Does Rav Zevid Discuss Rabba?

In this past Friday’s daf, Bava Metzia 23, a few points.

(1) Rav Zevid keeps speaking mishmeih deRava, in Rava’s name. For instance, on 23a:

אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סָבְרִי סִימָן הֶעָשׂוּי לִידָּרֵס הָוֵי סִימָן, וּמַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. וְהָכָא בְּסִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: סִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו לָא הָוֵי סִימָן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: הָוֵי סִימָן.

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

This is Rav Zevid II, fifth-generation, who is Rava’s student, and who eventually took over Pumbedita academy while Rav Pappa presided over Naresh.

Yet, on the same daf, we have one occurrence of Rav Zevid who is probably different. On 23a:

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב בִּיבִי מֵרַב נַחְמָן: מָקוֹם הָוֵי סִימָן, אוֹ לָא הָוֵי סִימָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, מָצָא חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן וְשֶׁל שֶׁמֶן וְשֶׁל תְּבוּאָה וְשֶׁל גְּרוֹגְרוֹת וְשֶׁל זֵיתִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּמָקוֹם הָוֵי סִימָן, לִכְרוֹז מָקוֹם! אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּרַקְּתָא דְנַהֲרָא.

§ Rav Beivai raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: Is the location where the lost item was found a distinguishing mark, or is it not a distinguishing mark? Rav Naḥman said to him that you learned it in the baraita: If one found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him. And if it enters your mind that location is a distinguishing mark, let the finder proclaim what he found, and have the location serve as a distinguishing mark. Rav Zevid said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the case of a barrel that was found on the bank of the river. Since it is the place where ships dock and merchandise belonging to many people is loaded and unloaded, the bank of a river cannot serve as a distinguishing mark.

This is likely Rav Zevid I, fourth-generation and Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov)’s student.

(2) R’ Irv was the maggid shiur, and when presenting aspects of Rav Zevid II, when it said amar lecha Rabba, that Rabba, Rava’s disputant, would tell you, said that it is unclear whether this was part of Rav Zevid’s presentation or is the Stamma de-Gemara’s presentation / reaction.

My general inclination is that such will be the Stamma, the Talmudic Narrator. Here, chronologically / relationally it may make even more sense. I would expect Rav Zevid II to cite his direct teacher, one generation up, and not the disputant, two generations up. Even though all three of them really presided over Pumbedita academy in sequence.

More than that, I recently discussed lectio brevior potior in Bava Metzia, where we should look to the briefer text as more original.

Looking to those same briefer manuscripts, Munich 95 and Hamburg 165, they even omit the amar lecha Rabba in places it occurs. Thus, the first amar lecha Rabba appears even in them, for the purported tiyuvta (from which perhaps it was carried below):

However, the second occurrence, after ela amar Rav Zevid mishmeih deRava, where Rabba amar lecha, namely this:

אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סָבְרִי סִימָן הֶעָשׂוּי לִידָּרֵס הָוֵי סִימָן, וּמַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. וְהָכָא בְּסִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: סִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו לָא הָוֵי סִימָן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: הָוֵי סִימָן.

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

וְרַבָּה אָמַר לָךְ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סִימָן הֶעָשׂוּי לִידָּרֵס – לָא הָוֵי סִימָן וְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. וְהָכָא בְּסִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו קָמִיפַּלְגִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי סִימָן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: הָוֵי סִימָן.

And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

we find that Munich 95 has it but Hamburg 165 only adds it as a marginal note:

That is what the square brackets mean. Thus, here it is on the Hamburg 165 margin, very top of the page:

Then, there is an ikka deAmrei, another account within Rav Zevid, which has the following:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סָבְרִי סִימָן הֶעָשׂוּי לִידָּרֵס – הָוֵי סִימָן, וּמַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. וְהָכָא בְּסִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: סִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו – לָא הָוֵי סִימָן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: הָוֵי סִימָן.

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

וְרַבָּה אָמַר לָךְ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סִימָן הֶעָשׂוּי לִידָּרֵס – לָא הָוֵי סִימָן, וְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. וְהָכָא בְּסִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: סִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו – לָא הָוֵי סִימָן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: הָוֵי סִימָן.

And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

and this time, both Munich and Hamburg entirely omit what Rabba could have said to you.

So maybe not only is Rav Zevid not saying it, even the Stamma de-Gemara originally didn’t say this!

(3) R’ Irv also mentioned (I forget who, maybe in the name of the Rashba) that Rav Zevid quoting Rava that vehilcheta is such and such, is just strange, for will Rava simply say the halacha in like himself in a dispute? Therefore he emends to Rav Zevid quoting Rav Pappa that the halacha is such and such.

See my earlier article about confusing Rava and Rav Pappa, and its followup.

The “strange” text of hilcheta:

וְאָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הִלְכְתָא, כְּרִיכוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, אִי דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, אִי דֶּרֶךְ הַנָּחָה – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז. וְזֶה וָזֶה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סִימָן, אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סִימָן – לָא שְׁנָא בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה וּבֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַנָּחָה – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.

And Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one finds bundles of grain in a public area, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a secluded area in a manner indicating that they had fallen, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. And both this ruling and that ruling are in the case of an item in which there is no distinguishing mark. But in the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, it is no different if the bundles were found in a public area and it is no different if the bundles were found in a secluded area; whether the bundles were found in a manner indicating that they had fallen or whether they were found in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

I’m not so sure I find it strange. It is an analysis of how to read the Mishna, about krichot birshut harabbim, and when and where it applies and where not, as an announced discourse (like darash X).

Also, R’ Elchanan objected that it is questionable that Rav Zevid II would quote his fifth-generation contemporary Rav Pappa, where both were Rava’s students, as opposed to quoting Rava. I agree. Perhaps we could just eliminate the mishmeih deRava here, even without any manuscript support on Hachi Garsinan, or with at least minimal support (as we’ll see). The repetition of mishmeih deRava would be dittography from above, where Rav Zevid II kept quoting Rava.

Here is what we have in manuscripts. I should also first mention that the immediately preceding statement was also Rav Zevid citing Rava, which began klala demilta, the general rule of the matter is…

So for the first statement, klala demilta, several manuscripts — Munich, Escorial, Vatican 115a just have plain Rav Zevid, not citing Rava. And Vatican 117 omits the entire statement of klala. Meanwhile, other texts do have him citing Rava for this.

For the second statement, hilcheta, they all have Rav Zevid citing Rava.

What this may demonstrate is that dittography is in play, and we can get a spurious mishmeih deRava after Rav Zevid. Just as it happened for klala, perhaps it also happened with the hilcheta, even though we don’t see it.