The fifth chapter of our massekhet begins at the very bottom of TB Eruvin 52. The Mishnah begins “How does one extend the boundaries of cities in order to ensure that all its protrusions are included within the borders of the city? -כֵּיצַד מְעַבְּרִין אֶת הֶעָרִים” (Sefaria.org translation)
Immediately in the Gemara TB Eruvin 53, Rav and Shmuel dispute the terminology of the Mishnah’s opening statement. “Rav and Shmuel disagreed: One taught that the term in the mishna is me’abberin (מְעַבְּרִין), with the letter ayin, and one taught that the term in the mishna is me’abberin (מְאבְּרִין), with the letter alef. The Gemara explains: The one who taught me’abberin with an alef explained the term in the sense of limb [ever] by limb. Determination of the city’s borders involves the addition of limbs to the core section of the city. And the one who taught me’abberin with an ayin explained the term in the sense of a pregnant woman [ubbera] whose belly protrudes. In similar fashion, all the city’s protrusions are incorporated in its Shabbat limit.” (Sefaria.org translation) Remembering that the Mishna was learned and passed down orally, we Ashkenazic Jews can see how people could confuse an alef with an ayin. Ultimately the Gemara states that both versions were equally taught as authoritative.
Even though the two versions say the same things using different metaphors, our sages wanted to preserve the best version. Clear communication is essential if one wants to be successful in life. Teachers especially need to instruct in clear and precise language if they want their students to learn. “Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to the people of Judea, who were particular in their speech and always made certain that it was both precise and refined, their Torah knowledge endured for them.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Apropos the above dispute, the Gemara cites similar disputes between Rav and Shmuel. Rashi cites them in his commentary and they come from our daf. I share them with you because these are basic rabbinic understanding of different verses in the Torah that everybody should be familiar with.
“With regard to the Machpelah Cave, in which the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said: The cave consists of two rooms, one farther in than the other. And one said: It consists of a room and a second story above it. Rather, it is called Machpelah in the sense that it is doubled with the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, who are buried there in pairs. This is similar to the homiletic interpretation of the alternative name for Hebron mentioned in the Torah: “Mamre of Kiryat Ha’Arba, which is Hebron” (Genesis 35:27). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The city is called Kiryat Ha’Arba, the city of four, because it is the city of the four couples buried there: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah.
“They disagreed about this verse as well: “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel” (Genesis 14:1). Rav and Shmuel both identified Amraphel with Nimrod. However, one said: Nimrod was his name. And why was his name called Amraphel? It is a contraction of two Hebrew words: As he said [amar] the command and cast [hippil] our father Abraham into the fiery furnace, when Abraham rebelled against and challenged his proclaimed divinity. And one said: Amraphel was his name. And why was his name called Nimrod? Because he caused the entire world to rebel [himrid] against God during his reign.
“They also disagreed about this verse: “There arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said: He was actually a new king, and one said: He was in fact the old king, but his decrees were new. The Gemara explains. The one who said he was actually a new king based his opinion on the fact that it is written in the verse that he was new. And the one who said that his decrees were new derived his opinion from the fact that it is not written: And the king died, and his successor reigned, as it is written, for example, with regard to the kings of Edom (Genesis 36). The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that his decrees were new, isn’t it written: “Who knew not Joseph”? If it were the same king, how could he not know Joseph? The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Who knew not Joseph”? It means that he conducted himself like one who did not know Joseph at all” (Sefaria.org translation)
No comments:
Post a Comment