Again, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya and the Stamma

Yesterday’s daf, in particular the bottom half of Bava Batra 81b, left me a bit… unenthused. After Amoraim grapple with the idea of bringing Bikkurim without a recitation, mikra bikkurim, Rabba suggests that it may be because the Tannaim deem it case of safek, doubt.

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאִילָן אֶחָד סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וְרַבָּנַן בִּשְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ!

Rabba said: What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi Meir is uncertain, in the case of an individual who purchases one tree, whether or not the buyer owns the ground, and the Rabbis are uncertain, in the case of an individual who purchases two trees, whether or not the buyer owns the ground. Due to this uncertainty, the owner of the tree must bring the first fruits to the Temple, as he might be obligated in this mitzva. He does not recite the passage of thanks because it is not definitely established that he is obligated to bring the fruits.

In what appears to be a lengthy Stammaic interlude, the gemara analyzes what the procedure should then be, if this is indeed safek. The procedure involves contortions, having to do with teruma and maaser, and not bringing it oneself but having a different person harvest and another person harvest. That contorted process had no hint in the words of either the Tannaim (who just said to bring but not recite) or named Amoraim.

I would label this interlude Stammaic because it is anonymous and in Aramaic. What do I mean anonymous? Don’t we name names, like the Tanna Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarya, and Amoraim like Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina? Sure, but they are not in active discussion. Rather, the anonymous voice channels their positions, saying דְּעָבֵיד לְהוּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר, or וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה.

What also had me unenthused was the seeming kvetches involved. For instance, the idea that bringing safek bikkurim to be a gift to the kohen being chullin ba’azara may be a kvetch. It doesn’t seem like the classic worry about bringing non-consecrated material to be a korban, and Rashbam needs to develop the basis for this idea, either on a Biblical or Rabbinic level. Also, invoking the Rabbi Zeira principle of כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה may be off, because here the point is that it isn’t even ra’uy la’amira. But is it not really? I could understand if the person was an intelligent mute, an ilem, that he could not conceivably speak. But here, the gemara later — and there, named Amoraim, debate why he shouldn’t say it, and regardless, it seems like a Rabbinic matter such as that it seems like a falsehood or messing up terumah / maaser if people misunderstand its true status (or perhaps saying God’s name in the verse for no reason). But, if it is merely rabbinic, elsewhere we see a dispute between Rav Chisda and the same Rabba who is under discussion here. Rabba maintains that rabbinic concerns do not have standing when it comes to Biblical matters. So there is no such thing as karet midivreihem, or gezel gamur midivreihem. I don’t think Rabbi Zeira I would have an issue here, and would say of course it is ra’uy livila.

But then, on the top of today’s daf, we have three late Amoraim, around Rav Ashi’s generation and maybe Ravina II’s generation, weighing in on this discussion. On Bava Batra 82a:

עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה וַהֲבָאָה כְּאֶחָד; וְהָא לֵיכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִכְּדֵי פְּסוּקֵי נִינְהוּ, לִיקְרֵי!

The passage is not recited until the taking and the bringing of the first fruits are performed by one person, and that is not the case here. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Since the passage is composed of verses, let him read them. What is objectionable about reciting verses from the Torah?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִחֲזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא. רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא אָמַר: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַפְקוּעִינְהוּ מִתְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר.

Rav Ashi said to him: The problem is due to the fact that this practice has the appearance of falsehood, because he issues a declaration before God that is possibly untrue, as he might not own the ground. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Ḥiyya, said: The declaration is not recited lest he come to remove the fruits from their obligation of teruma and tithes, if they are treated entirely as first fruits. For this reason one does not recite the passage, to ensure that their unique status is maintained.

So the first is Rav Acha bar Avya, who I labeled in a recent Scribal Error post as a redactor.

Then there is Rav Ashi, who we know. And there is Rav Mesharshiya son of Rav Chiyya. The possible “problem” with that last person is that this is the only place we encounter him, as Rav Aharon Hyman notes in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim. Rav Hyman suggests that this was a scribal error for Rav Mesharshiya son of Rav Acha (bar Rav), with חייא and אחא being similarly written words. That late Amora regularly interacts with Ravina II.

I don’t see this particular variant in the few manuscripts at Hachi Garsinan, but I do see similar things, e.g. Escorial

messed up Acha vs. Chiyya for the first person, not about Rav Mesharshiya, but then corrected it, though still confused Avya with Chiyya in both places.

Others such as Paris and Vatican make both Rav Acha son of Rav Avya, and Rav Mesharshiya be the son of Rav Avya. If so, they were brothers.

There’s enough confusion here that I think Rav Hyman’s unsupported speculation is still plausible, and the Sage he identifies works well in context.

Regardless, here we have named, late Amoraim, reacting to the portion that left me unenthused. Does that mean that Rav Ashi and these other two sign on to it? To push the idea further, recall that in the above linked article about the Redactor, Rav Acha son of Rav Avya, I suggested a relationship between him and a span of otherwise anonymous text. Maybe he contributed the analysis that involves rejecting his own suggestion. If so, maybe here, we can attribute this Stammaic material to this late Amora, right at the Savora mark, and also have Rav Ashi aware of it.

Despite this, I suggest that we might excise the entire segment of Stamma, and still have these named Amoraim discuss. All we need to do is have them react to Rabba, who suggested that the concern is the safek, so that is why they don’t recite. It needn’t be related to the intervening Stamma with Rabbi Zeira, that he is unable to recite, which would plausibly invalidate. I write this because I read Artscroll’s introduction of this latter section, saying “The Gemara reexamines a previous objection” and in footnote 2, at the top of 82, identifies the objection in the Stamma. So, what I am writing here is that this framing is not necessary. Have them react to Rabba, who is a named Amora, even though the anonymous Stamma is textually in closer proximity!