tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post6528064593725718022..comments2023-09-11T17:58:13.764-04:00Comments on The Rebbetzin's Husband: Daf: Gittin 55a-56a - Feeding a child treif, suspect kiddush HaShem, Bar Kamtza's storyThe Rebbetzin's Husbandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14977193945074906534noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-34314285868501624482008-09-19T12:02:00.000-04:002008-09-19T12:02:00.000-04:00Alex,Thanks for commenting.Yse, there are other di...Alex,<BR/>Thanks for commenting.<BR/>Yse, there are other differences between the accounts, but I'm not clear on why that should matter.<BR/><BR/>I'm not the only one who thinks we should just look at the midrashic account - see Maharim Shif. Even Maharatz Chajes, who spends quite a bit of time trying to explain our edition, eventually says, "Go look at Midrash Kinot," but which he means Eichah Rabti.<BR/><BR/>Rashi, for his part, does seem to want to explain our gemara without resorting to the midrashic edition - but his explanation (savlanut) is entirely consistent with the midrash. Although Maharatz Chajes says ענוה לחוד וסבלנות לחוד, the connection between them is evident, especially as seen in the stories about Hillel in Shabbat 30b-31a.The Rebbetzin's Husbandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14977193945074906534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-21369712311188896422008-09-19T11:36:00.000-04:002008-09-19T11:36:00.000-04:00About R' Zecharyah ben Avkulos, I'm not sure that ...About R' Zecharyah ben Avkulos, I'm not sure that it's "a refusal to read alternative editions." There are other substantive differences between the account in Gittin and the one in Eichah Rabbah - among other things, whether it was one animal or several that the Romans sent as a korban.<BR/><BR/>It's equally likely, then, that there were two different traditions as to the part R' Zecharyah played in the tragedy. (Eichah Rabbah doesn't mention him in connection with the decision on the korban; that doesn't mean that the text there is defective either.)<BR/><BR/>So we have to understand the Gemara on its own terms - that his "anvetanut," whatever exactly that means, was evidenced by his speaking up about the disposition of the korban and/or of Bar Kamtza himself.<BR/><BR/>(Note, too, that Rashi here defines "anvetanuto" as "his forbearance, in tolerating this person [Bar Kamtza] and not having him killed."]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com