- This topic has 63 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 12 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Taanit 27 discusses days of fasting for maamadot representing Jewish people for communal karbonos. They don’t fast on shishi and shabbat because of kavod of shabbat, and also on yom rishon. Why?
Rav Yohanan suggests because it is yom tov notzrim … (other suggestion is because it is day after shabbat and neshema yetzera goes away, maybe hard to eat after a day of extra food) – either we don’t want to honr it or we don’t want to establish something that is against them.
This sounds very anachronistic, and Maharsha and Meiri explain that these are some other notzrim (Babylonian sect) and one modern academic Lawrence Zalcman finds that Mandaeans (nasuri) had yom rishon as a holiday, which also not clear how big they were to affect us.
The question is how could Rav Yohanan be so anachronistic and the rest of Amoraim and later meforshim pay so little attention to that.
One explanation (also heard in a name of a Gadol) is that this follows our view that notzrim came from a student of R Yehoshua b Perachia, which takes it back 100+ years from the accepted view. Still, maamadot existed much earlier, and does not fully resolve the problem. Nobody is saying that maamadot were on yom rishon and then discontinued.
2. Another possible explanation is that nobody in Europe wanted to address the issue. Not even clear how this Gemora survived the censor as is – maybe because it may be understood that this is a positive reference “out of respect”.
3. Another: Amoraim are working from information given by the generation of BM2 survivors who described how things were at the end of BM2, but maybe not always earlier.
4. Another (complimenting 3): Rav Yohanan proposes not a well fitting explanation and Gemora really rejects it in favor of the post-shabbat explanation. They don’t need to really destroy R Yohanan’s argument as there is no practical implication.
Any other suggestions? Anybody has an Artscroll or a Steinsaltz? They should address such (a)historical references.
Keep in mind that Reb Yochanan is the one who says in Shabbos, אם ברור לך כאחותו שהיא אסורה לך אמרהו, ואם לאו אל תאמרהו. He didn’t shoot suggestions.
I don’t really get the idea that to conflate ישו הנוצרי with בן סטדא. Nowhere does the Gemara put them together.
I’m every over occasion we purposefully do things to show apostates and heretics that we don’t follow their believes. What is different in this case that we buckle to the heretics?
My assumption is that there was a movement begun by ישו הנוצרי, a student at one point of רבי יהושע בן פרחיה. He was powerful and well connected to the royal family. There must have been many legends about him and he was likely very charismatic.
Then, about 150 years later, there arose this guy בן סטדא, who began a movement based on the previous one. He might be the famous Christian messiah, or perhaps he is Paul who spoke of this imaginary person and began a religion with that.
Either way, while we were not physically afraid of Ben Sitda’s movement and we composed litergical pieces to excise them, we were afraid the earlier powerful movement.
During the period referenced in the gemara, the Christians were a major group in all regions that Jews lived, and had already settled on observing Yom Rishon as their sabbath (lower-case), which would explain why frum Yidden would have been anxious to avoiding the appearance of having a special day on the day that the Christians claimed was a special day.
Could be that we only fast on Asara Beteveis on yom shishi as Rebbi Yochanan himself said by Tisha Beav, אתחלתא דפרעניות עדיף, the start of the punishment is greater. The destruction of the Beis Hamikdash emanated 30 moths later from the siege of Jerusalem. We even would have to fast on shabbos if it could fall on it.
Regarding the Christian/European Church censoring parts of the Gemorah, are any of the parts of the Gemorah that were forcibly deleted by the censors completely lost to us today or do we, essentially, know all the missing passages?
The question is interesting because the Gemorah originated outside of Christiandome and the Gemorah always was present outside of Christian lands. So it would stand to reason that regardless of what the Church censored, Klal Yisroel always had and never lost the uncensored version of the Gemorah.
There is a known gemora in Sanhedrin about erev pesach on ישו, known as an acronym, hanotzri being announced thirty days before to provide defense for him and a play on the name of the apostles that was censured out.
Let’s restore the censored Gemorah’s to the standard Vilna Shas.
@HaLeiVi I can’t remember mesachte and perek but there are rishonim that clearly link ישו הנוצרי with בן סטדא See IIRC commentries on the agageta of Miriam Megadle Searos in Chaggigah but the main sugya is elesewhere, I’ll try to remember to follow-up with correct marei mokom.
From Bar Ilan the gemora I referred to above:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף מג עמוד א
/מכאן ועד סוף הקטע השלמה של השמטת הצנזורה/ והתניא: בערב הפסח תלאוהו לישו הנוצרי, והכרוז יוצא לפניו ארבעים יום: ישו הנוצרי יוצא ליסקל על שכישף והסית והדיח את ישראל, כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבוא וילמד עליו. ולא מצאו לו זכות ותלאוהו בערב הפסח. – אמר עולא: ותסברא, ישו הנוצרי בר הפוכי זכות הוא? מסית הוא, ורחמנא אמר לא תחמל ולא תכסה עליו! אלא שאני ישו דקרוב למלכות הוה. תנו רבנן: חמשה תלמידים היו לו לישו הנוצרי, מתאי, נקאי נצר ובוני ותודה. אתיוה למתי, אמר להו: מתי יהרג? הכתיב מתי אבוא ואראה פני אלהים! – אמרו לו: אין, מתי יהרג דכתיב מתי ימות ואבד שמו. אתיוה לנקאי, אמר להו: נקאי יהרג? הכתיב ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג! – אמרו לו: אין, נקאי יהרג, דכתיב במסתרים יהרג נקי. אתיוה לנצר, אמר: נצר יהרג? הכתיב ונצר משרשיו יפרה! – אמרו לו: אין, נצר יהרג, דכתיב ואתה השלכת מקברך כנצר נתעב. אתיוה לבוני, אמר: בוני יהרג? הכתיב בני בכרי ישראל! – אמרו לו: אין, בוני יהרג, דכתיב הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכרך. אתיוה לתודה, אמר: תודה יהרג?
הכתיב מזמור לתודה! – אמרו לו: אין, תודה יהרג, דכתיב זבח תודה יכבדנני.+The Satmar Rav in his sefer Al Hageula Val Hatmura says that sometimes the chitzonim make miracles in order to fool us. Aharon Hakohen placed a sheet of gold in fire and an eigal appeared.
There is a very interesting story in the in Beis Hamedrash quoted by Otzar Hamedroshim from Eisenstein about Shimon Keifa also known as St. Peter who built a tower and only showed himself once a year. He was a double agent. He made himself look like he is for Yeshu in order to gain confidence and then was able to sway them away from him.
I made a mistake above. It should be forty days instead of thirty days before his judgement.
AAQ,
The poshut pshat is like the Maharsha and Meiri that the gemorrah is not referring to what we call the notzrim but another group/ideology that was already around by bayis rishon.
Why is that so shver?
It obviously cannot be referring to people who only appeared at the end of Bayis Sheni to explain why the maamados bizman habayis didn’t fast on Sunday.As an aside, the blatt at the end of Maseches Taanis have many shinui girsaos – even a shinuy girsah that changes the word from Assur to Mutar.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף קד עמוד ב
המסרט על בשרו. תניא, אמר להן רבי אליעזר לחכמים: והלא בן סטדא הוציא כשפים
ממצרים בסריטה שעל בשרו! אמרו לו: שוטה היה, ואין מביאין ראיה מן השוטים
+/מכאן, קטע שהושמט מפני הצנזורה/ בן סטדא? בן פנדירא הוא! – אמר רב חסדא:
בעל – סטדא, בועל – פנדירא. – בעל פפוס בן יהודה הוא! – אלא, אמו סטדא. – אמו
מרים מגדלא שער נשיא הואי! – אלא, כדאמרי בפומבדיתא סטת דא מבעלה.+תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף סז עמוד א
וכן עשו לבן סטדא בלוד, ותלאוהו בערב הפסח. – בן סטדא? בן פנדירא הוא! – אמר רב חסדא: בעל – סטדא, בועל – פנדירא. – בעל פפוס בן יהודה הוא! – אלא: אמו סטדא. –
אמו מרים מגדלא נשיא הואי! – כדאמרי בפומבדיתא: סטת דא מבעלהAll goyim had holidays on Sunday which is for the god Sun (the Shamash of the heavens and Son of all powers). Gm avoda zara first perek. the Christians moved sabath to sunday to appease the goyim.
The original girsa was like maharsha, “gelilim”, but later ppl changed to notzrim cuz they thought the censors changed, but didnt. thats why we have it.
In Hungarian Sunday is called shopping day. Most probably because people are free to shop.
“The original girsa was like maharsha, “gelilim”, but later ppl changed to notzrim cuz they thought the censors changed, but didnt. thats why we have it.”
Every single manuscript, including the Munich manuscripts, all say נוצרים. To make up a story that people came and changed words to match an idea that they liked, is way of the mark.
“It obviously cannot be referring to people who only appeared at the end of Bayis Sheni to explain why the maamados bizman habayis didn’t fast on Sunday.”
The student of Rebbe Yehoshua ben Prachya was known as Notzri, Ben Sitda is not associated with that name. Whether Christianity stems from the earlier or the latter, it is the earlier one who is referred to as Notzri. He was over 150 years before the destruction.
See the shaila also about using the secular date in Yabia Omer Chelek 3, YD 9
@Haleivi I don’t really get the idea that to conflate ישו הנוצרי with בן סטדא. Nowhere does the Gemara put them together.
The Ritva on Shabbos 24b says they are the same person. Yerushalmi also. It’s night likely that the bavli too was clear on that point but removed by censor.
Pandro is another name for Yeshu.
“The Ritva on Shabbos 24b says they are the same person. Yerushalmi also. It’s night likely that the bavli too was clear on that point but removed by censor.”
You probably mean 104b (קד not כד), but it’s not there, either. That is where Tosafos says that it’s not the same person. You didn’t point to a Yerushalmi, and I would be surprised if Tosafos missed that.
Now, the Ramban in his debate, as well as Seder Hakabalah of the Raavad, do say that our counting is 100 years before theirs. This may be because they are only referring to ישו הנוצרי and not to בן סטדא at all. Or perhaps, and actually unlikely, they conflate the two since both are assumed to be referring to the Christian founder.
To Reb Eliezer re Sunday in Magyar…
___
BTW. Shabbos day is called in many original languages as such. Rest day – stemming of course from שבת. בלה’ק
In Spanish, Portuguese: Sábado. In Italian it’s Sabato. (Which these language are derived from Latin) as well as Russian Subota. In Slovak it’s Sabat.
___Bonus: Jewish in Italian is: Ebreo…
Shabbos in Hungarian is Szombat and Monday is called Hetfo meaning start of the week with umlauts on both vowels.
The above szombat is pronounced sombot like ‘all’ at the end. Hetfo is pronounced heit and the german Ostreich in the beginning for Austria at the end. Het means week and fo means head like fej meaning head of the week.
To Reb Eliezer. The Magyar word for Shabbis day sounds very close to סמבטיון. Like the Gemoro said נהר סמבטיון יוכיח
oh i thought this thread was about niter
*nittel
@HaLeivi
Yes קד not כד. The old defusos have clearer girsa, see Oz Vehodor gemorah
The Ritvo is in ע”ז כז ע”ב.
erushalmi is in ע”ז פ”ב ה”ב where the first is ישו בן פנדירא!A tourist comes from Hebrew word tur as losur.
@HaLeiVi yes Shabbos קד
And I misremembered the Ritva too. If fact, it’s in Avoda Zoro 27b and the Yerushalmi is also in Avoda Zoro (perek 2, halacha 2).
The modern-day gemoras who have pre-censor defus-yad text add a whole chunk into The Gemorah in Shabbos 104b. (The Yerushalmi was never censored as the Bavli agageta were.)
I see. Thanks.
Two things, though:
This is a long time after both of them. The Yerushalmi’s story is about a grandson of רבי יהושע בן לוי. At this point, the religion with all its legends kicked off. They are the ones who conflated the two. The Yerushalmi is merely (mis)quoting the name that was used.The other thing is that we aren’t given the name of בן סטדא. It may well have also been ישו, which helped in weaving the big story.
1. The Yerusalmi mentions JC’s full name only masiach lefi tumoi in this story which gives even more credence (if any is needed, when reading a clear Gemorah!)
2. Talmud Yerushalmi is (a) uncensored and (b) probably 200 years older than Bavli whereas these sort of agedetas in Bavli were heavily censored and are more likely to be wrong textually or contextually than the Yerushalmi until you look at the defusei yoshoni
3. We clearly are given the name of ben sitta – the Gemorah in Shabbos 104b says that it’s ben pandira, and the Yerushalmi says this is JC
4. The Ritva is unequivocal that JC’s full name is יש״ו בן פנדירא and I believe the Ritva knew how to understand a Gemorah 🙂Your theories about there being misnamed legends about early xtians and that a Gemorah would repeat errors in these “legends” are ust that – internet forum theories and don’t stack up next to a Ritva. (Although of course, Tosafos does disagree but clearly not because of your “legends theory” but simply because they were missing some of the Yerushalmi!)
1. The Yerusalmi mentions JC’s full name only masiach lefi tumoi in this story which gives even more credence (if any is needed, when reading a clear Gemorah!)
2. Talmud Yerushalmi is (a) uncensored and (b) probably 200 years older than Bavli whereas these sort of agedetas in Bavli were heavily censored and are more likely to be wrong textually or contextually than the Yerushalmi until you look at the defusei yoshoni
3. We clearly are given the name of ben sitta – the Gemorah in Shabbos 104b says that it’s ben pandira, and the Yerushalmi says this is JC
4. The Ritva is unequivocal that JC’s full name is יש״ו בן פנדירא and I believe the Ritva knew how to understand a Gemorah 🙂Your theories about there being misnamed legends about early xtians and that a Gemorah would repeat errors in these “legends” are just that – internet forum theories and don’t stack up next to a Ritva. (Although of course, Tosafos does disagree but clearly not because of your “legends theory” but simply because they were missing some of the Yerushalmi!)
First off, the Ritva was merely quoting the Yerushalmi. (וכן אמרו בירושלמי ובא יעקב איש כפר סעיא לרפאתו משמו של יש״ו בן פנדירא)
Second, it is very odd that you consider the Yerushalmi more reliable than Bavli. It is a known fact that the opposite is true. There are more חילופי נוסחאות in Yerushalmi than Bavli. In fact, even in Bavli, the less a Masechta was learned, the more mistakes were able to creep in. This is why we have much more Hagaos in Kadshim. You must have seen the Meiri, where he describes how those Masechtos were not often learned. We find very often how Tosafos would quote a Yerushalmi which turns out to be different than what we have.
Don’t overdo the censoring. That was a self-censor and we know exactly what was taken out. And actually, in Eretz Yitzroel the Christians were way more extreme in the early days.
Thirdly, I believe you misunderstood my random internet forum comment. And first, let me inform you: to you I might be a random, anonymous person, but to me, you are a random guy who read an article somewhere and decided to get mad.
Anyhow, the story that the Yerushalmi is speaking of (which is not the same as that in Bavli) is about a grandson of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Yerushalmi is not trying to teach us anything about the Christian hero. It is merely relating the “Shem” used by the witch doctor. He invoked Yeshu ben Pandira, because that was how they already referred to him.
And yes, I said, “The Yerushalmi is merely (mis)quoting the name that was used“. Perhaps you misunderstood that as well. The name ben Pandira is not a name by which a follower of the guy would refer to him. It is the biological father, and would have been used as an insult. Most likely, the Yerushalmi nicknamed him as such, paraphrasing the actual “Shem” used by the practitioner.
the Ritva was merely quoting the Yerushalmi
… and saying how correct it is
Second, it is very odd that you consider the Yerushalmi more reliable than Bavli. It is a known … (cut out blah)
To repeat, the Yerushalmi agageta regarding Chrsitainity wasn’t censored as the Bavli was.
He invoked Yeshu ben Pandira, because that was how they already referred to him.
Your conjectures are cute, but if I was to imagine everything in the Gmeorah is paraphrasing mistakes then working out contradictory agagetas would be much simpler.
“and saying how correct it is”
Huh?
So now in your frenzy to refute things, you’ll say that Rishonim are saying that a Yerushalmi is correct!? Is that better than saying it is Masiach Lefi Tumo?
Did you actually learn through that Ritva, or were you satisfied reading whatever article you pulled this from, knowing that there’s a Ritva out there?
The Ritva actually says how our Gemara can NOT be referring to that case, where there was a Lachash. (So much for saying how correct it is.)
Besides, to make believe that you have a Ritva as a source saying that these two names are of one person, is a lie. You are trying to trick people into thinking that you aren’t depending on one Yerushalmi (or a particular article or shiur). And to go and claim that Tosafos didn’t have the Yerushalmi — while one Daf before, he says, “ואמרינן בירושלמי דמכילתין” — and that Tosafos would have buckled had they only known what you are privy to, is that not arrogance?
Shouldn’t it strike everyone weird how our Gemara (and Yerushalmi elsewhere) has a certain way to call someone and they don’t mix? Sure, the story is similar, which is why there is an approach to work out how it can work. I’m sure you must know where Tosafos is coming from, the issue with Papus ben Yehuda. This has to be worked out.
There is another view, actually. The Ramban, in his introduction to the debate does imply that it is one. In fact, within the debate as well he says that they have the wrong date, meaning that their hero is the former disciple of Rebbe Yehoshua ben Prachia. The Shalsheles Hakabalah, too, takes this approach.
The Rif at the end Eruvin says that Bavli and Yerusalmi argue, we pasken like Bavli because the Bavli came after it and would know what it was saying. I pointed out the Yabia Omer above who discusses the time of Rebbe Yeshuah ben Perachaya in great detail.
Reb Eliezer, the question is whether they disagree. But really, it can’t be a Machlokes. It’s not up to Shikul Hadaas.
HaLeivi, I didn’t intend to get you so worked up but you are constantly misreading me and appear to take this too personally so I apologise if I offended you. I’m not comfortable debating further, but suffice to say I didn’t say Tosofos has no Yerushalmi, only that Yerushalmi (in a different mesechta) which the Ritva clearly also had, and agreed with its text.
“I didn’t say Tosofos has no Yerushalmi, only that Yerushalmi (in a different mesechta) ”
That’s why I quoted to you how Tosafos quoted from that very Masechta.
Btw, I didn’t switch my tone in a vacuum.
Here’s some more blah:
The Bavli was not censored yet in the days of Tosafos. That only happened after it was printed. And then, nothing got corrupted. It was self censored. We took out the “offending” passages. There was the Chisronos Hashas pamphlet which remained around. And, we have Kisvei Yad.
The Yerushalmi, on the other hand, was most likely not even put into writing until much later, it was seldomly studied, and therefore hardly corrected.
The two does copies I posted above show that the Ksav Yad of this Yerushalmi was censored and touched up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.