And Abba Agrees (article summary)
Here is my article from last week, on Bava Kamma 11a, as HTML, flipdocs, and paid Substack.
Here is a summary of the ideas therein.
By Bor, the verse reads בַּ֤עַל הַבּוֹר֙ יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם כֶּ֖סֶף יָשִׁ֣יב לִבְעָלָ֑יו וְהַמֵּ֖ת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ׃. I’d say the simplest meaning is that the Pit owner gives a new whole ox and keeps the carcass. However, through derasha and ambiguous antecedent resolution, Chazal understand it as assessment, that the Pit owner only pays the devaluation amount.
How far does assessment reach? Theft (with subsequent damage)? Borrowing (with subsequent damage)? In our Bavli, Shmuel explains to what it extends.
Alas, his language of אף is ambiguous. Even yes assessment to a borrower? Even not to a borrower?
Also, there is a strange stepdown in Shmuel’s statement. He starts with “we don’t assess for theft.” Then, with “and I say [regarding borrowing]… and Abba agrees”. Didn’t he say the first part as well?
The Stamma / ibaya lehu grapples with (3). Given that Abba == Rav, they note a case where Rav ruled that you don’t assess for a borrower. They then reverse it, probably not just saying you cannot prove, but you prove the opposite, because when Rav Asi and Rav Kahana challenged him, he was silent. So, we establish Rav, and since he agrees with Shmuel, we establish Shmuel’s ambiguous meaning.
The parallel Yerushalmi differs, and I break it into segments and compare. Thus:
Rav Yehuda cites Shmuel, not just a bare Shmuel
Explicitly says אין שמין where Bavli quote was ambiguous, and eventually resolved to the opposite, that שמין.
Wonders as to Abba’s identity — it is Rav, or is it Rabba bar Avuah?
Rav Chisda says in reply to this about the primary and irrelevant, but that is cryptic.
(a) can help us answer the stepdown mentioned in (4). What if one was Shmuel, the other is Rav Yehuda?
(c) is also really wondering about identity of “and I say”. Namely, Rav Yehuda’s contemporary Abba is Rabba bar Avuah; Shmuel’s contemporary Abba is Rav.
Hey look, Rashi and Tosafot grapple with the stepdown! So do scribes in various manuscripts!
(b) is explicitly against Bavli’s conclusion. Yerushalmi commentators “fix” the text to match Bavli’s conclusion, but this is due to pro-Bavli bias. Don’t fix it.
And here is why we should then rule like the Yerushalmi.