Disambiguating Rav Nachman

By the way, yesterday’s daf was about hafkaat kiddushin. I wrote a few columns about this, including Stolen Affection (at the end of Yevamot) followed by Abrogating Betrothal (at the start of Ketubot). Related, in just how hafka’at kiddushin works, may be the Rabba / Rav Chisda dispute of whether rabbinic law takes hold even on a Biblical level, as also discussed in Rav Chisda and Rabbinic Theft. On to today’s post — where we are still playing catch-up…

Over Shabbat, there was a Tosafot which we should not leave unmentioned. The gemara, Bava Batra 46b, stated:

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אָרִיס מֵעִיד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד? הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָרִיס מֵעִיד. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד!

The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent this message to Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: Our teacher, instruct us. Can a sharecropper testify with regard to the ownership of a field of which he is a sharecropper, or can he not testify, as he is biased in his testimony? Rav Yosef was sitting before Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov and said to him: This is what Shmuel said: A sharecropper can testify. Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a sharecropper cannot testify?

There was a Rav Nachman son of Rav Chisda — thus, fourth-generation, associated with Sura or Kafri. He sent a message to Rav Nachman bar Yaakov — thus, third generation, also spanning the second generation, as he is the colleague of Rav Huna, whom he often calls Huna (e.g. on the next page, Bava Batra 47b) as well as Rav Yehuda. Rav Nachman is associated with Nehardea, though at this point may have moved to Shechantziv after Nehardea was destroyed. If he is sending this message, and saying יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, maybe Sura no longer prominent. Recall that Rav Chisda helped Rabba bar Rav Huna run Sura after Rav Huna’s death, so maybe this is after this.

Also interesting is that third-generation Rav Yosef sits before him, which often means as a student. Here, he has an independent ruling in Shmuel’s name, which presumably Rav Nachman didn’t know. There seems a lot to glean regarding interactions and scholastic relationships from this one sugya.

Anyway, on to the Tosafot, which begins:

שלח ליה ר"נ בר רב חסדא לרב נחמן בר יעקב. ר"נ סתם שבכל גמרא הוא ר"נ בר יעקב תדע דבכל הגמ' לא תמצא ר"נ בר יעקב נזכר שמו ושם אביו אא"כ יש ר"נ אחר אצלו כי הכא ובירושל' פליגי בכל מקום רב נחמן בר יעקב ורב ששת משמע דהוא ר"נ סתם דהוא בר פלוגתיה דרב ששת בגמ' שלנו ולא כמו שמשמע מתוך פירוש הקונטרס בסוף פרק כל הגט (גיטין דף לא: ושם ד"ה אנא) דרב נחמן בר יצחק הוה חתניה דבי נשיאה דהיינו רב נחמן סתם כדמוכח בהעור והרוטב (חולין דף קכד:)

Thus, (1) we only see “bar Yaakov” clarifying Rav Nachman when there is another Rav Nachman bar X in the sugya, so it is there to disambiguate. And I guess we don’t only see e.g. “bar Yitzchak” when there are other Rav Nachmans present. That strongly suggests that plain Rav Nachman is bar Yaakov. (2) There’s also evidence from a Yerushalmi that this mapping is correct.

Meanwhile, Rashi suggest that plain Rav Nachman is bar Yitzchak, and this is unlikely for various reasons.

See also my earlier Substack post, that this is a likely misreading or wrong girsa in Rashi, and of course Rashi agrees that plain Rav Nachman is bar Yaakov.