leilei). It is as if the Mishna had stated barzel and many Amoraim spoke up to helpfully tell us this is parzela. (Although we do in fact see just this phenomenon elsewhere, but for more arcane items.) Is this not obvious?

Furthermore, in close proximity in the third Mishna, both Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages use the word אור, where it is clear that it means night and not day:

ר' יהודה אומר בודקין אור י"ד ובי"ד שחרית ובשעת הביעור וחכ"א לא בדק אור י"ד יבדוק בי"ד לא בדק בי"ד יבדוק בתוך המועד לא בדק בתוך המועד יבדוק לאחר המועד ומה שמשייר יניחנו בצינעא כדי שלא יהא צריך בדיקה אחרי

Clearly אור cannot mean day, because if he did not search during אור of/to the 14th, he searches in the morning of the 14th. This is something that should be so obvious that an Amora should feel strange putting it forth. The Amoraim all knew the Mishnayot (though may not know some braytot), and certainly they would know other Mishnayot in the same perek, and certainly one only two Mishnayot later. Why should Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda both feel the need to put forth that אור means night?

There is a story of a student at a certain yeshiva (famous for learning things in extreme iyun) who began learning Bava Kamma, and read the first Mishna:
ארבעה אבות
He objected to his chavruta, "But we know there were only three Avot - Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Are we counting Yosef? Terach?"
His chavruta objected, "But if you look at the next word, we see the phrase is ארבעה אבות נזיקין."
"Don't answer me from bekiyus," he responded.

Indeed, the third Mishna is brought fairly early on in the gemara as proof that אור means night, and thus that Rav Huna must agree to Rav Yehuda that the אור in the Mishna means night, but it is difficult to understand how Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda thought this was something which required clarification in the first place.

I believe that the answer is that אור does NOT mean אורתא. The key to understanding this sugya may be found in the statement of Abaye.

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

To translate Abaye: Therefore a Torah scholar should not begin his regular learning seder at oreta (evening) of the 13th which is the naghei (night) of the 14th, lest his learning draw him in and he come to neglect the precept (of searching for chametz).

Thus, in Aramaic, אורתא means late afternoon while נגהי means night. Another Aramaic term which also means night is לילי, as it is used by Rav Yehuda and the academy of Shmuel. We can see clearly from Abaye's statement that אורתא is not the same as נגהי, and that אורתא is earlier that נגהי.

I mentioned earlier that Hebrew אור and Aramaic אורתא are clearly cognates. They certainly are, but cognates in each language take on particular meanings that they do not in the other language. Thus, mansion is a very big and fancy house in English, but maison in French is merely a house. While Hebrew אור and Aramaic אורתא both refer a time when it is dark, which is not day/morning. However, while אורתא is late afternoon, אור might mean something else, and according to both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, it means night.

It is precisely because אור and אורתא are cognates that Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna feel compelled to tell us that אור means night. Otherwise, I might think that אור means אורתא, late afternoon.

This may particularly so because the Mishna begins אור לארבעה עשר. The ל in לארבעה means that it is אור of the 14th, but this could be read as אור going into the 14th. If so, it would be similar to Abaye's statement that a Torah scholar should not begin his learning on the אורתא of the 13th which leads into the night of the 14th.

Thus, it is not a יממא vs. אורתא distinction, as the stama degemara suggests, but rather a לילי vs. אורתא distinction, which Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda are making.

I would suggest that by the time the stama degemara arrived on the scene, the meaning of אורתא had shifted and thus at that time meant לילי. Thus, they can discuss whether אור means יממא or אורתא, and perhaps also do not see the chiddush in Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda's statements.

Update: Stay tuned for my upcoming post on Mar Zutra's proof.

Daf Yomi: Pesachim 2a - Posts so far on the word אור

I know Daf Yomi has already started the second perek, but I have another two posts in me on the first word of the masechta, so I'm sticking with daf 2a and thereabouts for a bit longer.

First, a summary of posts so far on this topic.

The first Mishna begins אור לארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר. Based on Rashi's comment that this is the correct girsa, we know that there are other variants in existence. In this post I discuss some of the possibilities. The most likely is JTS's manuscript which has אור ארבעה עשר, which parallels the phraseology in the third Mishna. Another possibility is that of Rabbenu Chananel, which has אור ל)ארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר), with אור ל in parentheses and thus perhaps not present.

The gemara begins:
מאי אור רב הונא אמר נגהי ורב יהודה אמר לילי קא סלקא דעתך דמאן דאמר נגהי נגהי ממש ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש
Rashi dislikes the end portion, ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש, since of course we would think that leilei, night, means actual night, and in fact that is how we conclude! He proposes emending the text to eliminate this last phrase. In this post, I examine various manuscripts and note that the JTS manuscript omits the word ממש in reference to both naghei and leilei and instead writes:
דמאן דאמר נוגהי צפרא
"that the one who says noghei means morning (tzafra)"
ומאן דאמר לילי אורתא
"and the one who says leilei means evening (`oreta)"
which I believe Rashi would not be so compelled to emend out of existence.

How does אור, which means "light," come to mean "night?" In this post, I discuss how the Hebrew word `or, and its Aramaic cognate which the gemara uses to define it, `oreta, can mean "night." Jastrow gives the basic meaning of the word as break, perforate, and tries to prove this from pesukim and gemaras. Thus, `or can mean break of day, break of night, twilight, etc.. Hasagot haRaavad suggests it is the early part of night when it is still night, and the Ran suggests that the positive word `or is deliberately chosen here because it is the beginning of a masechta.

The gemara concludes that both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda intend to render the `or of our Mishna as "night." The difference in their formulation is merely a result of different regional dialects. I point out in this post that there could be more to it than that, for Rav Yehuda uses the same formulation as the academy of Shmuel as Nehardea, and Rav Yehuda studied under Shmuel. Perhaps he could be using the exact language as his Rebbe, as we have seen Tannaim and Amoriam take care to do in other instances.

Is the distinction really one of regional dialect? Perhaps the gemara is covering up a real difference in opinion, and naghei must mean light, and thus daytime. In this post, I point out that Abaye uses the word naghei to mean night, and so it is absolutely true that naghei means night and was intended by Rav Huna to mean night. In the same post, I also point out that we know a bit about the biographies and histories of many of those mentioned in the gemara, such that when the gemara states that each one (Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda) is talking in his local dialect, we know where each of these lived. Rav Huna, who says naghei, was the head of the yeshiva at Sura after the death of Rav, and Rav Yehuda, who says leilei, founded the yeshiva at Pumpedita after Nehardea, the academy of Shmuel, was destroyed. However, I point out that Abaye, a leader head of the yeshiva at Pumpedita, does not use leilei, but rather naghei, in seeming contradiction to the gemara's statement. Finally, the academy of Shmuel, at Nehardea, used leilei. I suggested that the gemara intends the loval dialect where they grew up, not where they eventually led the yeshiva, or alternatively, the dialect of both Sura and Pumpedita was naghei, but Rav Yehuda is using the language of Nehardea, for he studied under Shmuel (though he also studied under Rav).

Daf Yomi: Pesachim 2a - Naghei vs. Leilei

Why does Rav Huna use naghei while Rav Yehuda use leilei. One might say that Rav Huna chose naghei for the same reason the gemara says the Tanna of the Mishna used Or - it is a more refined language. But the gemara answers that this was the dialect in their respective locations.

Two points:

1) For Rav Yehuda, there is a better reason than this being his dialect. As we read in the gemara,

תא שמע דתני דבי שמואל לילי ארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר אלמא אור אורתא הוא

Thus, in the academy of Shmuel, rather than teaching the Mishna as we have it, with the word Or, they taught it with the word leilei in its place. (And there is reason to think they taught this explanation as part of the Mishna, rather than as a brayta.) Thus, the next step in the gemara, after concluding that this is merely a dialectal difference, is to question why the Tanna in our Mishna did not say likewise.

Now recall, the gemara begins:

מאי אור רב הונא אמר נגהי ורב יהודה אמר לילי

Thus, it is Rav Yehuda who says leilei. Rav Yehuda (bar Yechezkel) was one of the best students of Rav and Shmuel, and on quite a number of occassions, cites statements in their names. Both Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna come to explain the Mishna, and Rav Yehuda's choice of words to explain the Mishna parallel that of the academy of Shmuel. Most likely, Rav Yehuda was repeating Shmuel's teaching.

This, of course, assumes that our girsa in the printed edition, which attributes this to the academy of Shmuel. Because דבי שמואל is similar to רבי ישמאל, because yuds are small, and because ends of words are often abbreviated with an apostrophe, often the two are confused. The JTS manuscript and Vatican Ebr. 109 have like our girsa. But the London manuscript has תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל.

I would assume that our girsa is correct, and the reasons for confusion listed above, plus the fact that תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל is more common, worked together to produce the wrong girsa in the London manuscript.

Thus, Rav Yehuda is likely using the same terminology as the academy of Shmuel because both heard it from Shmuel.

Daf Yomi: Pesachim 2a - Leilei Leilei Mamash

The gemara in Pesachim begins (2a):

מאי אור רב הונא אמר נגהי ורב יהודה אמר לילי קא סלקא דעתך דמאן דאמר נגהי נגהי ממש ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש

Rashi dislikes this girsa. While דמאן דאמר נגהי נגהי ממש is perfectly fine, for it bears meaning -- that when Rav Huna says naghei, he means "day" -- the phrase ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש is unneccessary. Of course leilei means literally "night." This is so in the gemara's initial assumption, as well as in the conclusion. The only confusion is about the word naghei. Therefore, Rashi recommends striking out the phrase ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש.

My reaction is that such emendation is unnecessary. Even if the phrase adds nothing because the question is only about naghei, the echoing of the phrase for the other opinion, leilei, creates balance that has a rhetorical effect. It is that same as saying: "We initially thought to take both words literally."

Does Rashi propose to emend the text based on any manuscript that has his proposed girsa. Not that I know of, and the impression I got is that his suggestion is based on logic, suggesting that this text was added erroneously on the basis of דמאן דאמר נגהי נגהי ממש.

Vatican Ebr. 134 has essentially the same text as our printed edition, except in the phrase ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש, it omits the word ממש.

London and Vatican Ebr. 109 have the same as our printed text.

The JTS manuscript has the interesting girsa. Firstly, instead of naghei, it has a vav - noghei. This is incorrect, and based on the Hebrew nogah, but is interesting nonethess. Further, rather than דעתך it has אדעתין. But the most relevant, rather than דמאן דאמר נגהי נגהי ממש ומאן דאמר לילי לילי ממש, in which נגהי and לילי are merely repeated with the addition of the word ממש, the JTS manuscript has explanations/translations of the words, and no word ממש

דמאן דאמר נוגהי צפרא
"that the one who says noghei means morning (tzafra)"

ומאן דאמר לילי אורתא
"and the one who says leilei means evening (`oreta)"

I would imagine that Rashi would not have felt the compulsion to correct the girsa has he had the JTS manuscript before him. After all, now each phrase is not just said to mean literally what it states, but is useful in that it gives a translation of each. The word ממש, "literally," is not there, so no one is saying a chiddush that this word is to be taken literally. Indeed, one can read this as a contrast: The one who says noghei means morning while the one who says leilei means evening.

Which girsa was the original, I do not know.

Daf Yomi Pesachim 2a/3a: The Ambiguous אור

The first Mishna in Pesachim begins אור לארבעה עשר (or, according to the girsa that Rashi rejected, אור לארבעה עשר). As the gemara itself asks, מאי טעמא לא קתני לילי?

Now, the gemara of course answers לישנא מעליא הוא דנקט. But לילי was the Aramaic - מאי אור? רב הונא אמר נגהי ורב יהודה אמר לילי. Perhaps ליל would work.

But the question to address first is: is אור truly ambiguous?

I do not think that any Amora could truly be confused and think that אור in this context means morning. After all, even if one is momentarily confused and thinks that אור here means day, he will soon see the error of his ways when he encounters the third Mishna (on 10b), which states that if he did not search on אור of the 14th, he searches at the 14 in the morning:

ר' יהודה אומר בודקין אור י"ד ובי"ד שחרית ובשעת הביעור וחכ"א לא בדק אור י"ד יבדוק בי"ד לא בדק בי"ד יבדוק בתוך המועד לא בדק בתוך המועד יבדוק לאחר המועד ומה שמשייר יניחנו בצינעא כדי שלא יהא צריך בדיקה אחרי

Indeed, this is in fact the conclusion of the gemara, which decides on this basis (Pesachim 2b) that אור must mean "day." And the Amoraim knew all the relevant Mishnayot. So the word אור, as it is used here, is not truly ambiguous. (Indeed, no Amora really confuses the issue. The entire tangent stems from the ambiguity of Rav Huna, who says naghei, but who truly understands the word to mean "night.")

אור is an fact a fairly common word for night. Even as the setama digemara asks whether it means day or night, it asks whether it means yemama` or `oreta` {/`ureta`}, saying at points, אלמא אור אורתא הוא. The Aramaic equivalent of אור is אורתא. So it is not truly out of the ordinary for this word to be utilized in Hebrew as well to mean night. We would not expect a discussion of why the gemara chose the word אורתא.

How can the word אור, which seems to most commonly mean "light," mean "night?"

Jastrow writes:


That is, he claims that the base meaning of אור is in fact "perforate, break through, shine," and from there we get אור as light, but also as break. Thus, break of day. And thus, break of night = twilight, evening. Rosh Hashana 22b and Sanhedrin 70b are additional examples of אור used in this way. Jastrow's gives some examples of this base meaning of אור. Yeshaya 58:8:

ח אָז יִבָּקַע כַּשַּׁחַר אוֹרֶךָ, וַאֲרֻכָתְךָ מְהֵרָה תִצְמָח; וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ, כְּבוֹד יְהוָה יַאַסְפֶךָ.

8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy rearward.

and Berachot 22a:

תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא היה אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה מעשה בתלמיד אחד שהיה מגמגם למעלה מרבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר ליה בני פתח פיך ויאירו דבריך שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' מה אש אינו מקבל טומאה אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה

It has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra used to say: Words of Torah are not susceptible of uncleanness. Once a certain disciple was mumbling over against R. Judah b. Bathyra. He said to him: My son, open thy mouth and let thy words be clear, for words of Torah are not susceptible to uncleanness, as it says, Is not My word like as fire. Just as fire is not susceptible of uncleanness, so words of Torah are not susceptible of uncleanness. (Soncino translation)

which Jastrow translates as "and let thy words come forth" = speak boldly.

One could also posit that the basis for Or meaning night is lashon sagi nahor, lit. "language of much light." This is euphemistic language in which a blind person, who sees no light, is called a sagi nahor, one with much light. Here, "light" would be used to refer to the absence of light, at night. And as the gemara suggests, this is לישנא מעליא הוא דנקט.

Similarly, Rav Huna's definition as naghei, Aramaic equivalent of nogah, "light," would also be euphemistic usage, in the particular speech in his location. Alternatively, Jastrow assigns a similar base definition of breaking through for nogah.

David G. at adafaday notes that Hasagot HaRaavad suggests that it is called Or because it is the beginning of the night when it is still light. Would he say the same for each occurrence of the Aramaic word אורתא? David G. also notes that the Ran claims that this word is used because it is the beginnng of the masechta, a suggestion the Raavad dislikes because the word is used elsewhere, not only in the beginning of the masechta.

The Raavad and Jastrow share in common that one might say that the very beginning of night is intended. After all, Jastrow writes about the "break" of night, and translates it as either evening of twilight. They come atit from different approaches, of course.

I might also say that this is not the break of night but rather, "as the 14th breaks," and since days in the Hebrew calendar begin at night, this is when the 14th breaks. The idea would be to do it as soon as possible when the 14th comes in, because of zerizut or so as not to forget and then neglect.