Do Abaye and Rava Address Rav Dimi of Nehardea?

The gemara in Horayot 2a

1. Might begin with a dispute between Shmuel and Rav Dimi of Nehardea, with Abaye, Rabbi Abba (or possibly Rava), and Ravina I giving Rav Dimi of Nehardea support.

2. Alternatively, ikka de’amrei, it might begin with a dispute between Shmuel and Rav Dimi of Nehardea, but with Shmuel saying what Rav Dimi had said; and with Abaye, Rabbi Abba (or possibly Rava), and Ravina I using the same prooftexts, but here to attack Rav Dimi of Nehardea.

3. My third alternative, which does not appear as an ikka de’amrei, would be that they Abaye et al. are only targeting Shmuel’s statement and even ignoring Rav Dimi. But I’ll argue that even so, that may be the intent.

Let us see the first version in the gemara:

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְעוֹלָם אֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם ״מוּתָּרִין אַתֶּם״. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אָמַר: עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם ״מוּתָּרִין אַתֶּם לַעֲשׂוֹת״. מַאי טַעְמָא? לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה הוֹרָאָה.

GEMARA: Shmuel says: The judges of the court are never liable to bring an offering for an erroneous ruling until they say to those seeking a ruling: It is permitted for you. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a says: The judges are not liable unless they say to those seeking a ruling: It is permitted for you to perform this action. What is the reason that Rav Dimi says that there is liability only if the judges say: To perform this action? It is due to the fact that the ruling is not completed if they say only: It is permitted, as perhaps the judges were expressing a theoretical opinion and not issuing a ruling.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: חָזַר לְעִירוֹ שָׁנָה וְלִימֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלִּימֵּד – פָּטוּר, הוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת – חַיָּיב.

Abaye said: We learn proof for Rav Dimi’s opinion in a mishna as well. The mishna teaches with regard to a rebellious elder (Sanhedrin 86b): If the Sanhedrin ruled contrary to the ruling of the elder and the elder then returned to his city, and nevertheless he taught in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment. But if he instructed others to act on the basis of his ruling that stands contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is liable to be executed.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הוֹרוּ לָהּ בֵּית דִּין לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְהָלְכָה וְקִלְקְלָה – חַיֶּיבֶת בְּקׇרְבָּן, שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּ לָהּ אֶלָּא לְהִנָּשֵׂא.

Rabbi Abba said: We learn proof for Rav Dimi’s opinion in a mishna as well. The mishna teaches (Yevamot 87b): If the court instructed a woman to marry on the basis of inaccurate testimony, but she proceeded and disgraced herself and engaged in promiscuous intercourse, she is liable to bring an offering, as they permitted her only to marry, and her conduct lacked the approval of the court. This indicates that it is not sufficient for the court to issue a general ruling to the woman; rather, the court issues a ruling that includes instruction to perform a specific action.

אָמַר רָבִינָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין לַעֲבוֹר עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה״, תּוּ לָא מִידִּי.

Ravina said: We learn proof for Rav Dimi’s opinion in the mishna here, as well: If a court unwittingly issued a ruling permitting the Jewish people to violate one of all the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah, etc.; and nothing more need be said, as it is clear from the phrase: Issued a ruling to violate, that the ruling must include instruction to perform a specific action.

Now, let us identify the participants.

1. Shmuel is a first generation Amora, located in Nehardea

2. Rav Dimi of Nehardea is a much later Amora, in the fifth generation, associated with Nehardea.

3. Meanwhile, Abaye and Rabbi Abba (or as the manuscripts have it and convincing to my mind, Rava) are fourth-generation Amoraim, in Pumbedita.

4. Ravina I is the fifth-generation student of Rava, of Pumbedita. But that also means that he is contemporary with Rav Dimi of Nehardea.

Now, does the first version of the gemara make sense? Should Abaye and Rava respond to Rav Dimi of Nehardea, to show how it is validated by Mishnayot? He is a generation later. Sure, they can hear what students say, and perhaps even support it, but it is a bit awkward.

The second version, the ikka de’amrei, does not really strike me as a variant in terms of people not being certain what was said, with two version transmitted from early on. Rather, I would imagine a proto-sugya with the bare, short statements of all the named Amoraim. It is the connective tissue, that is, the way of attaching these statements, which was simply ambiguous. Then, people learning it expanded the text to clearly indicate who was attacking or supporting whom.

So, in the second version, all the later Amoraim are attacking Rav Dimi of Nehardea, and Shmuel has the position that they are all effectively defending. I like that because Shmuel is earlier than those Amoraim, so they are aware of his position.

What is dislike about the second version is that, even though they align with Shmuel, this is rhetorically framed as attacking the later Amora, Rav Dimi of Nehardea.

I would rather invent my third version. And I feel justified in inventing it because that connective tissue / framing is just in our heads. In my third version, we have:

1. Shmuel (of Nehardea)

   1. Abaye supporting Shmuel from a Mishnah

   2. Rava supporting Shmuel from a Mishnah

   3. Ravina I supporting Shmuel from a Mishnah

2. But, Rav Dimi of Nehardea disagrees with Shmuel

That is a mix of version 1, where they speak to support, and version 2, where Shmuel holds the position supported by the later Amoraim. But we don’t have indentation in the gemara, and Shmuel is juxtaposed first with his much later disputant.