Another Rabba / Rava Confusion

(1) This has been circulating on social media. A post by Kamala Harris’s husband, describing the significance of Hanukkah, taken down shortly thereafter:

Oy. I’m noting it because some of the text seems to have an AI-ish quality to it, as if some media intern asked ChatGPT to craft this holiday message, and gave it themes.

(2) Shimon / Nechemia HaAmsuni makes an appearance in today’s daf, Bava Kamma 41b:

וְהַאי תַּנָּא – ״אֶת״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

The Gemara adds: And this tanna, who derives it from the statement: “The owner of the ox shall be clear,” does not interpret the word “et” as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word “et” to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition.

כִּדְתַנְיָא: שִׁמְעוֹן הָעַמְסוֹנִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ נְחֶמְיָה הָעַמְסוֹנִי, הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל ״אֶתִּין״ שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״, פֵּירַשׁ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, כׇּל ״אֶתִּין״ שֶׁדָּרַשְׁתָּ – מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן? אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקִּבַּלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל הַדְּרִישָׁה, כָּךְ קִבַּלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל הַפְּרִישָׁה.

As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of the word “et” that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition.

עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְלִימֵּד: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.

The word “et” in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall fear the Lord your God”: The word “et” serves to include Torah scholars, i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.

Here is something I wrote about Shimon HAmsuni, and darshening all instances of et in the Torah. Could he be the same as Nachum Ish Gam Zu?

On today’s daf, it is the Talmudic Narrator using the darshening of et and lack thereof to terminate a derasha chain. The Stamma’s assumption is that the relationship between special words in pesukim and Biblically derived laws is one-to-one and onto. Therefore, if Tanna A interprets a verse to derive a law and Tanna B doesn’t agree to the law, what does Tanna B use that verse for? And once he uses that verse to derive a different law, how does Tanna A arrive at that law. That cycle will continue until the Stamma just terminates, or else a given Tanna is said not to hold a specific law in the chain, or else a given Tanna is said not to consider a specific derasha-word special. Sometimes this is ha- vs. without ha-. Sometimes it invokes dibra Torah kilshon benei adam. Here, it is darshening the word et or not, so that we can finally end the derasha chain.

(3) In yesterday’s daf, the maggid shiur accidentally read רבה as Rava in this passage in Bava Kamma 40:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תִּבְרַהּ; מִי שֶׁשָּׁנָה זוֹ לֹא שָׁנָה זוֹ.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This baraita is disjointed [tavra]. The tanna who taught this clause did not teach that clause.

רַבָּה אָמַר: מִדְּרֵישָׁא רְשׁוּת אֵינָהּ מְשַׁנָּה, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רְשׁוּת אֵינָהּ מְשַׁנָּה. וְסֵיפָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינָךְ דִּמְיַיעֲדַתְּ לֵיהּ לְתוֹרַאי.

Rabba said: From the fact that the first clause follows the opinion that a change of custody does not change the status of the ox, it is inferred that the last clause also follows the opinion that a change of custody does not change its status. And this is the reason that in the last clause the ox reverts to its status of innocuousness: It is because the owner can say to the borrower: It is not in your power to render my ox forewarned, as I did not give it to you with that intention and it was your negligence that caused the change in its status. Therefore, the owner is not liable to pay additional compensation that results from the status the ox acquired under the custody of the borrower.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִדְּסֵיפָא רְשׁוּת מְשַׁנָּה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רְשׁוּת מְשַׁנָּה; וְרֵישָׁא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוֹלֵךְ, שֵׁם בְּעָלָיו עָלָיו.

Rav Pappa said: From the fact that the last clause follows the opinion that a change of custody changes the status of the ox, it is inferred that the first clause also follows the opinion that a change of custody changes its status. And this is the reason that in the first clause the ox is considered forewarned even when in the custody of the borrower: It is because wherever it goes, the name of its owner is upon it. Since it was rendered forewarned under its owner’s custody, with whom it remains identified, it is not considered to have undergone a change of

and was promptly corrected. However, I typically keep me phone open next to my gemara, scrolling on Hachi Garsinan. So I was able to pipe up that Rava was correct. Namely, there are two printings (Vilna and Venice) which have Rabba. The earlier Soncino printing has Rava:

So too, all the manuscripts have Rava, except for Florence (Firenz) which has Ravina:

and we can just end with Vatican 116 which also have Rava:

Vatican 116

I would have thought anyway that Rava was the more compelling choice. I’ve observed a general pattern in which Rabbi Yochanan’s Torah is channeled, discussed by, or argued upon by specifically Rava, not Rabba. So Rava should follow Rabbi Yochanan. Also, Rav Pappa presents another explanation, and he’s a student of Rava, not Rabba. (I think Ravina is an error, but if not, he’d be Ravina I, Rava’s student, and thus a contemporary of Rav Pappa.) Amoraim usually converse in familiar groupings, based on their scholastic relationships, and Rava just makes more sense.