David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ

Israeli-American interested in:
• Academic Talmud ∩ Jewish Law
• Rethinking computing / UX / HCI

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

🧵 on Web Browser #UX: #TooManyTabs

𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗯𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻?

Years ago, I discovered the solution!
No browser on the market has truly solved this problem.

Part 1: What’s the problem?
Part 2: The solution!
Part 3: Flow Browser

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

1. Flow Browser (thesis project): The zoomable Web browser that automatically organizes your tasks.

This is the latest in my quest to redesign Web browsers (and computers in general).

https://t.co/6WtpMlpIqu

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

@theacharonim Why are there only two rabbis in southern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East in 1776?

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

Eureka!

Haifa: GEN LT 2, Fragment 1v, FGP No.: C105
More information here: https://t.co/WIX6IKZ81H

According to that page, the script is Eastern and the date is unknown. The page also notes that it matches Mishneh Ṯorah (as I noticed).

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

That page has a different script, so it can’t be part of the same manuscript. But I did find it here:
https://t.co/ElAQuhvzL5 and https://t.co/x3MyVcwoSe

I still couldn’t find it on https://t.co/g0B9YUzarZ, but the script seems more medieval to me, so maybe it’s later than Maimonides? 🤷‍♂️

Either way, it’s a cool find!

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

⁦That would make sense! I’ve seen this before, where the BT’s Mishnah is edited to match a בריתא or emendation from the Gemara (such as “ושני תבשילין” in this very chapter).

⁦So far, I haven’t found anything. This particular Mishnah seems prone to additions copied from the הגדה. So that’s probably the source here.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

I think the ק here is a transitional step from before this letter merged with ע in Aramaic.

(I’m referring here to the letter that merged with צ in Hebrew, with ע in Aramaic, and is ض/ḍ in Arabic.)

This is actually preserved in the Bible (note the use of both forms):

כִּדְנָה֙ תֵּאמְר֣וּן לְה֔וֹם אֱלָ֣הַיָּ֔א דִּֽי־שְׁמַיָּ֥א וְאַרְקָ֖א לָ֣א עֲבַ֑דוּ יֵאבַ֧דוּ מֵאַרְעָ֛א וּמִן־תְּח֥וֹת שְׁמַיָּ֖א אֵֽלֶּה׃    
Thus shall you say to them: Let the gods, who did not make heaven and earth, perish from the earth and from under these heavens.
https://t.co/pgIVBE8Sj9

[Daniel | דניאל 𓉱 @DanitheSett]

Cairo Geniza Gems #3

Pages from one of the most important Jewish texts that isn't the Tanach, Mishna, or Talmud, found in the Cairo Genizah (9th-19th centuries CE).

Can you identify it? 📜

(Answer in the ALT of the picture.)

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

@jrdntnnr In case it wasn’t obvious, I was being sarcastic. “Qabbalah” was always one step away from literal idolatry. Both are bad.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

Using “Qabbalah” to justify literal idolatry…who could have predicted that‽

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

I answered that in my comment, but I’ll clarify.

It’s not in manuscripts of the Mishnah (not Kaufmann or Parma) nor in the Leiden manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud. This is a strong indication that it’s a later addition to the Mishnah.

The line does, however, appear in most manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud. That said, two manuscripts completely lack it! Also, the Gemara doesn’t discuss the line and I couldn’t find it anywhere else in Rabbinic literature (but maybe I missed it). So, it looks like it wasn’t originally in the Babylonian Talmud either.

Based on this, I would estimate that this line was added to the Babylonian Talmud early in the Geonic period.

⁦In any case, my original comment wasn’t about this line at all! It was about the spelling of “להראות” (as opposed to “לראות”), which is uncommon and which was famously popularized by Maimonides. It’s the basis for the popular custom of reenacting the Exodus on Passover.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

@manway613 @DanitheSett Answered here:
https://t.co/6uqknbX4Zz

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

Possibly, though it could also be an earlier witness to that textual tradition. (If you have the shelfmark for this manuscript, we might be able to see if anyone dated it already.)

Out of curiosity, I looked into it a little. For one, this line doesn’t appear in any of the easy-to-find manuscripts of the Mishnah or Palestinian Talmud. It does, however, appear within the Mishnah embedded in many manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud.

So, it seems like this line was backported from the Haggaḏah into the Babylonian Talmud. (Or was it the other way around?)

⁦The Qafiḥ edition of Maimonides’s commentary of the Mishnah also has that line but, surprisingly, it uses “לראות”. It’s only in his Haggaḏah that we find “להראות”.

⁦Where did he get it from? In two of the Babylonian Talmud manuscripts, the word is indeed “להראות”. Adding your manuscript to the list, we now have at least three witnesses to this textual tradition.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

Possibly, though it could also be an earlier witness to that textual tradition. (If you have the shelfmark for this manuscript, we might be able to see if anyone dated it already.)

Out of curiosity, I looked into it a little. For one, this line doesn’t appear in any of the easy-to-find manuscripts of the Mishnah or Palestinian Talmud. It does, however, appear within the Mishnah embedded in many manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud.

So, it seems like this line was backported from the Haggaḏah into the Babylonian Talmud. (Or was it the other way around?)

⁦The Qafiḥ edition of Maimonides’s commentary of the Mishnah also has that line but, surprisingly, it uses “לראות”. It’s only in his Haggaḏah that we find “להראות”.

⁦Where did he get it from? In two of the Babylonian Talmud manuscripts, the word is indeed “להראות”. Adding your manuscript to the list, we now have at least three witnesses to this textual tradition.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

@bdenckla @charles_loder The screenshot is from this section (in my screenshot).

Apparently, there was a non-standard Tiberian tradition that doubled every daghesh (see page 575 there). Who knew‽

It looks and sounds very very wrong to me.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

@RaminNasibov DopeWars for Palm OS
https://t.co/SX30DHNoQS

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

@DanitheSett Correction: this manuscript uses Babylonian pointing.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

https://t.co/RPsDjEtYKy

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

Addenda:

⁦In the Mishnah with the first-fruits recitation, I claimed that “מַקרין/ם” must mean “dictate”, and so the person bringing the first fruits must also respond, rather than merely listen. I argued this by analyzing the use of the word elsewhere.

This was completely unnecessary, as the Mishnah’s exegetical source (preserved in the Siphré) is actually explicit:

מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת קוֹרֵא, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת מַקְרִים אוֹתוֹ. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהָבִיא. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַקְרִים אֶת הַיּוֹדֵעַ וְאֶת מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. סָמְכוּ עַל הַמִּקְרָא: וְעָנִ֨יתָ, אֵין עֲנִיָּה אֶלָּא מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים.
https://t.co/53NrbcABcL

⁦Basically, “וְעָנִ֨יתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ֜” is now being reinterpreted as “you shall answer and you shall say”. In other words, it’s a recitation that is a response to someone else dictating.

This makes it clear that the recitation of the first fruits is not done by listening alone but by responding.

This confirms that the Mishnah indeed disagrees with Philo. As for who was historically right, I don’t know!

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

⁦Is the institution of בעל קִריה valid?

⁦Nowadays, being called to the Torah generally means that you recite two blessings but someone else reads the Torah as your proxy. You basically do nothing—yet everyone congratulates you!

I was recently asked on here about this. I’ve also been meaning to write about it for a while, as it gets to the core of what public Torah-reading is all about.

This thread is essentially my responsum.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

⁦An update on the meaning of “מקרין”:
https://t.co/PPPpvvVvpk

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

Finally! You made a very good textual point that I somehow missed.

מִי שֶׁהָיָה עֶבֶד אוֹ אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן מַקְרִין אוֹתוֹ, עוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶן מַה שֶּׁהֵן אוֹמְרִין, וּתְהִי לוֹ מְאֵרָה. אִם הָיָה גָדוֹל מַקְרֵא אוֹתוֹ, עוֹנֶה אַחֲרָיו הַלְלוּיָהּ:

We clearly see that “מַקְרֵא” here means that someone answers הללו־יה. As to whether that can mean that someone says absolutely nothing, I’d need to see clear evidence.

At this point, I would say that מקרין is at best inconclusive, though I would lean towards saying that it means that you answer something. The Geonic responsum thought like me. Either way, my other points about the comparison to Bikkurim still stand (as well as the Rosh’s rejection of the comparison).

Yoshiyahu? Please explain.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

⁦The application of שומע כעונה in the context of ברכּת המזון is a reminder that the common practice is mistaken in a manner similar to how Torah reading is generally done: just like reciting two blessings without actually reading the Torah is basically doing nothing, reciting two lines for זמון and nothing else is also basically doing nothing.

⁦The Sages didn’t institute זמון—and emphasize that it should be done when three people eat together but not fewer—all for two lines. The whole point is that those lines are an invitation for everyone to listen to the one person reciting ברכּת המזון for everyone else.

Ironically, in this situation, you actually are supposed to let someone else recite a text for you, because the Sages actually instituted that—the opposite of Torah reading.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

⁦Similarly, when discussing the concept of שומע כעונה, I argued that an oral response is implied. What I missed is that, if you search for the term “שמע ולא ענה”, you get a much more exhaustive list of sources for this concept:
https://t.co/DOjM0Y5NQE

For one, here’s the original Tannaitic source, which appears in its entirety only in the Palestinian Talmud:

שָׁמַע וְלֹא עָנָה יָצָא. עָנָה וְלֹא שָׁמַע לֹא יָצָא.
https://t.co/gAsTYloDVM & https://t.co/BSN4KJHdaO

⁦This formulation already makes it clear that a response is necessary for שומע כעונה.

⁦Moreover, the vast majority of the cases where this concept is used refer to hallel (which has a response, if you do it correctly, as Yemenites do). Two texts use it in the context of “Three Blessings”, a.k.a. ברכּת המזון (which also has a response, if you do it correctly).

There is only one text that uses it in a different context: Josiah is said to have read a text even though he merely heard Shaphan reading it. This may sound like recitation is not necessary, but it’s important to remember that this is merely one rabbi’s attempt to find a biblical source for a legal precept. The actual usage of the precept, along with the explicit wording in the original Tannaitic source, shows that a response really is necessary.

[David Regev · דָּוִ֖דֿ רֶֽגֶֿבֿ @DavidRegev]

@urielromano @travelingclatt 😂

(Technically, it was still Judea back then.)