Confounded by Rav Hamnuna

In last Friday’s daf, Bava Kamma 106, Rav Huna cites Rav saying something, then Rava analyzes it, showing its extent. Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov, Rava’s teacher) reported this halacha (shmayta) and his fourth-generation student, Rav Acha bar Minyumei, raises an objection. The argument goes back and forth.

Then fourth-generation Rami bar Chama wonders aloud why (second, really third-generation) Rav Nachman is going to such lengths to defend Rav, when he doesn’t hold like him. Artscroll explains he must have heard or known from elsewhere that Rav Nachman actually disagrees with Rav. I’d say that Rav Nachman should include towards Rabba bar Avuah and Shmuel, as his teachers, more than Rav.

Then, Rav Hamnuna raises an objection. To whom? To Rav’s position. Did he say this directly to Rav? In the sequence of statements in a sugya, I’d really expect this to be chronological, so this is in Rav Nachman’s presence, and to Rav Nachman (who has taken it upon himself to defend Rav). Steinsaltz and especially Artscroll certainly give the impression that this was said to Rav, but I don’t know (yet).

Then, fourth-generation Rava raises an objection to Rav’s position.

Now, there are several Amoraim named Rav Hamnuna, according to Rav Aharon Hyman in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim. These are:

1. Rav Hamnuna I, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and teacher of Rabbi Chanina.

2. Rav Hamnuna II, a student of Rav. So, second-generation.

3. Rav Hamnuna III, from the city of Harpania, a student of Rav Yehuda (so, third-generation) who later sat before Rav Huna and then Rav Chisda. So, third-generation.

4. Rav Hamnuna IV, who was a colleague of Rava. So, fourth-generation.

Now, I would have said, from the people involved in the sugya, and from the previous objection being from a fourth-generation Amora, as well as the subsequent objection, that we are dealing with Rav Hamnuna IV.

Here is what Rav Hyman writes, and why he must be later than Rav Hanuna III, who was the colleague of Rabba and Rav Yosef:

However, now consider a bit later in our sugya.

אֲזַל רַב גַּמָּדָא, וְאַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה רַב הַמְנוּנָא, תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרַב – וְיָדַע דְּאָמַר רַב הוֹדָה, וְקָמוֹתֵיב הוֹדָה; וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: הוֹדָה לָא אָמַר רַב?!

The Gemara relates that Rav Gamda went and said that halakha before Rav Ashi. Rav Ashi said to him: Now consider: And even Rav Hamnuna, who was Rav’s student and knew that Rav says that one who takes a false oath is exempt from paying restitution even in a case where he admitted it; and Rav Hamnuna therefore challenged him from a mishna that teaches that one is not exempt in a case where he admitted it. And you say that Rav did not say his halakha in a case where one admitted that he took a false oath? Presumably, Rav Hamnuna, as Rav’s student, was aware of the scope of his teacher’s ruling. How, then, can you limit it as being narrower than Rav Hamnuna’s interpretation?

So in the sixth-generation, Rav Ashi objects that Rav Hamnuna was Rav’s student. Indeed, Rashi elaborates with evidence of this:

רב המנונא תלמידו דרב הוה - דקיימא לן אמרי בי רב רב המנונא בפ"ק דסנהדרין (דף יז:) ואי לאו דידע דאפילו בהודה פטר רב לא הוה מותיב ליה מהואיל דיכול לחזור ולהודות:

Rashi points to the central sugya where different appelations for Amoraim appear, together with their mapping, as evidence that “the academy of Rav” == Rav Hamnuna. This isn’t so simple, but let us put a pin in that for now.

And none of the manuscripts of our gemara on Hachi Garsinan omit this statement that he was Rav’s student. So maybe it was a Stammaic insertion to help things along and strengthen the point, but there’s no evidence of that. Instead, Rav Ashi, who should know, says that this is Rav’s student, meaning Rav Hamnuna II. Saying it was the later one, but he generally followed Rav’s school of thought, seems forced.

If so, it is only at the end, because of the way the argumentation developed, that we discovered this, and we (or I) would have identified the wrong Amora. That’s troubling.

---

Above, I said that it wasn’t so clear that Sanhedrin 17b showed this. Much like I wrote recently about Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat and Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina and their mappings,

we have the same issue here. Namely, that in that sugya, they actually say that it means Rav Huna, but the Talmudic Narrator objected because of a “Rav Huna said that they say in the academy of Rav”, thus a citation. (Perhaps we can argue that he “represents” the academy of Rav, and it isn’t a disproof, but that is not what the Narrator says.) Instead, they say, it refers to Rav Hamnuna. But immediately, Tosafot, who have global Talmudic knowledge, show another sugya which equates “Rav’s academy” with Rav Huna. I’d say that that was a different Talmudic Narrator basing himself on the earlier stratum. But Tosafot grapple with it. And they also note that Rav Hamnuna was a student of Rav Chisda (thus fourth-generation), and resolve that there were multiple Rav Hamnunas.

---

Finally, the idea that Rav Ashi could hear a self-contained proto-sugya and possibly misunderstand the people involved — even if we reject the notion — calls to mind what we said about Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Namely, his teaching / Mishnah is kav venaki. But does this refer to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov I or II? After showing it should refer to #1, Rav Aharon Hyman grappled with an instance where Abaye applied it to #2. He concluded that Abaye didn’t err, and it applies to both. I suggested a girsological solution, that Abaye never said it.