Deed as Reigns of the Land. And other thoughts
I have several short thoughts on Bava Batra 170.
(1) Are letters acquired via mesirah, meaning that handing over the shtar effectuates the kinyan of the land?
Mesirah is an ambiguous term. It either means to transmit (think masorah), or it means Reigns. I wrote an article about this a while back:
The reigns of an animal is โ well, its actual reigns. Of a flock โ its bellwether sheep. Of a house โ its key. Of a well โ its bucket. And perhaps, if there is a shtar which functions as a deed to the property, and as weโve seen recently, there are indeed such shtarot, then possession of the deed controls the property, and transfer of the deed, which are the reigns of the land, could effectuate the transfer of the underlying land.
(2) Abaye is the student of both Rav Yosef and of his uncle Rabba bar Nachmani, and all three led Pumbedita academy at various points. And Abaye is certainly comfortable arguing with his teachers.
Still, a point Iโve made elsewhere, which might be debatable, is that we might expect some level of consistency of positions within a Talmudic academy, especially where there is cross-academy disagreement.
By this I mean, say that there is a dispute between Rav Huna in Sura and Rav Yehuda in Pumbedita. So they have had opportunity to argue. Then, I might expect Suran scholars of later generations, like Rabba bar Rav Huna or Rav Chisda, to align with Rav Huna; and Pumbeditan scholars of later generations, like Rav Yosef, to align with Rav Yehuda. This might be explicitly in the debated position itself, or in different positions which rely directly or eventually on the debated position.
We see this idea expressed in Bava Batra 169 - 170. Namely, there was a brayta in which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argued with the Sages. First generation Amora, Rav Asi of Hutzal, explained it one way, but Rabba (or the Talmudic Narrator on his behalf) expressed an objection. Therefore, Rabba (third-generation, Pumbedita) explained it in a different way.
ืึถืึผึธื ืึธืึทืจ ืจึทืึผึธื: ืึผึฐืืึนืชึดืึผืึนืช ื ึดืงึฐื ืึนืช ืึผึดืึฐืกึดืืจึธื ืงึธืึดืืคึผึทืึฐืึดื โ ืจึทืึผึธื ืฉืึดืึฐืขืึนื ืึผึถื ืึผึทืึฐืึดืืึตื ืกึธืึทืจ: ืืึนืชึดืึผืึนืช ื ึดืงึฐื ืึนืช ืึผึดืึฐืกึดืืจึธื, ืึฐืจึทืึผึธื ึทื ืกึธืึฐืจึดื: ืึตืื ืืึนืชึดืึผืึนืช ื ึดืงึฐื ืึนืช ืึผึดืึฐืกึดืืจึธื.
Rather, Rabba said a different explanation: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree about whether or not the letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document from one holder of the document to another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the letters are acquired by transferring the document. Therefore, if the recipient returns the bill of sale to the giver, the land returns to the giver as well. And the Rabbis hold that the letters are not acquired by transferring the document.
Then, Rav Dimi came from Israel and explained a different brayta, which tapped into the same explanation of ืืึนืชึดืึผืึนืช ื ึดืงึฐื ืึนืช ืึผึดืึฐืกึดืืจึธื or not. The problem is that the positions ascribed to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and his disputing Sages in this explanation are the reverse of how Rabba had ascribed the positions.
Then, Abaye chimes in with his objection on that basis. This is prior to his offering his own explanation of the second brayta. Thus:
ืึฒืึทืจ ืึตืืึผ ืึทืึผึธืึตื: ืึดื ืึผึตื, ืคึผึฐืืึผืึฐืชึผึธื ืึดืึฐืึธืจ! ืึฒืึทืจ ืึตืืึผ: ืึฐืชึดืคึฐืืึนื!
Abaye objected and said to Rav Dimi: If that is so, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that letters are not acquired by transferring possession of the bill of sale, this would be in disagreement with what the Master, Rabba, said earlier, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that letters are acquired by transferring possession of the bill of sale. Rav Dimi said back to him: And let it be in disagreement. I am not obligated to be in agreement with Rabba.
ืึฒืึทืจ ืึตืืึผ, ืึธืึดื ืงึธืึธืึตืื ึธื ืึธืึฐ: ืึทืชึฐื ึดืืชึธื ืึธื ืึดืืชึผึธืจึฐืฆึธื ืึถืึผึธื ืึผึฐืึดืึฐืชึธืจึฐืฆึธื ืึธืจ, ืึฐืึดื ืึผึตื ืงึทืฉืึฐืึธื ืึผึฐืจึทืึผึธื ืฉืึดืึฐืขืึนื ืึผึถื ืึผึทืึฐืึดืืึตื ืึทืึผึฐืจึทืึผึธื ืฉืึดืึฐืขืึนื ืึผึถื ืึผึทืึฐืึดืืึตื!
Abaye clarified his objection and said to him: This is what I meant to say to you. The baraita (168b), which Rabba was explaining, can be explained only the way the Master, Rabba, explained it. And if so, i.e., if you do not agree with Rabbaโs understanding of the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, there is a difficulty, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the other statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
For Abaye, we might imagine that Marโs โ that is, Rabbaโs โ explanation is somewhat binding. Meanwhile, for Rav Dimi, a non-Pumbeditan Amora, that Rabba has a different explanation is no concern.
On the other hand, Rav Dimi effectively says โwho caresโ, in the sense that an Amora can be be wrong, or disputed, in a way that a conflict with a Tanna cannot. And then Abaye even gives in to that, saying that the problem is really with the brayta, the Tanna, for that is the only proper way to explain the brayta.
Still, that he initially expressed it in this way, and that he agrees with the Rabba over the Rav Asi explanation, is something I would claim as another piece of evidence towards my academic alignment this.
(3) Also, I donโt think that Rav Dimi said this rejoinder, or that Abaye adjusted his statement in response. Take a look at the manuscript variants that Hachi Garsinan has on this.
The printings all have it:
So in response to im kein plugta demar, we have AMAR LEIH and AMAR LEIH, saying that these are words of the Amoraim themselves. And we have the words ืึธืึดื ืงึธืึธืึตืื ึธื ืึธืึฐ: ืึทืชึฐื ึดืืชึธื ืึธื ืึดืืชึผึธืจึฐืฆึธื ืึถืึผึธื ืึผึฐืึดืึฐืชึธืจึฐืฆึธื ืึธืจ, a lengthy exposition of โthis is what I meant to say to youโ with an explicit connection of the first version of the objection ืึทืชึฐื ึดืืชึธื ืึธื ืึดืืชึผึธืจึฐืฆึธื ืึถืึผึธื ืึผึฐืึดืึฐืชึธืจึฐืฆึธื ืึธืจ to the new objection of the internal conflict with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Meanwhile, look at all the manuscripts:
That is all missing. The principle of lectio brevior potior, the briefer reading is stronger, holds. So the Talmudic Narrator is quite likely the one speaking here, rather than Abaye. And then, later scribal edits, or incorporation of commentary, turn it into an explicit attribution of those words to Rav Dimi and Abaye.