0

A sentence towards the bottom of Sanhedrin page 5b speaks of kneading dough in a state of impurity. In the English Koren edition, Rabbi Steinsaltz translates this as meaning the people were impure. The Shottenstein edition reflects the Rashi on that page and translates the sentence as the vessels were impure. The Hebrew Steinstalz edition is consistent with the Koren Steinsaltz edition and at odds with Rashi. Why might Rabbi Steinsaltz have interpreted this ambiguous sentence in a way contradictory to Rashi (who is the most influential commentator)?

Are there any Rishonim who support his interpretation?

  • 2
    If the sentence is ambiguous, you can be nearly certain that the Rishonim are split on the correct interpretation. Perhaps Steinsaltz is going like one of the Rishonim who disagree with Rashi. – Daniel Jul 9 '18 at 11:48
  • 3
    @YehudaW my question in response is why you think Steinsaltz should follow Rashi here. Without any reason, this is a very weak question. – רבות מחשבות Jul 9 '18 at 14:59
  • 3
    Are you asking why they disagree with Rashi when they typically follow him, or are you asking where they get their interpretation from since it goes against Rashi? – DonielF Jul 9 '18 at 15:40
  • 1
    @yehuda why would you compose a question like this from memory? Please do everyone else a favor and put time into making your questions accurate the way you'd expect from answers (who I remind you are helping you for free out of the kindness of their hearts) – Double AA Jul 9 '18 at 17:23
  • 1
    My suggested answer is that maybe Steinsaltz is following different Rishonim here. Why should we expect the translation to always follow rashi? – Daniel Jul 9 '18 at 20:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .