Confusing Rava and Rav Pappa (article summary)
Here is summary of another of my recent articles (flipbooks, Jewish Link website, Substack post). I’m trying to catch up on summaries.
The article is a reworking and expansion of Tosafot on Bava Kamma 67b.
רבא אמר - מהכא קרבנו ולא הגזול רבא גרסינן ולא רבה מדקאמר חד מינייהו רב פפא אמר ולא היו טועים אלא בין רב פפא לרבא שהיה רבו ופעמים כשהיה אומר רב פפא דברים בסתם היו סבורים שדברי רבא הן אבל בין דברי רב פפא לדברי רבה לא היו יכולין לטעות ולעיל (בבא קמא דף סו:) גרס אמר ליה רבא משכבו ולא הגזול כו' אע"ג דרבה הוה בר פלוגתיה דרב יוסף ולרבה הקשה אביי צריך לומר דרבה עצמו לא השיב לו כלום אלא רבא השיב לו מדפריך הכא והא רבא הוא דאמר דגזל קרבן דחבריה וקאמר דחד מינייהו רב פפא אמרה וכן משמע דבכל הספרים גרס לעיל אמר ליה רבא ואי רבה השיבו הל"ל אמר ליה ולא היה צריך להזכיר רבה כיון דמקשה לרבה וכן משמע בהניזקין (גיטין דף נה: ושם) דרבא אית ליה דיאוש כדי לא קני דבעי רבא כי אוקמוה רבנן ברשותיה משעת גניבה או משעת הקדש למאי נ"מ כו' ואי יאוש קני לכל הפחות משעת יאוש כבר הוא ברשותיה ובפרק בתרא (דף קיא: ושם) קאמר רבא לעולם רשות יורש לאו כרשות לוקח דמי משמע התם דאית ליה דיאוש לא קני והתם רבא דהוא בר פלוגתיה דרמי בר חמא והא דאמר רבא בפרק אלו מציאות (ב"מ דף כו:) גבי מציאה נטלה לפני יאוש על מנת לגזלה עובר בכולן ואע"ג דאהדריה בתר יאוש מתנה בעלמא הוא דיהיב ליה אע"ג דיאוש לא קני מ"מ כיון דהואיל יאוש למוכרה או להקדישה חשיב גזלן:
This focuses mostly on structure rather than content.
(1) Essentially, there is a sugya which began on the preceding daf (66), with the following structure:
א) אָמַר רַבָּה… ב) וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר … ג) אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבָּה… ד) אֲמַר לֵיהּ… ה) אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה… ו) אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא… ז) אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף… ח) אֲמַר לֵיהּ… ט) מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן… י) אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא… יא) רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר…
But there is some uncertainty about some of the Rabba / Rava readings.
(2) I’d say it should definitely start with Rabba vs. Rav Yosef, since Rabba always precedes Rav Yosef in their disputes.
(3) I identify the Amoraim mentioned in the sugya, along with their scholastic generations, to put it in perspective. E.g. Rabba (Rava) bar Rav Chanan is a Pumbeditan Amora, contemporary to Abaye and Rava. So too Rabbi Zeira II.
(4) The big point that Tosafot makes is that the Talmudic Narrator asks about (vav), amar leih Rava, since later in the sugya, or if you want to put it another way, another sugya, involving Ulla and Rava, has this:
רָבָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא הַגָּזוּל. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ – פְּשִׁיטָא, לְמָה לִי קְרָא?
Rava said: This halakha may be derived from here, a baraita: The verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), indicates that one’s offering must be “his offering,” but not an animal stolen from another. When, i.e., in which circumstances, is it necessary to teach this halakha? If we say it is dealing with a stolen animal that the robber consecrated and sacrificed before the owner’s despair of recovery, why do I need a verse to teach this? It is obvious that it is disqualified, as one cannot even consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.
אֶלָּא לָאו לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵאוּשׁ לָא קָנֵי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, is it not referring to one who seeks to consecrate and sacrifice a stolen animal after the owner’s despair? And yet the baraita teaches that the animal cannot be consecrated by the thief. Conclude from the baraita that the owner’s despair of recovering a stolen item does not cause the thief to acquire it, as if it belonged to him he would be able to consecrate and sacrifice it. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.
וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר דִּגְזַל קׇרְבָּן דְּחַבְרֵיהּ! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ רַב פָּפָּא אַמְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: But Rava was the one who said that this proof can be refuted, as the baraita can be interpreted as dealing with one who robbed another of an offering that was already consecrated. Rava apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rava retracted one of these two statements. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Pappa, not Rava, said one of these two statements.
That is, [Rava] brings a brayta to demonstrate that ye’ush, despair, does acquire for a thief. The problem is that earlier, in (heh), Abaye had argued against [Rabba] from this very brayta, and then [Rava] showed why that brayta does not prove this matter of ye’ush. And the Talmudic Narrator points out the contradiction, and suggests that either Rava retracted, or else there was a confusion between Rava and Rav Pappa.
I didn’t put this in the article, but depending on how late this Stamma deGemara is, an extremely easy resolution is that earlier it was [Rabba], and now it is [Rava]. But that would entail attacking the Talmudic Narrator’s premise.
Tosafot’s point is that (a) it is difficult to confuse Rabba with Rav Pappa, because what relationship do the two have? It is possible to confuse Rava with Rav Pappa, since Rava was Rav Pappa’s teacher. They envision Rav Pappa making a statement stam, and the listeners in the academy mistakenly believing that he was quoting his rebbe for it. (b) further, the words amar leih [Rava / Rabba] is not necessary if it is merely Rabba responding to Abaye’s objection. Amar leih alone would suffice, as it does in (chet).
(5) I discuss some manuscripts which match what Tosafot discusses. One of these manuscripts, which I depict, is Hamburg165:
Note a few interesting things. The other handwriting on the first line, writing a heh, so that it is Rabba, not Rava. Also, the next line suddenly has (in the original hand) Rava, and there is a marginal note “so is primary and not Rabba”.
(6) There are different modes of transmission, and different types of errors are common to each. Yesterday, I wrote about transposition errors and how I suspect Gutenberg and moveable type might make that kind of error more prevalent (though my example of Ravina / Ravnai didn’t pan out).
There are errors in oral transmission, due to forgetting the precise Amora and mentioning someone associated (as Dr. Elman discusses), or sound similarity, and in written works, orthographic similarity. Tosafot’s suggestion of the cause of confusion isn’t precisely what Dr. Elman wrote about, but is similar — we are dealing perhaps with direct listeners of Rav Pappa.
(7) In fact, Rava / Rav Pappa confusions are common, especially in context where the next word involves the letter פ. And רב פפא starts and ends with רב…א. Here is a recent example, but I see them all the time, from Bava Kamma 11b:
Our texts have amar Rav Pappa pe’amim. But Munich, Hamburg, and Vatican 116have Rava saying it. I follow daf Yomi with Hachi Garsinan open, and I see such errors all the time. In fact, in an upcoming article, in a few weeks, I’ll be discussing an error between Rava bar Shmuel vs. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, where it isn’t even the famous pair! So something else is happening … and I’ll save the punchline for that article. So, it is orthographic, oral, or what? This case in unique in that the Talmudic Narrator responds to it, so the confusion happened at that earlier stage, whenever we happen to date the / this Stamma.