In the Divrei Si'ach for Tetzaveh-Purim the following paragraph appeared:
In the Vayakel-Pekudei issue the following clarification appeared:
There is nothing of the sort in the Yerushalmi:
ירושלמי מגילה פרק ג הלכה ז
רב אמר צריך לאמר ארור המן ארורים בניו
א"ר פינחס צריך לומר חרבונה זכור לטוב
However, in the Ahavas Tziyon v'Yerushalayim we find:
see also
and
but it is not a Yerushalmi, rather some Rishonim in the name of the Yerushalmi.
Their version of the Yerushalmi
is difficult to reconcile with
V'gam Charvona zachur la'tov;
see the attempt at a resolution at
It appears that the first variant appears in Tosafot attributed to a Yerushalmi, which might not exist in our printed texts:
ReplyDeletehttps://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94_%D7%96_%D7%91
also, sometimes Yerushalmi apparently refers to midrash rabba.
Then the clarification should be that it is in a Tosafos, and that the Tosafos is censored. Which is difficult, considering that the Yerushalmi is hard to reconcile with any such "original" text.
DeleteI am going to add more sources to the post.
DeleteSee the discussion here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?cat_id=38&topic_id=2589928&forum_id=19616
"but it is not a Yerushalmi, rather some Rishonim in the name of the Yerushalmi."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I recognize the difference. We have a printed text, which is readily accessible. But through the generations, the Bavli and Yerushalmi were conveyed in manuscript form, with multiple variants. If you told me that you had access to a manuscript which had a text which said X, that I could take your word that manuscript Y said X.
Here, it is Tosafot, for instance, who said that there was a text of Yerushalmi that said X. They weren't lying. Maybe you could say it is a matter of transmission, and broken telephone. Meanwhile, many girsaot of Bavli and Yerushalmi are difficult to understand at first glance. That doesn't mean it isn't a Bavli or Yerushalmi.
Regardless, Rav Chaim, despite knowing Yerushalmi cold, could well have said in a gloss to Tur that the Yerushalmi said X, based on these second-hand accounts. It isn't necessarily motzi shem ra. Have we seen this gloss?
It is well known that there are many instances of Yerushalmis cited in Rishonim that don't exist. But this version, in the Tosafos et al, actually runs counter to the Yerushalmi (and to the Meseches Sofrim 14:6). The Bavli (16a) holds Charvonah was a rasha. According to that understanding, the Arurim etc. can be explained. It is difficult to reconcile Charvona zachur la'tov with the purported Yerushalmi. Moreover, were we following the Yerushalmi, the children of Haman should be mentioned in the piyut. It doesn't hold up.
Deletesee the late r dovid zvi hllman's article in zefunot 4, p. 64. in any case, there are no contradictions in poetry, especially purim poetry. arrurim kol hagoyyim with the exception of harbona. moreover, although he is arur, he is still zachur letov for one thing that he did. in any case, r. hillman brings many of the sources that quote this "yerushalmi" after the tosophot, including the tur.
ReplyDeleteAgain, it doesn't fit the language of the Yerushalmi. But, oh well...
Delete