Criticizing the Pumbeditan Approach

I have lot to write on Shabbos’ daf, Bava Metzia 38. Indeed, I wrote a whole article on it for the Jewish Link, “Ruling like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II”, but I suppressed it for now, in favor of Pesach-related articles that still had a connection to Bava Metzia. So, e.g. this week’s is about selling your chametz and kinyan sudar. We’ll get to the belated Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel article when we get to it.

For now, a few other thoughts on the daf.

(1) It is interesting that the Mishna has a Tanna Kamma saying X (not to touch the deposit) and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel saying Y (sell it to save it), while the brayta has Rabbi Meir saying X and the Chachamim (Sages) saying Y, though in slightly different language. A plain Mishnah, according to Rabbi Yochanan elsewhere, is Rabbi Meir, and that seems to be what is happening here.

Meanwhile, there are two types of Chachamim. There is an unnamed Tanna Kamma adjoined to a single named Amora, where we implicitly assume that this is stated in this way to reflect the plural Sages. (And indeed, in this week’s article on Kinyan Sudar, I discussed one such Tanna Kamma which is assumed by Rishonim to be the plural Sages, which in one manuscript ended the words with divrei Rabbi Meir.) And, there is the pattern in which we first have the named individual Sage, followed by vaChachamim omerim, and the (plural) Sages say, where we don’t know the identity of these Sages. Sometimes you have a Tanna Kamma, a named Sage, and then a Chachamim, and we need to navigate if these are the same.

So again, in the discussion about, there are two parties that could potentially be called Chachamim. Either the Mishna’s Tanna Kamma, who say X rather than Y, or the brayta’s Chachamim who say Y rather than X.

Which plural Sages should we rule like? And who in the world are they? Maybe that is what influenced Rabbi Yochanan or Rav Nachman to go one way or the other.

Now, Rabbi Abba beRabbi Yaakov cites Rabbi Yochanan that we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the Mishnah. And the gemara navigates the difficulty that there’s already a comprehensive rule of Rabbi Yochanan that we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the Mishnah. Different Amoraim may have or not have that general rule.

I think there’s another reason, namely that we need to say it to counter Rava quoting Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov).

Rava cites Rav Nachman that we rule like the Chachamim. This is understood by the Stamma to mean the Chachamim of the Mishnah, that is, the Tanna Kamma, who says X, not Y. And indeed, the Stamma uses this to prove that this topic under discussion (with a Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel dispute) isn’t tightly coupled to the next dispute in the gemara (also a Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel dispute), because Rav Nachman holds contrary positions in this.

But, who says? Maybe the point is otherwise, that we rule like the Chachamim in the brayta, who says Y, not X. Why phrase it like that? Because it is because of the general yachid vs. rabbim consideration. Or, because there may be slight differences in phrasing (meishiv aveida) and cases (of particular kinds of deterioration that occur.

Indeed, while not often, nine times we have the wording halacha keTanna Kamma, rather than referring to the halacha like the Chachamim. I didn’t conduct the search for halacha kaChachamim, but if doing so, we’d need to examine each one to see if it is type A or type B of Chachamim.

(2) It is funny that Rava, famous fourth-generation Amora of Pumbedita, suggests / kvetches a way to interpret a brayta in a way that doesn’t contradict Shmuel, so that children are indeed allowed to descend to their father’s property, not just to sell it … and then, when Rav Amram suggests the same, third-generation Rav Sheshet says “perhaps you are from Pumbedita” since that is their signature learning style, which is not a good learning style.

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְחָרָה אַפִּי וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם״ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶם אַלְמָנוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם יְתוֹמִים, אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָיוּ נְשֵׁיכֶם וְגוֹ׳״?

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: By inference, from that which is stated: “My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you” (Exodus 22:23), I know that their wives shall be widows and their children orphans. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And your wives shall be widows and your children orphans” (Exodus 22:23)? Why is this clause in the verse necessary?

מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶם מְבַקְּשׁוֹת לִינָּשֵׂא וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן, וּבְנֵיהֶן רוֹצִים לֵירֵד לְנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן. אָמַר רָבָא: לֵירֵד וְלִמְכּוֹר תְּנַן.

The verse teaches an additional punishment, that the men will be killed with no witnesses. Their wives will seek to marry, and the courts will not allow them to do so without witnesses to their husbands’ deaths. And their children will wish to descend to their father’s property, to inherit it, and the courts will not allow them to do so. Apparently, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rava said: We learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow them to descend and to sell the land, but the court does authorize a relative to descend and manage the land.

הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וּפַשְׁטַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מֵהָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם: דִּלְמָא לֵירֵד וְלִמְכּוֹר תְּנַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא אַתְּ, דִּמְעַיְּילִין פִּילָא בְּקוֹפָא דְמַחְטָא. וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם [וּבְנֵיהֶם] קָתָנֵי, מָה הָתָם כְּלָל לָא – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּלָל לָא.

The Gemara relates: There was a similar incident in Neharde’a, and Rav Sheshet resolved the matter from this baraita and ruled that the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a captive. Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle, i.e., they engage in specious reasoning. But doesn’t the juxtaposition between their wives and their children in the verse teach that the meaning is similar in both cases? Just as there, with regard to the wives, it means that they may not remarry at all, so too here, with regard to the sons, it means that they may not descend to the property at all.

Sometimes the gemara engages in such kvetches. It is something to keep in mind that different Talmudic academies had different approaches, and we often get it through either a Suran or Pumbeditan filter.

As discussed in these prior posts, there is Rav Amram I who was Rav’s student, and the later Rav Amram II who was Rav Sheshet’s student. This is obviously Rav Amram II.