56 replies to this topic

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Do the typographical mistakes in the Gemara bother you?

What about the alternate types of Gemaras (like the Warsaw edition) and the variations in the print?

Does the fact that it was censored, and still used in the censored format even though we know where bother you?

[Gabbe]

.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

How many indisputable typos have you seen? I have seen just one -spelling the Hebrew word for entrance פסח.

Does the aleph/heh in פציע דכא bother you?

I have yet to see any bothersome censorings in the Gemara. Does the knowledge of the names and zingers of the five disciples of Jesus really do anything for you?

I don't know how many, but there are quite a few instances when I couldn't find a strange word in a dictionary, and our Rosh Yeshiva says that Bava Metzia is riddled with mistakes in Tosafot.

Are you aware of all the instances of censorship in the Gemara? The ones I am aware of do bother me, but what bothers me even more is that fact that I don't even know where all the censorship is. It makes me uneasy. It also bothers me that we use a censored Gemara.

[Jewcepticon]

Do the typographical mistakes in the Gemara bother you?

What about the alternate types of Gemaras (like the Warsaw edition) and the variations in the print?

Does the fact that it was censored, and still used in the censored format even though we know where bother you?

Yes, because the Vilna edition is utterly corrupt. We were studying Gemara with a controversial Gadol using a 1000 year old Spanish text,which itself followed the manuscript line of a geonic text. Many many differences which change the whole meaning. Masechet Avoda Zara.

I'm not name the Hakham but if your smart you will figure it out.

[Dan]

Careful dissing the Vilna shas.. many huge talmidei chachamim have used it. Anyway, this is interesting:

Printing

The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud was printed in Venice by Daniel Bomberg during the 16th century. In addition to the Mishnah and Gemara, Bomberg's edition contained the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot. Almost all printings since Bomberg have followed the same pagination. The edition of the Talmud published by the Szapira brothers in Slavuta in 1795 is particularly prized by many hasidic rebbes. In 1835, after an acrimonious dispute with the Szapira family, a new edition of the Talmud was printed by Menachem Romm of Vilna. Known as the Vilna Shas, this edition (and later ones printed by his widow and sons) has been used in the production of more recent editions of Talmud Bavli.
A page number in the Talmud refers to a double-sided page, known as a daf; each daf has two amudim labeled א and ב, sides A and B (Recto and Verso). The referencing by daf is relatively recent and dates from the early Talmud printings of the 17th century. Earlier rabbinic literature generally only refers to the tractate or chapters within a tractate. Nowadays, reference is made in format [Tractate daf a/b] (e.g. Berachot 23b). In the Vilna edition of the Talmud there are 5,894 folio pages.
The text of the Vilna editions is considered by scholars not to be uniformly reliable. In the early twentieth century Nathan Rabinowitz published a series of volumes called Dikduke Soferim showing textual variants from early manuscripts and printings. In 1960 the Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud started work on a new edition under the name of Gemara Shelemah (complete Gemara) under the editorship of Menachem Mendel Kasher: only the volume on the first part of tractate Pesachim appeared (in 1986) before the project was interrupted by his death. This edition contained a comprehensive set of textual variants and a few selected commentaries. There have been critical editions of particular tractates (e.g. Henry Malter's edition of Ta'anit), but there is no modern critical edition of the whole Talmud. The most recent edition is by the Oz ve-Hadar institute: this is basically an updated version of the Vilna edition, but cites variant texts in footnotes. Another edition, by Rabbi Yosef Amar,[12] represents the Yemenite tradition, and takes the form of a photostatic reproduction of a Vilna-based print to which Yemenite vocalization and textual variants have been added by hand, together with printed introductory material.

http://en.wikipedia....Talmud#Printing

[qgh]

I am bothered by the fact that we continue to print and study the texts consored.
The Vilna edition apparently has beocme the "massoret" so we are not allowed to change it even when it was cenosored by the goyim.

Steinsaltz does insert what was censored. From what i noticed in mashechet Sanhedrin Artscroll kept the text censored and did not even comment thta it was censored . (it just said our Gmara ends here , see masoret hashas ...)

[Dan]

I am bothered by the fact that we continue to print and study the texts consored.
The Vilna edition apparently has beocme the "massoret" so we are not allowed to change it even when it was cenosored by the goyim.

Steinsaltz does insert what was censored. From what i noticed in mashechet Sanhedrin Artscroll kept the text censored and did not even comment thta it was censored . (it just said our Gmara ends here , see masoret hashas ...)

The Oz Vehadar gemaras do add in the censored sections, IIRC.

[Snag]

I am bothered by the fact that we continue to print and study the texts consored.
The Vilna edition apparently has beocme the "massoret" so we are not allowed to change it even when it was cenosored by the goyim.

Steinsaltz does insert what was censored. From what i noticed in mashechet Sanhedrin Artscroll kept the text censored and did not even comment thta it was censored . (it just said our Gmara ends here , see masoret hashas ...)

while the sefardim should have no issues, rabbeinu gershom m'ohr hagolah issued a cherem against purposely making any changes to the text of the gemara. therefore, many people fear to add the censored parts into the actual text, lest the version we have not be perfectly accurate. however,

The Oz Vehadar gemaras do add in the censored sections, IIRC.

as do the moznayim ones, albeit at the bottom of the page, to avoid the problem mentioned.

[qgh]

while the sefardim should have no issues, rabbeinu gershom m'ohr hagolah issued a cherem against purposely making any changes to the text of the gemara. therefore, many people fear to add the censored parts into the actual text, lest the version we have not be perfectly accurate. however,

That is exactly what bothers me. I do not know what exactly Rabeeinu Gershom had in mind but I have a hard to believing he would want us to continue using the catholic's church edition of the Rambam or Gmara when we do have other versions avaialable.

The Oz Vehadar gemaras do add in the censored sections, IIRC.

as do the moznayim ones, albeit at the bottom of the page, to avoid the problem mentioned.

as mentioned above so does Steinsaltz and other editions. Unfortunately many still study from the censored texts as popular editions like Artscroll did not add these parts.

[Snag]

That is exactly what bothers me. I do not know what exactly Rabeeinu Gershom had in mind but I have a hard to believing he would want us to continue using the catholic's church edition of the Rambam or Gmara when we do have other versions avaialable.

the problem with logic like this is where the line is drawn - do we then continue to correct the glaringly obvious scribal or printer's errors, like the vast majority of the bach's emendations? do we then continue to correct those places where logic dictates that there must have been a mistake? it is for this reason that rgmh felt it necessary to issue his cherem, because of the dangers in beginning to descend this slippery slope.

[qgh]

the problem with logic like this is where the line is drawn - do we then continue to correct the glaringly obvious scribal or printer's errors, like the vast majority of the bach's emendations? do we then continue to correct those places where logic dictates that there must have been a mistake? it is for this reason that rgmh felt it necessary to issue his cherem, because of the dangers in beginning to descend this slippery slope.

I don't know where you draw the line but it is rediculous to be studying the catholic church's edition of the Gmara or the Rambam. we have very acurate editions of the Rambam and we have uncensored copies of the Gmara. You have certain gmaras that simply end in the middle of a sugiya because of censorship.

[Snag]

I don't know where you draw the line but it is rediculous to be studying the catholic church's edition of the Gmara or the Rambam. we have very acurate editions of the Rambam and we have uncensored copies of the Gmara. You have certain gmaras that simply end in the middle of a sugiya because of censorship.

the rambam is a whole different ball game, as the cherem was never enacted with regard to anything other than the gemara.

but how do we know for sure which of the 'uncensored' editions is the correct nusach? perhaps we are substituting a corrupt nusach? the reason for rgmh's enactment (iirc)was the church's practice of having scribes write gemaras with emendations, which led all kinds of people to make their own changes to the text.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

I don't know where you draw the line but it is rediculous to be studying the catholic church's edition of the Gmara or the Rambam. we have very acurate editions of the Rambam and we have uncensored copies of the Gmara. You have certain gmaras that simply end in the middle of a sugiya because of censorship.

I'm surprised we don't have any extant manuscripts from North Africa, the middle East, or any other Muslim lands.

[qgh]

the rambam is a whole different ball game, as the cherem was never enacted with regard to anything other than the gemara.

but how do we know for sure which of the 'uncensored' editions is the correct nusach? perhaps we are substituting a corrupt nusach? the reason for rgmh's enactment (iirc)was the church's practice of having scribes write gemaras with emendations, which led all kinds of people to make their own changes to the text.

I am talking about clear cut censorship that we know about. We know the word akum is not what the Gmara originally had, we know there are places where there was censorship as he have written manuscripts that were not censored.
you don't need to get technical in this disccussion about cases where we may not be sure what the correct edition is and places where there may have been insignificant typos. In those cases it makes sense to have a footnote saying that there are different versions.

[Snag]

I am talking about clear cut censorship that we know about. We know the word akum is not what the Gmara originally had, we know there are places where there was censorship as he have written manuscripts that were not censored.
you don't need to get technical in this disccussion about cases where we may not be sure what the correct edition is and places where there may have been insignificant typos. In those cases it makes sense to have a footnote saying that there are different versions.

the problem, again, is where we draw the line in deciding what is "clear cut censorship that we know about" and when it becomes a gray area. to borrow a quote from myself, ואחרי רבות השנים ובצירותא דליבא וכל מעתיק או מדפיס נטה קו להוסיף לגרע ולשנות כרצונו, כמעט לא תוכר הגירסא הנכונה. our position, therefore, based on rgmh, is to refrain from making any changes to the text - bar none. footnoting is a good idea, however, which is why i use the moznayim edition.

[Jewcepticon]

I'm surprised we don't have any extant manuscripts from North Africa, the middle East, or any other Muslim lands.

we dont? gee thats surprising because in class we where using a 1000 year old text of Avoda Zara from spain that was gotten from...JTS

and I also have Rambam with 10,000 mistakes corrected based on....Yemenite manuscripts

[Snag]

and I also have Rambam with 10,000 mistakes corrected based on....Yemenite manuscripts

the shabsi frankel edition quotes all of those.

[starwolf]

we dont? gee thats surprising because in class we where using a 1000 year old text of Avoda Zara from spain that was gotten from...JTS

Yeah, but you got it from JTS! That's hardly better than the Church itself! Who knows what those dastardly Conservatives may have done to the text!

[qgh]

the problem, again, is where we draw the line in deciding what is "clear cut censorship that we know about" and when it becomes a gray area. to borrow a quote from myself, ואחרי רבות השנים ובצירותא דליבא וכל מעתיק או מדפיס נטה קו להוסיף לגרע ולשנות כרצונו, כמעט לא תוכר הגירסא הנכונה. our position, therefore, based on rgmh, is to refrain from making any changes to the text - bar none. footnoting is a good idea, however, which is why i use the moznayim edition.

I could pose the same question to you . where do you draw the line?
what if the catholic church would have censored entire chapters or an entire maschechet and it would not be part of the published version. would you still say we should continue to not print those chapters or machechtot.

You can draw the line anywhere you want with regards to the gray zone. I am talking about clear cut censorship.
you have a sugiya and it is cut in the middle. We have other versions that do have the censored part. what is not clear here?