With “Sacred Techs” we wanted to bring together information focused upon using technology in the real of biblical and ancient studies. It will be periodically updated, on a monthly basis at the least, with articles and interviews on various topics around this general theme. We are very hopeful that others will be willing to contribute to the site, there are many within the world of online ancient studies who are very (and more) adept in these areas, many who are creating the very technology that we will be reviewing, citing, and discussing. This is particularly true if you use something other than Apple products and MacOS, iOS, or Android software. It is not that we are prejudiced against other platforms, but the reality is that Robert and I both tend to use those products and platforms. If you are interested in contributing please drop us a line or leave a comment!

Florence II-I-7: איני והא’ רב אידי בר אבין א’ רב יצחק בר אשייאן אדר וניסן לח

London – BL Add. 25717 402: איני והא’ (רבא ידי)[רב אידי] בר אבין א’ רב יצחק בר אשי אין אדר וניסן לח

Munich 95: איני והא’ רב אידי בר אבין א”ר יצחק אדר וניסן לח

Vatican 119: איני והתני רב אידי בר אבין אמ’ רב יצחק בר אשיין אדר וניסן לח

Vatican 120: איני והאמ’ רב אידי בר אבין אמ’ רב יצחק בר אשיין אדר וניסן לח

Venice 1522: איני והתניא והא רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיין אדר וניסן לח

Vilna: איני והתניא והא רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן אדר וניסן לח

I checked a few other printed editions and they all followed the Venice 1522 edition. I can’t think of any explanation other than a simple mistake to explain the version found in MS Vatican 119 that includes the word “והתני” that eventually morphed into “והתניא”. The error was clearly recognized by some commentators (see e.g. Shita Mekubbetz on the daf), yet it is still on the page of most printed editions.

Here are the articles that appear in this issue:

From Veils To Goatskins – The Female Ruse in Genesis
Rachel Adelmann
Matan, The Sadie Rennert Women’s Institute for Torah Study

When Women Confer with Rabbis: On Male Authority and Female Agency in The Mishnah
Naftali S. Cohn
Concordia University

A Cup of Affront and Anger: Yaltha as an Early Feminist in the Talmud
Admiel Kosman
Potsdam University and Geiger College, Berlin

“Guerrilla Girls”: Thematizing the Female (Counter) Voice in the Rabbinic Legal System
Gail Labovitz
The American Jewish University

The following is from the Tur, ed. Evigsberg, 1540, Ḥoshen Mishpat, 249.

The relevant lines reads

It is forbidden to give a free gift to an idol worshipper, but it is permitted to give it to a resident alien (ger toshav) since we are commanded to save his life.

The same version with one small difference can be found in the Venice (1595) edition.

Things start to get interesting in the Krakow (1631) edition. Notice the substitution of goy, non-Jew, for idol worshipper.

It is forbidden to give a free gift to an goy, but it is permitted to give it to a resident alien (ger toshav) since we are commanded to save his life.

This was also the first edition of the Tur that included the R. Sirkes’s commentary, the Baḥ. The section of his commentary that I am interested in describes the censorship of texts that mention non-Jews.

In my humble opinion, since the authorities are strict if non-Jews are mentioned dishonorably in our texts, therefore they removed the word “goy” and wrote in its place “idol worshipper,” but the most reliable version of our master’s books (i.e. the Tur), is that it is forbidden to give a free gift to a non-Jew (goy) as it is in the first chapter of Tractate Avodah Zarah.

The Baḥ was of the opinion that the original version of the Tur was

It is forbidden to give a free gift to an goy (non-Jew), but it is permitted to give it to a resident alien (ger toshav) since we are commanded to save his life.

The Baḥ’s intuition may very well have been correct. In the Feivi de Shoko (?) [1475] edition of the Tur the word is goy and not idol worshipper, although in the 1490 Soncino edition the word is idol worshipper. (I apologize for being unable to bring images of these texts, but the JNUL Digitized Books doesn’t work so well with a Mac.) One would have the check the many MSS of the Tur to see which was the original reading, although my hunch is that it was “goy” and not “idol worshipper.”

What happened to the comment of the Baḥ is possibly more interesting. This comment is still found in the Frankfurt am Main edition (1714).

But it is missing from the Krakow (1861) edition.

Luckily, the Tur ha-Shalem edition has returned this comment to the Baḥ, although I wonder why they chose “idol worshipper” in the Tur and not “goy.”

The Society for the Interpretation of Talmud has published Aaron Amit’s commentary on the fourth chapter of Bavli Pesahim, Makom She-Nahagu. This volume, as well as the others already published, is available for purchase from Rubin Mass.