How Tosafot read Rabba

Yesterday, we discussed whether it was Rava or Rabba, and the Rosh’s argument that cases don’t come before Rava for Abaye to object to.

The Bach had mentioned that Tosafot as well had the Rabba girsa. I could not find the proof to this at the time, but I think the proof was in the next daf.

Thus, on Bava Batra 154a,

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי נֵימָא מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כַּד הֲוָה מְהַלֵּךְ עַל רַגְלוֹהִי בְּשׁוּקָא״, וּבְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָוֵי; אַדְּרַבָּה! מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כַּד קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ״, וְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּרִיא הָוֵי!

And Rabba also says: With regard to the proof that the recipients must present, it is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy. Abaye said to him: What is the reason for this? If we say that due to the fact that in all deeds of gift the following formulation is written: When he was walking on his feet in the marketplace, which indicates that the gift was the gift of a healthy person, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was on his deathbed, that is not correct. On the contrary, one could say that due to the fact that in all deeds concerning the gifts of a person on his deathbed the following is written: When he was sick and lying in his bed, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was healthy.

Tosafot comment on this:

וכן אמר רבה ראיה בעדים. תימה אמאי מוקי רבה למתני' ראיה בעדים דמוקי רבנן כר' יעקב ור"מ כר' נתן והא איהו גופיה ס"ל כר' נתן ולוקמא בקיום שטרות וכולהו כרבי נתן מיהו אי אשכחן בשום מקום דאית ליה מודה בשטר שכתבו א"צ לקיימו הוה אתי שפיר דאי הוה מוקי לפלוגתייהו נמי בקיום שטרות הוה להו רבנן דלא כוותיה א"נ יש לומר דמשמע ליה ראיה דרבנן דומיא דראיה דר"מ דהיינו בעדים:

That is, they wonder why Rabba established the Mishnah as dealing with proof via witnesses (rather than kiyum hashtar), for we establish the Sages (of the Mishnah) like Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Meir like Rabbi Natan; and he (Rabba) himself holds like Rabbi Natan…

It goes on from there. But we see that it would be the same speaker here as it was before. And again here, there is an argument with Abaye.

Now, we might say that this later sugya can also be Rava. However, at this point, it is a real mix, with many more texts having Rabba, where in the past they all had Rava. So, it is easier to say that this was Rabba, so earlier it was also Rabba, so that it is consistent.

Here is the print and manuscript breakdown. The printings have Rabba:

as does Hamburg 165 and Escorial:

However, Munich 95, Paris 1337, and Vatican 115b have “Rava”.

So again, the ones with “Rava” can be consistent with their earlier “Rava”, and Tosafot’s question can apply equally. The ones with “Rabba” that differed from their earlier “Rava” essentially answer Tosafot’s question, in that they don’t need to harmonize. This comparison is left as an excercise for the reader.