Holding like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

Disambiguating rabbis

In Nedarim 45 and 46, we have a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Sages regarding two partners who jointly own a property, and take vows against benefit from the other. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says they can still each enter the property, the idea being that the portion they enter is deemed their portion of the whole. This culminates in second-generation Amoraic endorsement of his position:

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. And so too, Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

This confounds some commentators (such as Tosafot, Ritva), given that this apparently hinges upon ברירה, the validity of retroactive determination, and elsewhere, it seems we maintain like Rabbi Oshaya that, in Biblical matters we say there isn’t ברירה, but we do say by Rabbinic law. And we see that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reasoning is retroactive determination from Bava Kamma 51b, where Ravina (who is a late and thus dispositive Amora), explains it this way:

אמר רבינא ואזדו לטעמייהו דתנן השותפין שנדרו הנאה זה מזה אסורין ליכנס לחצר ר"א בן יעקב אומר זה נכנס לתוך שלו וזה נכנס לתוך שלו

Ravina said: And in this regard, they follow their lines of reasoning in an analogous case, as we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 45b): With regard to the case of partners that vowed not to derive any benefit from each other, it is prohibited for them to enter their jointly owned courtyard, as this would violate their vows. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: It is permitted for them to enter the courtyard, since this one enters into his portion of the courtyard and that one enters into his portion.

במאי קמיפלגי ר"א בן יעקב סבר יש ברירה האי לדנפשיה עייל והאי לדנפשיה עייל ורבנן סברי אין ברירה The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree?

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains that there is retroactive designation, and retroactively the section of the courtyard that each one enters becomes the portion that belongs to him. Therefore, this one enters his part, and that one enters his part. By contrast, the Rabbis maintain that there is no retroactive designation, and each portion of the courtyard belongs jointly to both.

Though I’d be annoyingly precise and point out that it isn’t necessarily Ravina (who might be Ravina I, the student of Rava, or his nephew Ravina II, the student of Rav Ashi) who made this determination. Rather, this was an explanation and expansion by the Talmudic Narrator, who might be Savoraic. And look a bit earlier on 51b, where again, regarding the dispute about two partners covering the pit, and see that it is the Talmudic Narrator who frames it this way, rather than Ravina, who isn’t yet in the picture.

And there are proposed resolutions to this contradiction as to whether we hold like him or not. Maybe we hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, but not because of his proposed reason of ברירה. Another issue is why we don’t hold like him, or if we do, why we need second-generation Amoraim, Rav Huna and Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat to tell us so. After all, don’t we say that the Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is kav venaki, brief and precise, and the halacha is always like him?

Well, actually there are two different Tannaim named Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. One my website, Mivami, I guessed that it was the former, thus the (I) following his name.

but there are indeed two. Sefaria also added identification of Tannaim and Amoraim, but where there is ambiguity, they list the possibilities. Thus:

Both I and they should do better work in disambiguation. I have code, developed by myself and students, but I’m not yet satisfied with the results.

Often, what I try to do, either manually or programmatically, is determining which person was intended by considering the scholars with whom he interacts. Alas, in this case, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov as he appears in Nedarim, namely in Nedarim 45 and Nedarim 24, simply argues with the Chachamim (in Tannaitic texts, or Rabanan in the Talmudic analysis. Rabbi Meir comes in somewhere as being in accordance or not, but not as a contemporary or disputant.

When we say “kav venaki”, and that we generally rule like him, it is in relation to the earlier one. However, Rabbi Aaron Hyman, in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, argues that it actually applies to both. I wrote an article about it for the Jewish Link. See here.