Jump to content


Photo

Mistakes in the Gemara


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Melech_*

Guest_Melech_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 08:24 PM

....

#42 qgh

qgh

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 09:01 PM

true - and if i were to print the shas, i would choose one of the editions and print that one faithfully, without emending its text in any way.

and that is my point. The Vilna edition apparently did not follow your rules. When they first printed it , it was a new version and they amended the text. we know that for a fact.

no, that's not what i'm saying at all. what i am saying is that while the church was definitely responsible for the removal of a part of the sugya, we have no certain way of ascertaining that the text that we have as being the missing piece is authoritative, and therefore we do not add it into the gemara, since while something is certainly missing, replacing it with something that is possibly corrupted is no solution.

why do you think the other versions may be corrupt. offcourse it is possible that it may have errors, but the Vilna edition may be even more corrupt.
I don't see why it is a problem. If you agree that we know for a fact that the Vilna edition is corrupt in certain areas , we can't make it worse and i think it is a solution.

again, i am not saying that the vilna edition is more authoritative than any other, just that our mesorah says that a printer must pick an edition and stick to it without emendation, except as footnotes or marginalia.

as above this rule was obviously not followed with the Vilna edition so it is definetly not following this massoret.

The main advantage of the Vilna edition today is that the tsurat Hadaf became standard in the Tora world. The reason to stick to the general format is that in the Torah world in the last few hundred years references have been made to page number according to the vilna edition. It is also a nice edition having Rashi and Tosfot on the page.
I don't see why we can't stick to that tsurat hadaf (although I don't think it should be a rule that we should stick to it)with out printing a more correct text (to the berst of our ability).


i don't know offhand, but b"n i'll try to find one

and was this his opinion or is this a mssoret that we have? any sources for that? (i am not all sure that Rabeinu Gershom would even claim this rule applied to cases where we know for a fact that the Church censored our text)

#43 Snag

Snag

    הבל יפצה פי

  • Banned
  • 11,108 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:14 PM

Could you cite some examples please, where the Tur is referenced by page number by Acharonim?

[I'm not challenging. I want to learn.]

i have been trying to think of an example since you posted, but i am unable, for now, to come up with anything better than "ive seen it". :pardon: sorry.

and that is my point. The Vilna edition apparently did not follow your rules. When they first printed it , it was a new version and they amended the text. we know that for a fact.

?

why do you think the other versions may be corrupt. offcourse it is possible that it may have errors, but the Vilna edition may be even more corrupt.
I don't see why it is a problem. If you agree that we know for a fact that the Vilna edition is corrupt in certain areas , we can't make it worse and i think it is a solution.

one more time, the lack of text, particularly where the fact of an omission is obvious, is less dangerous than the addition of a corrupted text, thus, unless we have some way of being absolutely certain that a gven text is correct, we should not add it into the gemara proper.

for instance, it's more or less the accepted practice, when printing old seforim, not to change words entirely, even where they are almost certainly mistakes, but to include the girsa as it stands parenthetically, and put the suggested emendation in brackets. (i think one of the printers of the graz's shulchon oruch was blasted for not adhering to this rule - ?) the benefits of such practices are clear to any serious student, as the instances of 'corrections' actually being mistakes are legion.

and was this his opinion or is this a mssoret that we have? any sources for that? (i am not all sure that Rabeinu Gershom would even claim this rule applied to cases where we know for a fact that the Church censored our text)

as i've posted, iirc it was his response to an upswing in 'edited' talmuds, which phenomenon he thought would be best combated by prohibiting any conscious change. people will notice obvious errors, and others can be corrected via footnote and the like. i still don't see why having addenda and emenda as marginalia is such a problem.
"Spiritual wants and instincts are as various in the human family as are physical appetites, complexions, and features, and a man is only at his best, morally, when he is equipped with the religious garment whose color and shape and size most nicely accommodate themselves to the spiritual complexion, angularities, and stature of the individual who wears it."

"The despotism of heaven is the one absolutely perfect government. An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were the same; namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual. But as a perishable perfect man must die, and leave his despotism in the hands of an imperfect successor, an earthly despotism is not merely a bad form of government, it is the worst form that is possible."

-Mark Twain

#44 qgh

qgh

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:24 PM

one more time, the lack of text, particularly where the fact of an omission is obvious, is less dangerous than the addition of a corrupted text, thus, unless we have some way of being absolutely certain that a gven text is correct, we should not add it into the gemara proper.

for instance, it's more or less the accepted practice, when printing old seforim, not to change words entirely, even where they are almost certainly mistakes, but to include the girsa as it stands parenthetically, and put the suggested emendation in brackets. (i think one of the printers of the graz's shulchon oruch was blasted for not adhering to this rule - ?) the benefits of such practices are clear to any serious student, as the instances of 'corrections' actually being mistakes are legion.

as i've posted, iirc it was his response to an upswing in 'edited' talmuds, which phenomenon he thought would be best combated by prohibiting any conscious change. people will notice obvious errors, and others can be corrected via footnote and the like. i still don't see why having addenda and emenda as marginalia is such a problem.


What you are saying right now is slightly different. You are saying that when copying a text we should not try to correct errors that may seem obvious to us as we may actually corrupt the text since we are not certain about our corrections. I am talking about using versions of Gmara that we have (that are not less reliable than Vilna and perhaps even more reliable) and printing parts that were clearly censored. Again I am not at all sure that Rabeinu Gershom would have a problem with that.

I don't think there is a problem with noting that that part of the text was not in the Vilna edition due to censorship or even put in parecentesis, but I think it should be part of the text so everyone that studies it will read that text. If it is just in a footnote on the bottom or the margins it may be missed by many.

#45 Snag

Snag

    הבל יפצה פי

  • Banned
  • 11,108 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:30 PM

What you are saying right now is slightly different. You are saying that when copying a text we should not try to correct errors that may seem obvious to us as we may actually corrupt the text since we are not certain about our corrections. I am talking about using versions of Gmara that we have (that are not less reliable than Vilna and perhaps even more reliable) and printing parts that were clearly censored. Again I am not at all sure that Rabeinu Gershom would have a problem with that.

what i'm saying is that the version of the 'missing' text that we have may not be an accurate representation of the original text which was redacted, thus we should not add it.

I don't think there is a problem with noting that that part of the text was not in the Vilna edition due to censorship or even put in parecentesis, but I think it should be part of the text so everyone that studies it will read that text. If it is just in a footnote on the bottom or the margins it may be missed by many.

i don't know about that - i'm very into reading everything on the page. (which is one of the things i dislike about oz vehadar and the vilna hachadash - i can't see at a glance the relevant marginal notes to see if they're just source references or emendations or comments. :angry:)

since we're on the topic, two cute censorship screwups i bumped into lately:
חדא מעובד כוכבים ומזלות תלתא (חדא מגו תלתא), עובד כוכבים ומזלות לעבודת כוכבים ומזלות לא הוי עובד כוכבים ומזלות לכל התורה כולה (מומר לע"כ לא הוי מומר לכה" כולה)
"Spiritual wants and instincts are as various in the human family as are physical appetites, complexions, and features, and a man is only at his best, morally, when he is equipped with the religious garment whose color and shape and size most nicely accommodate themselves to the spiritual complexion, angularities, and stature of the individual who wears it."

"The despotism of heaven is the one absolutely perfect government. An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were the same; namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual. But as a perishable perfect man must die, and leave his despotism in the hands of an imperfect successor, an earthly despotism is not merely a bad form of government, it is the worst form that is possible."

-Mark Twain

#46 qgh

qgh

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:44 PM

what i'm saying is that the version of the 'missing' text that we have may not be an accurate representation of the original text which was redacted, thus we should not add it.



why don't you think it is accurate? what makes it less reliable than Vilna?
You are ingoring the fact in Vilna we know that words have been changed. (Avodei Kochavim Ve Mazalot ...)
Maybee you should argue that since chnages were made in printing the Vilna edition we should not use it.





i don't know about that - i'm very into reading everything on the page. (which is one of the things i dislike about oz vehadar and the vilna hachadash - i can't see at a glance the relevant marginal notes to see if they're just source references or emendations or comments. :angry:)


that is graet. Not sure if everyone does that or studies it at the level you do.

#47 Snag

Snag

    הבל יפצה פי

  • Banned
  • 11,108 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:48 PM

why don't you think it is accurate? what makes it less reliable than Vilna?
You are ingoring the fact in Vilna we know that words have been changed. (Avodei Kochavim Ve Mazalot ...)
Maybee you should argue that since chnages were made in printing the Vilna edition we should not use it.

the point was that we don't assume anything to be accurate, because of the dangers of introducing corrupt text into the gemara.
i am not ignoring that fact at all, but the cherem was against changing the text, not against using a text that was changed. my problem would be with lechatchila printing a gemara text with emendations, not necessarily with studying therefrom. (although the narrowness of my mind would likely lead me to stick with my tried and trusted vilna edition).

remember, too, that the availability of the vilna edition made it the gemara studied by the great luminaries of the last few generations, which in turn caused their comments to be made based on the text that appears in the vilna edition.
"Spiritual wants and instincts are as various in the human family as are physical appetites, complexions, and features, and a man is only at his best, morally, when he is equipped with the religious garment whose color and shape and size most nicely accommodate themselves to the spiritual complexion, angularities, and stature of the individual who wears it."

"The despotism of heaven is the one absolutely perfect government. An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were the same; namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual. But as a perishable perfect man must die, and leave his despotism in the hands of an imperfect successor, an earthly despotism is not merely a bad form of government, it is the worst form that is possible."

-Mark Twain

#48 qgh

qgh

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 11:52 PM

the point was that we don't assume anything to be accurate, because of the dangers of introducing corrupt text into the gemara.
i am not ignoring that fact at all, but the cherem was against changing the text, not against using a text that was changed. my problem would be with lechatchila printing a gemara text with emendations, not necessarily with studying therefrom. (although the narrowness of my mind would likely lead me to stick with my tried and trusted vilna edition).



Got it. lechatchila I should not go and publish a new edition (even if i think it is more accurate), but if I or someone else does that anyways , in a few years it will be kosher and if it is popoular perhpas the version of choice and then no one will be able to change that version at that point. (or go back to the prior version)
Or in other words the Vilna edition was a major problem at the time it came out as it made major major changes to the text, but now years later it is aurhoritative.


remember, too, that the availability of the vilna edition made it the gemara studied by the great luminaries of the last few generations, which in turn caused their comments to be made based on the text that appears in the vilna edition.


I agree that for that reason it makes sense to keep the format of the Vilna and make it may make sense to commnet in one way or another that certain parts were not availabe due to censoriship. (Steinsaltz does that and I think it works well. His Vilna edition is very nice)

#49 David F

David F

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 04:04 AM

Do you say the ani ma'amim every morning?

Which of them is contradicted by what I wrote?


The Vilna edition apparently did not follow your rules. When they first printed it , it was a new version and they amended the text. we know that for a fact.

Not true. At any rate, the Vilna edition was not printed in a Catholic country (it was Czarist Russia by then), and all the censorship changes were made long before.


why do you think the other versions may be corrupt. offcourse it is possible that it may have errors, but the Vilna edition may be even more corrupt.

I doubt there is any edition into which so much effort went.
Which is basically why it became accepted rather than the Slavita edition - which of course had all the problems you've mentioned, as did all printed editions of the Gemara for centuries before.


If you agree that we know for a fact that the Vilna edition is corrupt in certain areas , we can't make it worse and i think it is a solution.

:huh2:
If we know that the Geonic responsa are self-contradictory and so of them were later addition (and we know for a fact that many are), can I pass my own chiddushim as Geonic responsa because I "can't make it worse"?


as above this rule was obviously not followed with the Vilna edition so it is definetly not following this massoret.

As above, that's quite wrong.
How many text emendations were introduced by the Vilna edition which weren't in previous editions?


The reason to stick to the general format is that in the Torah world in the last few hundred years references have been made to page number according to the vilna edition. It is also a nice edition having Rashi and Tosfot on the page.

The page numbers are there from the Venice edition, three hundred and fifty years before.

#50 qgh

qgh

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 05:54 AM

[quote name='David F' date='15 September 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1284541470' post='1556043']
Not true. At any rate, the Vilna edition was not printed in a Catholic country (it was Czarist Russia by then), and all the censorship changes were made long before.


[/quote]

thanks for the correction. I guess it was kosher at that point since it was not lechatchila at that point. the catholic version has allready become authoritative. (good thing they did not add some passages explaining how the trinity is consistent with one monotheism)

[quote]

[quote]:huh2:
If we know that the Geonic responsa are self-contradictory and so of them were later addition (and we know for a fact that many are), can I pass my own chiddushim as Geonic responsa because I "can't make it worse"?[/quote]

not sure about calling your own or my own chidushim as geonic responsa, but if it is kosher to copy from a text sensored by the catholic church I see no reason why a Tora scholar can't research a more accurate edition. (Especially if he provides comments at the places where there are different girsaot )

I think the Steinsaltz edition is not bad. (not saying it is perfect but i much rather study from that text than the standard Vilna)


[quote]The page numbers are there from the Venice edition, three hundred and fifty years before.[/quote]
even more of a good reason to keep the same page nubmers in future editions.

#51 Guest_Melech_*

Guest_Melech_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 06:37 AM

....

#52 Guest_Melech_*

Guest_Melech_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 September 2010 - 06:43 AM

....

#53 Snag

Snag

    הבל יפצה פי

  • Banned
  • 11,108 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 12:43 PM

Got it. lechatchila I should not go and publish a new edition (even if i think it is more accurate), but if I or someone else does that anyways , in a few years it will be kosher and if it is popoular perhpas the version of choice and then no one will be able to change that version at that point. (or go back to the prior version)
Or in other words the Vilna edition was a major problem at the time it came out as it made major major changes to the text, but now years later it is aurhoritative

not exactly, but that's the gist of it.

Trivium:

:biggrin:

Personally, I think the greatest need for standarization of pagination is for the SheLa"H.

amen to that. and a great sefer which needs to be reprinted, annotated, and exhaustively indexed is the s'dei chemed.

and made available all those maskilic influences

:huh2:
"Spiritual wants and instincts are as various in the human family as are physical appetites, complexions, and features, and a man is only at his best, morally, when he is equipped with the religious garment whose color and shape and size most nicely accommodate themselves to the spiritual complexion, angularities, and stature of the individual who wears it."

"The despotism of heaven is the one absolutely perfect government. An earthly despotism would be the absolutely perfect earthly government, if the conditions were the same; namely, the despot the perfectest individual of the human race, and his lease of life perpetual. But as a perishable perfect man must die, and leave his despotism in the hands of an imperfect successor, an earthly despotism is not merely a bad form of government, it is the worst form that is possible."

-Mark Twain

#54 Dan

Dan

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,479 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 06:50 AM

Very cool old manuscripts of Rambam Mishna Torah - http://kaufmann.mtak.hu/en/study05.htm || http://kaufmann.mtak...ms77a-coll1.htm
כלל זה יהא נקוט בידך: מי שאינו רואה את המקום [=ה'] בכל מקום, אינו רואה בשום מקום
איפה נמצא אלוקים? בכל מקום שנותנים לו להיכנס
-Kotzker

נישט אלעס וואס מען טראכט דארף מען זאגען, נישט אלעס וואס מען זאגט דארף מען שרייבען, נישט אלעס וואס מען שרייבט דארף מען דרוקען און נישט אלעס וואס מען דרוקט דארף מען ליינען!
-R' Salanter

יש בן חורין שרוחו רוח של עבד, ויש עבד שרוחו מלאה חירות; הנאמן לעצמיותו בן חורין הוא, ומי שכל חייו הם רק במה שטוב ויפה בעיני אחרים הוא עבד
-R' Kook

#55 Guest_Melech_*

Guest_Melech_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:13 AM

....

#56 Dan

Dan

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,479 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:21 AM

awesome.

added to sources on the net. thanks.

Your welcome! :)

Found it here - http://www.seforimon....org/blog/?p=23
כלל זה יהא נקוט בידך: מי שאינו רואה את המקום [=ה'] בכל מקום, אינו רואה בשום מקום
איפה נמצא אלוקים? בכל מקום שנותנים לו להיכנס
-Kotzker

נישט אלעס וואס מען טראכט דארף מען זאגען, נישט אלעס וואס מען זאגט דארף מען שרייבען, נישט אלעס וואס מען שרייבט דארף מען דרוקען און נישט אלעס וואס מען דרוקט דארף מען ליינען!
-R' Salanter

יש בן חורין שרוחו רוח של עבד, ויש עבד שרוחו מלאה חירות; הנאמן לעצמיותו בן חורין הוא, ומי שכל חייו הם רק במה שטוב ויפה בעיני אחרים הוא עבד
-R' Kook

#57 Guest_Melech_*

Guest_Melech_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 October 2010 - 07:45 AM

....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users