A Child Tore It Up (? / !)
(1) I fuzzily recall a criticism of a pashtan who inserted a question where perhaps there was none. Maybe it was about Kayin’s reaction after God imposed punishment for killing Hevel. He said:
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֺנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא
And Cain said unto the LORD: ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Or, according to the Silverman translation, following Rashi:
And Cain said to the L-rd: "Is my sin too great [for You, the 'bearer' of heaven and earth] to bear?"
Rashi is, in turning, following Bereishit Rabba.
But, can we indeed turn a statement into a question? How do we know when it is appropriate to do so? Are we able to turn the Ten Commandments into questions, saying “You shouldn’t kill?” and “You shouldn’t steal?”
Lehavdil, there’s this old Russian Jewish joke:
Standing on Lenin's Tomb in the Red Square, Stalin was acknowledging the acclamations of the masses. Suddenly he raised his hands to silence the crowd.
"Comrades!" he cried. "A most historic event! A telegram of congratulations from Leon Trotsky!"
The crowd could hardly believe its ears. It waited in hushed anticipation.
"Joseph Stalin," read Stalin. "The Kremlin. Moscow. You were right and I was wrong. You are the true heir of Lenin. I should apologise. Trotsky."
A roar erupted from the crowd.
But in the front row a little Jewish tailor gestured frantically to Stalin.
"Psst!" he cried. "Comrade Stalin!"
Stalin leaned over to hear what he had to say.
"Such a message! But you read it without the right feeling."
Stalin once again raised his hands to still the excited crowd. "Comrades!" he announced. "Here is a simple worker, a Communist, who says that I did not read Trotsky's message with the right feeling. I ask that worker to come up onto the podium himself to read Trotsky's telegram."
The tailor jumped up onto the podium and took the telegram into his hands. He read:
"Joseph Stalin. The Kremlin. Moscow." Then he cleared his throat and sang out:
"You were right and I was wrong? You are the true heir of Lenin? I should apologize?"
(Benton and Loomes, 1976:85-86)
This comes to mind when we encounter the two incorporated girsaot, that is, the ikka de’amrei, in yesterday’s daf (Bava Metzia 66a).
עֲבַד רַב נַחְמָן עוֹבָדָא גַּבֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ, קַרְעֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לִשְׁטָרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא: רַב יְהוּדָה קְרַע לִשְׁטָרָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּרְדְּקָא קַרְעֵיהּ
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman performed an action in the court of the Exilarch in accordance with his statement that even if the lender states his condition after the loan is granted, the lender acquires the entire field if the loan isn’t repaid within the specified time period. The case then came before Rav Yehuda, who tore up the lender’s deed of ownership of the field, claiming it was invalid. The Exilarch said to Rav Naḥman: Rav Yehuda tore up your document, i.e., he overruled your decision. Rav Naḥman said to him: [A child tore it up]
I edited the translation about at the end, in square brackets. That, I’d argue, is the base gemara. But then, the gemara interprets it in two ways, either as a question or a statement. And perhaps weighing in to this decision is Rav Nachman’s subsequent retraction of the idea the asmachta works in certain situations, the basis for this action under discussion. Anyway, the two versions are:
?
גַּבְרָא רַבָּה קַרְעֵיהּ, חֲזָא בֵּיהּ טַעְמָא וְקַרְעֵיהּ!
? A great man tore it up; he must have seen in it some reason to invalidate it, and that is why he tore it up.
Thus, the first interpretation makes it into a question.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּרְדְּקָא קַרְעֵיהּ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְגַבֵּי דִּידִי בְּדִינָא דַּרְדְּקֵי נִינְהוּ.
There are those who say a different version of this exchange, according to which Rav Naḥman said to him: A child tore it up, i.e., there is no need to take his opinion into consideration, as everyone is like a child relative to me with regard to monetary laws. Rav Naḥman was the greatest expert of his generation with regard to monetary matters, and therefore he could discount the opinions of others.
The second is a statement. But regardless, the original sugya was just the words “a child tore it up”, likely transmitted orally. And that needs to be interpreted as a question or statement, will prosodic impact.
(2) A bit later, we have this from Mar Kashisha and Mar Yenoka:
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ מָר יָנוֹקָא וּמָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּנֵי דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי אָמְרִי נְהַרְדְּעָאֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: הַאי אַסְמַכְתָּא, בְּזִמְנֵיהּ קָנְיָא, בְּלָא זִמְנֵיהּ לָא קָנְיָא.
Mar Yanuka and Mar Kashisha, the younger and elder sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what the Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rav Naḥman: With regard to this asmakhta described in the mishna, it effects acquisition at its proper time, but it does not effect acquisition not at its proper time.
Rav Ashi isn’t so happy with this formulation, so he suggests what the quote might alternatively have been.
I recently wrote about Mar Kashisha, whether they were indeed the sons of the famous Rav Chisda, and ended with Rav Ashi’s chastisement of getting the names in an attribution correct.
(3) Anyway, who are these Nehardeans that they are citing? In Mevo LeSifrut HaAmoraim, Jacob Nachum Epstein points to the famous sugya in Sanhedrin 17, connecting it to Rav Chama. In a footnote, Artscroll comments based on Rashi in Bava Batra (this one in 7b? I cannot recall. Someone should look it up.
נהרדעי לטעמייהו - רב חמא דמן נהרדעא הוא דלא ס"ל הא דאידור בה כדדרו אבהתי ולשם כך חילקנו אזיל לטעמייהו דנהרדעי דאמר שמואל דהוא מנהרדעא:
) that this refers to Rav Chama as well as Shmuel.
Well, yes, Rav Chama is possible. Rav Chama is a fifth-generation Amora from Nehardea. However, Shmuel is strange to bring up here. The “Neheardeans” are being quoted by Mar Younger and Mar Older, as to how they are quoting Rav Nachman, who is Shmuel’s student. Shmuel doesn’t have what to say about how to quote Rav Nachman!
(4) A bit later:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: כֹּל דְּאִי – לָא קָנֵי.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: This is what we say in the name of Rabba: Any statement including a condition introduced with the word: If, does not effect acquistion. Any agreement that does not involve a definitive commitment but does obligate one in the event of a particular outcome has the status of an asmakhta and does not effect acquisition, as the one setting the condition did not really intend to fulfill the commitment.
Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua and Rav Pappa were Rava’s students. There’s mishmeih which we can wonder reflects a direct quotation as well, but I think so. I just have to wonder if this quote of Rabba should really be of Rava.
So checking, it is indeed an error specifically in the Vilna Shas. In the Venice printing, it is Rava:
and so too all the manuscripts have Rava, not Rabba:
Shavua tov!