I gave the daf on Thursday, the second day of Shavuot, and have a lot to say, much more than I’ll probably get around to post. Bava Metzia 106, and the next day, 107, are incredibly rich in material. I’ll focus on 106, for lack of time.
(1) One point, about bears vs. wolves, I made in a post last week.
But there is more to talk about.
(2) The Mishnah on 105b spoke of הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ חָגָב, אוֹ נִשְׁדְּפָה. אִם מַכַּת מְדִינָה הִיא – מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ. אִם אֵינָהּ מַכַּת מְדִינָה – אֵין מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם קִיבְּלָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמָעוֹת, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחֲכוֹרוֹ.
MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and grasshoppers consumed it or it was wind blasted, if it is a regional disaster which affected all the fields in the area, the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. If it is not a regional disaster, the cultivator does not subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether this way, i.e., there is a regional disaster, or whether that way, i.e., there was no regional disaster, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy.
We are speaking of a chocher, a tenant-farmer who pays a fixed amount, in either money or produce, rather than a percentage of the yield.
The Bavli immediately presents two ways of understanding the makat medina, where it is not the tenant-farmers own darn poor luck. According to Ulla, we look at the four immediately juxtaposed fields in each direction. According to Rav Yehuda, we look at the valley in general. In both cases, it is not the entire country.
Ulla is of the nechutai, those who visited Bavel from Israel to share the Torah of Eretz Yisrael, and of Rabbi Yochanan. He proceeds to delineate several dilemmas they raised in the West, that is, in Eretz Yisrael. Thus, all of his questions are within the ruchot (direction) paradigm, rather than the bagei (valley) paradigm.
Similarly, if we look at the parallel Yerushalmi on the Mishnah, they are speaking of ruchot.
רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁדְּפָה כָּל־אוֹתָהּ הָרוּחַ.
(3) So that segment of questions, from Ulla until teiku, are transferred from the Land of Israel, even as the specific questions don’t surface to that extent in the Yerushalmi.
Within that series of questions, some are dependent upon others. Artscroll notes as much in footnote 2. So, after asking about animal fodder - what about other (human-edible) plants? Within that, is barley considered distinct in this regard from wheat?
This would potentially be relevant, because of a position of the Geonim, also adopted by many Rishonim. Namely, in a teiku, especially by money, yes, we will say that hamotzi meichavero alav hara’aya, so since we don’t know how to rule, it stays in the possession who currently has it. However, if there are dependent questions, that is, im timzeh lomar, if you say this, then within that position, what about that — in such a case, the sugya is itself adopting one side of the dispute, so we hold like that.
So, we should rule like the side upon which these dependent questions rest. But it isn’t the case, because overriding all of this is that we rule like Rav Yehuda over Ulla, like the Babylonian perspective over the Eretz Yisraelian perspective.
How can we tell? Well (as some Rishonim note), the gemara itself seems to agree with Rav Yehuda. So, in the next sugya, the questions repeatedly mention the valley, as opposed to the direction. For instance, נִשְׁתַּדְפוּ כׇּל שְׂדוֹתָיו שֶׁל מַחְכִּיר, וְאִשְׁתְּדוּף נָמֵי הָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, וְלָא אִשְׁתְּדוּף רוּבָּא דְבָאגָא, מַאי?
That next sugya is Stammaic, I think. But still, the next segment is Pumpeditan / Mechozan, as we will encounter a bunch of Rava’s students, and later on, Rava. Second Amoraic generation Rav Yehuda (bar Yechezkel) was a student of Rav (in Sura) and Shmuel (in Nehardea), and went on to found the Pumbeditan academy. Third generation Rav Yosef was his student, who cites him. So in third generation, Rav Yosef and then Rabba, and in fourth-generation, Abaye and Rava. And then Rava’s students. It seems intuitive that they would operate within the Rav Yehuda framework.
In all three cases brought, the Stamma sides with the landowner.
(4) In the next sugya, beginning with מֵיתִיבִי, we see students of Rava chime in. Thus, we have fifth-generation Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rava’s student. Then, Rav Ashi asks a question in a manner of student to his teacher, so he is asking Rav Kahana IV, namely of Pum Nahara, who was Rava’s student. Then, Mar Zutra b. Rav Mari asks Ravina, and this would be Ravina I, who is Rava’s student.
That ends that sugya. And the next sugya begins by going back in time to Shmuel, a first generation Amora, who is challenged by third-generation Amora Rav Sheshet, which he can do because he has a brayta to support him.
(5) At the very end of the sugyot attached to this Mishnah, on 106b, we have Rava pop up. He ruled in a practical case of a makkat medina, despite the presence of money, like the Tanna Kamma. “The Rabbis” pipe up:
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: הָא אֲנַן תְּנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם קִבְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמָעוֹת – בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מְנַכָּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ! אֲמַר לְהוּ: לֵית דְּחָשׁ לַהּ לִדְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara continues the story: The Rabbis said to Rava: Didn’t we learn in the mishna here: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether this way or whether that way, i.e., whether a regional disaster occurred or not, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. Rava said to them: There is no one who is concerned for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda since it is a minority opinion that is rejected.
I don’t know who these Rabbanan are. Are they Rava’s contemporaries, like Abaye, or his students? But there are several instances of Rabbanan speaking to Rava, for instance in 81b, where they object to Rava that שְׁאֵלָה בִּבְעָלִים הִיא.
In 86b, they might be contemporaries, who are coming to bury Rabba bar Nachmani:
כִּי הֲוָה קָא נָיְחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר: טָהוֹר, טָהוֹר. יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אַשְׁרֶיךָ רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי שֶׁגּוּפְךָ טָהוֹר, וְיָצָאתָה נִשְׁמָתְךָ בְּטָהוֹר. נְפַל פִּתְקָא מֵרְקִיעָא בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי נִתְבַּקֵּשׁ בִּיְשִׁיבָה שֶׁל מַעְלָה. נְפַקוּ אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא וְכוּלְּהוּ רַבָּנַן לְאִיעֲסוֹקֵי בֵּיהּ. לָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי דּוּכְתֵּיהּ. אֲזַלוּ לְאַגְמָא חֲזוֹ צִפְּרֵי דִּמְטַלְּלִי וְקָיְימִי, אָמְרִי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הָתָם הוּא.
As he was dying, he said in response to the dispute in heaven: It is pure; it is pure. A Divine Voice emerged from heaven and said: Happy are you, Rabba bar Naḥmani, as your body is pure and your soul left you with the word: Pure. A note [pitka] fell from heaven and landed in the academy of Pumbedita. The note read: Rabba bar Naḥmani was summoned to the heavenly academy, i.e., he has died. Abaye and Rava and all of the other Rabbis went out to tend to his burial; however, they did not know the location of his body. They went to the swamp and saw birds forming a shade and hovering over a certain spot. The Rabbis said: We can conclude from this that he is there.
That may be a one-off, where it means “the rest of the Sages of that generation.” But in 97a, it really sounds like these are Rava’s students.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: שְׁאִיל לַן מָר. אִקְּפִיד. אֲמַר לְהוּ: לְאַפְקוֹעֵי מָמוֹנַאי קָא בָעֵיתוּ?! אַדְּרַבָּה, אַתּוּן שְׁאִילְתּוּן לִי. דְּאִילּוּ אֲנָא מָצֵי אִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי לְכוּ מִמַּסֶּכְתָּא לְמַסֶּכְתָּא, אַתּוּן לָא מָצֵיתוּ לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי.
The Gemara relates: The Rabbis said to Rava: Master, you are lent to us to teach us Torah, and so if we borrow an item from you, we should be exempt from liability. These Rabbis stated this based on Rava’s own ruling. Rava was angered by this and said to them: Do you want to take my money away from me? On the contrary, I am not lent to you; rather, you are lent to me, since you assist me in consolidating my Torah knowledge. And this is the proof that it is you who are assisting me: Whereas I am able to deflect you from one tractate to another tractate because I am not obligated to teach specifically that which you want to learn, you are not able to deflect me from what I wish to teach.
So that is how I am imagining it, with Rav Pappa, Rav Pappi, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Ravina, Rav Kahana and so on, asking Rava “what about Rabbi Yehuda” and him telling them to pay no heed.
So ends comments on 106.