Q&A: Emendations in the Talmud
Emendations in the Talmud
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Following up on what we discussed today during the ride, there is a strange passage in Bava Metzia 71b:
Ravina said: Granted that agency does not apply to a gentile, acquisition on behalf of another by rabbinic law does apply to him. It is like a minor: even though a minor does not have agency, he does have acquisition on behalf of another by rabbinic law. Here too, it is no different. — But that is not so: a Jew can come into the category of agency, whereas a gentile cannot come into the category of agency.
Nachmanides asked why acquisition on behalf of another is only by rabbinic law (both regarding a gentile and regarding a minor), and in the end he wrote:
And some of our French rabbis of blessed memory wrote that we do not read “by rabbinic law,” for it is by Torah law; and this seems correct. But the Talmud contradicts it, and we do not listen when it comes to emending the texts.
The truth is that this emendation puts the Talmudic passage in very good order. The question is whether it is proper to adopt this emendation, and more generally whether it is proper to make emendations where it seems fairly called for.
With blessings,
Answer
That is how people have proceeded from time immemorial: to emend on the basis of reasoning and interpretation, until Rabbenu Tam’s enactment not to emend inside the text itself but only in a note at the side (as the Bach does). But even after Rabbenu Tam’s enactment, this is still done—just in the margin of the text and not inside it. If there is no other plausible conceptual resolution, commentators can certainly suggest an emendation. Today we also have the means to check the version against different manuscripts, and that can strengthen (or weaken) such proposals.