There is a machlokes between different editions of gemara and mishnayos as to the correct order of the last two perakim in Sanhedrin (Perek Chelek and Eilu Hein Hanechnakin).

It seems quite clearly from the Gemara on Makkos 2b that Eilu Hein Hanechnakin must be last.

Why do many (most?) editions go contrary to this? What reasons are there to put Chelek after it? My chavrusa suggested that maybe they wanted to first finish with the Halacha perakim and then have the Aggadeta. This doesn't make sense to me, because very often the middle few perakim of a masechta are aggadeta (Baba Basra, for example).

How do you understand the Gemara in Makkos if Chelek is between Eilu Hanechnakin and Makkos? (I noticed in one Gemara that instead of having Sanhedrin-Makkos-Shevuos, it had Sanhedrin-Shvuos-Makkos. I'm pretty sure that's pashut a mistake.)

Does anyone know of any sources discussing this?

מיכאל

P.S. for those of you who also frequent forums.torah.org, sorry for double posting.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Kopinsky:
There is a machlokes between different editions of gemara and mishnayos as to the correct order of the last two perakim in Sanhedrin (Perek Chelek and Eilu Hein Hanechnakin).

It seems quite clearly from the Gemara on Makkos 2b that Eilu Hein Hanechnakin must be last.

Why do many (most?) editions go contrary to this? What reasons are there to put Chelek after it? My chavrusa suggested that maybe they wanted to first finish with the Halacha perakim and then have the Aggadeta. This doesn't make sense to me, because very often the middle few perakim of a masechta are aggadeta (Baba Basra, for example).

How do you understand the Gemara in Makkos if Chelek is between Eilu Hanechnakin and Makkos? (I noticed in one Gemara that instead of having Sanhedrin-Makkos-Shevuos, it had Sanhedrin-Shvuos-Makkos. I'm pretty sure that's pashut a mistake.)

Does anyone know of any sources discussing this?

מיכאל

P.S. for those of you who also frequent forums.torah.org, sorry for double posting.

I don't know a source but often the Rambam gives a reason why Rebbe picks one order before another. It's always a logical order. When a reason isn't given and some editions are different than others you have to wonder if it wasn't done by a non Jewish publisher such as Bomberg or Soncino who may have had their own reasons not based on historical facts. This is just speculation on my part. It would be good if we could check incunabula documents that existed before printing to see the order or girsa. Such ancient gemaras exist in Oxford University's Oriental department. The English evicted the Jews but kept our seforim. They probably exist in the Vatican as well.

Unrelated to the specific topic, I have an interest in other ancient works, and would be most appreciative of any assistance in acquiring a certain item of proof.

Aish.Com's Discovery seminar includes a beautiful segment on certain small letters written in Megillas Esther by the listing of Haman's sons' names. They point out these letters specify the Hebrew date of the Nuremburg trials.

I'd like to find two things, one of which surely would exist at some university's archives of ancient scrolls, namely a Megillas Esther verifyably of at least 70 years of age, and which shows these letters written in this way.

And, surely more rare each year, ideally someone who was trained as a sofer before the Nurmburg trials (or at least trained by someone who was) and who asked the question of why those particular letters were written small.

Perhaps before this date meaning was known there was another answer given to this question?

Surely there must have been some curious Yidden who were given some answer for why?

I believe Rashi asks the question about the small letters, and says we don't know. As for finding old megillas - I'm sure it's not hard to find. Anyways, to introduce such changes after the Nuremberg trials would have been impossible to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Sam K:
When a reason isn't given and some editions are different than others you have to wonder if it wasn't done by a non Jewish publisher such as Bomberg or Soncino who may have had their own reasons not based on historical facts.

Who is the publisher for soncino's gemarrah? And, who/what is "Bomberg"?

soncino and bobberg were both printers of gemaras and other jewish texts in the early days of printed sforim. their acquracy is questionable because they were motivated by money to sell books to jews. in fact at times they used apostate jews for copywriting when other jews refused to participate or when the version preferred by the xtian authorities would only (halavai) be written out by an apostate. falsified letters of approbation were also common. since there was no modern system of communication these errors were long lasting. modern editions of the gemara have been thoroughly reviewed to remedy the damage as best as possible. some questions may remain unanswered.

MK Fink, where/what is your source for this info?

i will need to dig out my old jewish history books to look this up. i know there was also an article about this in the english "mischpacha" magazine last year, i believe it was properly footnooted. is anybody else familiar with this historical period? i will look for a reference in the meantime.

1. Don't know. My history books just said that Bomberg was more interested in making money than scholarship and did not purchase the best manuscripts. In any event, until the Jews were allowed to print their own talmud in the 1880's, and more importantly by Royal Favor, to access the manuscripts in the vatican, we can assume that the christian publishers did not have the same interest in doing the best job as the jews.

2. I think if you will peruse the perush mishnaot of the Rambam you will find that the order of many chapters of the mishneh are different from the vilna shas. Acutally the vilna shas did want to follow the Rambam's order but sometimes circumstances prevented this, e.g. Yoma came out before Rosh Hashana because the Vatican library was closed in the summer time and they couldn't wait (Description of the making of the vilna shas in the back of nidah).
3. Who put in the sixth chapter of Pirkei Avot? It is not only a braita and not a mishneh but it was published with perush mishnaot of the Rambam, which he didn't write because it wasn't a mishneh. This explains how in this perush attibuted to the Rambam, the author says that we say kiddush after aggada when the Rambam clearly states that we say kiddush rabbanim after any type of learning, mishneh, gemara or midrash. (The incorrect indentification is acknowledged in our printed mishnaot.)

Aryeh Shore