Abaye Retracts
On Gittin 8a, Tosafot makes a girsological point.
The gemara:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״כֹּל נְכָסַיי קְנוּיִין לָךְ״, מַהוּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the bill of manumission stated: All of my property is transferred to you, what is the halakha?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקָּנָה עַצְמוֹ, קָנָה נְכָסִים.
Abaye said: Since he acquired himself as a freeman, as he is included in the property mentioned in the document, he acquires the rest of the property as well.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא עַצְמוֹ לִיקְנֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַגֵּט אִשָּׁה, אֶלָּא נְכָסִים לָא לִיקְנֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקִּיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא!
Rava said to Abaye: Granted, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who is divorced when she brings the document herself. However, he should not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents.
הֲדַר אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה נְכָסִים – לֹא קָנָה עַצְמוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא נְכָסִים לָא לִיקְנֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקִּיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, אֶלָּא עַצְמוֹ לִיקְנֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַגֵּט אִשָּׁה!
After hearing Rava’s objection, Abaye then said the opposite: Since he did not acquire the property, he does not acquire himself either. Rava said to him: Granted, he does not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents; however, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who can bring her own bill of divorce and testify about it.אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה, עַצְמוֹ – קָנָה, נְכָסִים – לֹא קָנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְרָבָא: כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר פָּלְגִינַן דִּיבּוּרָא;
Rather, Rava says: With regard to both this and that, both in the case when the bill of manumission states: You and my property, and when it says: All of my property, he acquires himself but he does not acquire the property.
When Abaye reverses his position, is the correct text hadar or ela? Tosafot see the word hadar, and make something out of it, that Abaye didn’t reverse himself out of Rava’s objection.
הדר אמר אביי - פי' לא משום קושיא דרבא חזר בו דאביי לא חשיב ליה פירכא דסבר לא פלגינן דיבורא דאקושיא דרבא לא משני מידי אלא נראה לו סברא לומר טפי דבתרוייהו לא קנה דיד בעל השטר על התחתונה:
Implied Question: Why did Abaye retract?
Answer: It was not because of Rava's question. Abaye does not hold that his question was difficult, as he does hold that one splits such a statement. This is why he does not answer Rava's question.
Rather, it appeared to be more logical to him that he does not acquire both, as the owner of the document has the weaker status.
Different manuscripts have hadar vs ela. Thus, the Vilna and Venice printings have hadar. So too Munich 95, Oxford 368, and Vatican 130.
Meanwhile, Bologna, Vatican 140, and Firkovitz 187 have אלא.
An interesting manuscript is Vatican 127, which first had אלא but then changed it to הדר. Look carefully at how the aleph lamed (apostrophe) is crossed out and the word הדר appears over the line.
Two reasons seem possible for אלא. Either as above, it is not a result of Rava’s attack, but הדר implies self-reflection and retraction. Or, we already have a bunch of אלא in use, when Rava says it is not this but that. So Rava would be offering an alternative with the word ela, to counter Abaye. To show that Abaye is performing a revision of his own position, we would use hadar. This isn’t to say that hadar would be required in all such contexts of self-revision, but only where it stands structurally in a contrast to ela.