Is Rav Asi Really Rav's Student?
In yesterday’s daf (Kiddushin 45b), Rav and Rav Asi disagree, and in a practical incident, Rav acts in accordance with Ravi Asi:
נִתְקַדְּשָׁה לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ, וְהָלַךְ אָבִיהָ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְעָמְדָה וְנִישֵּׂאת, אָמַר רַב: אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אָבִיהָ וִימַחֶה. רַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא אָבִיהָ וִימַחֶה, וְנִמְצֵאת זָרָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לְמַפְרֵעַ. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וְחַשׁ לַהּ רַב לְהָא דְּרַב אַסִּי.
§ If a minor became betrothed with her father’s consent, and her father left for overseas, and she went ahead and got married of her own accord in her father’s absence, Rav says: If she is an Israelite who married a priest, she may partake of teruma until her father comes and protests, explicitly stating that he does not agree to the marriage. Rav Asi said: She may not partake of teruma. Perhaps her father will come and protest, and it will be found retroactively that a non-priest has partaken of teruma. The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind, and Rav was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi and did not allow a girl in this situation to partake of teruma.
To this, Tosafot note:
הוה עובדא וחש לה רב להא דרב אסי - נראה דהלכה כרב אסי דהא הדר ביה רב אך ר"ת פסק הילכתא כרב שהרי רב אסי היה תלמידו ובכל מקום שהרב והתלמיד חולקין הלכה כדברי הרב באמוראי ראשונים עד אביי ורבא אבל מכאן ואילך פסקינן כבתראי לפי שדקדקו יותר מן הראשונים להעמיד הלכה על בוריה ואע"ג דחש לה רב להא דרב אסי מש"ה לא חזר בו אלא חומרא בעלמא שהחמיר אנפשיה כמו שמצינו בפ"ק דמגילה (דף ה.) אמר רב מגילה בזמנה ביחיד שלא בזמנה בעשרה רב אסי אמר אחד זה ואחד זה בעשרה הוה עובדא וחש לה רב להא דרב אסי ואפ"ה קי"ל כרב דהא ר' יוחנן קאי כוותיה בפ"ב דמגילה (דף יט:) דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן הקורא במגילה הכתובה בין הכתובים לא יצא ומחו ליה אמוחיה לא שנו אלא בצבור מפני כבוד צבור אבל יחיד לא אלמא משמע דפעמים קורין אותה ביחיד והיינו בזמנה כרב:
That is, there are two possibilities on how to rule. Either
we rule like Rav Asi, for Rav “retracted” (by being concerned practically for Rav Asi’s position)
Rabbeinu Tam: we rule like Rav, because the was an earlier generation, prior to the fourth generation of Amoraim, Abaye and Rava. From Abaye / Rava and on, you rule like the later authority. But in earlier generation, in a conflict between a teacher and student, the principle is that you rule like the teacher. And yes, Rav was “concerned” for Rav Asi’s position, stringently, but this was a mere stringency he accepted upon himself, not a retraction.
The problem I have with this is that I would say that Rav Asi is NOT Rav’s student. Rather, he is a colleague. I can demonstrate this, and also show why Rabbeinu Tam disagrees. It is yet another fascinating case where the scholastic interactions lead to practical halachic consequences.
The Rav Asi under discussion of Rav Asi of Hutzal, a thoroughly Babylonian Amora. He was first-generation, just like Rav. About this Rav Asi, Rav Aharon Hyman writes in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim the following:
וכשבא רב לנהרדעא מצא את רב אסי ורב כהנא חבירו, כבר גדולי הדור וע"פ עדות הגאונים מובא בזכרון לראשונים סרע"ד וז"ל רב ורב אסי ושמואל היו כמעט שוין במעלה, והאמת כן הוא כמפורש ב"ק פ: רב ושמואל רב אסי איקלעו לבי שבוע הבן רב לא עייל קמיה דשמואל, שמואל לא עייל קמיה דרב אסי (ופרש"י שהיה רב אסי גדול ממנו).
ובסנהדרין לו: רב כהנא ורב אדי לגמריה דרב הוו צריכי (כי רב שהיה רוב ימיו בא"י בישיבת ר"ח ורבי וקיבל מהם כל פירושי המשנה לכך היו צריכין לו לגמריה הגרסאות והפירושים האמיתים) אבל לסבריה דרב לא הוו צריכי, וזה כמו שאמרנו כי כשבא רב לבבל כבר מצאן גדולי הדור. ובשבת קמו: דרב לא יתיב אבי סדיא משום כבוד רבותינו ומאן נינהו ר"כ ורב אסי. ובמגילה ה:, קידושין מד:, סנהדרין כט: אמרו הוה עובדא וחש לה רב להא דרב אסי. ובסוכה ו:, ביצה י. לז: א"ל רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב - ושתיק רב. ובפסחים קו: שר"י בר אבא איקלע לרב אסי - א"ל שבקיה "כרביה ס"ל" (והוא רב) ומזה ראינו בפירוש שרב לא היה רבו דרב אסי, ובכתובות פט: אמרו לרב לדידך. ובנזיר יט. אמרו לו מ"ט לא מפרשית לן.
That is, he was a contemporary and colleague of Rav. When Rav arrived at Nehardea, he found this Rav Asi and Rav Kahana (there are many, so an early one) his colleague, already the Gedolei HaDor. According to the testimony of the Geonim, Rav, Rav Asi and Shmuel were approximately equal. He points to Bava Kamma 80b, where Rav, Shmuel and Rav Asi vited a shevua haben. Rav refused to enter before Shmuel (out of deference; the gemara explains it was because of a certain incident). Shmuel refused to enter before Rav Asi (because he felt Rav Asi was greater). Rav Asi refused to enter before Rav.
Rav Hyman cites Rashi that Shmuel wanted Rav Asi to precede him, because Shmuel felt Rav Asi was greater than him. (Rav Hyman does not continue citing Rashi, that Rav Asi wanted Rav to enter first, because he was Rav’s student. Rav Hyman understands the gemara otherwise.)
Similarly, in Sanhedrin 36b, Rav Kahana and Rav Idi required the halachic traditions of Rav, but didn’t require the reasoning of Rav. This, explains Rav Hyman, is because Rav spent most of his days in the Land of Israel, in the academy of Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and received from them all explanations of this Mishnah. Therefore they required his traditions - the girsaot and the true explanations. But they didn’t require his reasoning, and this is as we said earlier than when Rav arrived in Bavel, he already found them as the Gedolei HaDor. He also mentions three gemaras, three separate incidents, one of which is our sugya in Kiddushin, where Rav practically was concerned for Rav Asi’s differing opinion.
And in Sukkah 6b and elsewhere, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi argued something to Rav, and Rav was silent. And in Pesachim 106b,
רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב אַסִּי, אִישְׁתְּלִי וְטָעִים מִידֵּי, הַבוּ לֵיהּ כָּסָא וְאַבְדֵּיל. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: וְהָא מָר לָא עָבֵיד הָכִי! אֲמַר לַהּ: שִׁבְקֵיהּ, כְּרַבֵּיהּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba happened to come to the house of Rav Asi. He forgot and tasted some food after Shabbat before havdala. They gave him a cup and he recited havdala. Later, Rav Asi’s wife said to her husband: But my Master does not act this way. In your opinion, one who eats before havdala does not recite havdala. He said to her: Leave Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He maintains in accordance with the opinion of his rabbi. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was a student of Rav, who ruled that even one who has eaten may recite havdala.
we see that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was a student of Rav, but Rav Asi was not! Similarly, in Ketubot 89b,
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ גֵּט גּוֹבָה עִיקָּר, אַלְמָנָה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בְּמַאי גָּבְיָא? בְּעֵדֵי מִיתָה. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא גֵּירְשָׁהּ, וּמַפְּקָא לְגִיטָּא וְגָבְיָא בֵּיהּ?! בְּיוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ.
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: According to your opinion, that you said that a woman who produces a bill of divorce collects the main sum, then in the case of a widow from marriage, with what…
where we see that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi say, “to you…” implying they are not students.
And in Nazir 19b:
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְפָרְשַׁתְּ לַן כְּהָלֵין מִילֵּי? אָמַר לְהוֹן: אָמֵינָא דִּלְמָא לָא צְרִיכִיתוּ.
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: What is the reason you did not explain it to us with these words of Shmuel, as explained above? He said to them: I said to myself that perhaps you do not require that explanation, as I thought it was apparent that this is the proper explanation of the mishna.
which again Rav Hyman takes as something students would not say.
Personally, I’m more or less convinced by Rav Hyman’s arguments, so we should not consider Rav Asi to be a student.
Now, Rabbeinu Tam is free to interpret these gemaras otherwise. But why does he?
I believe that there is another complicating factor. Namely, there are a pair of Sages, by the name of R’ Ami and R’ Asi. They began in Babylonia, where in their youth they studied (perhaps respectively) from Rav and Shmuel. Then, they moved to the Land of Israel where they studied under Rabbi Yochanan.
These are reckoned to be third-generation Amoraim. And so that R’ Asi is distinct from the first-generation Rav Asi of Hutzal. Now, sometimes we find them described in the gemara as Rav Ami and Rav Asi, and sometimes as Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. There are probably three reasons for this:
In Bavel, they had not yet received rabbinic ordination. Therefore, their title should be “Rav” instead of “Rabbi”. Once they moved to the Land of Israel, they get the “Rabbi” title.
Scribal error, changing Rabbi to Rav as a title.
In many of the manuscripts, your find R’ rather than “Rav” or “Rabbi”, and then it will sometimes be expanded in later manuscripts or printings as one or the other.
Now, in Bava Batra 11b, we see this:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי, שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לְהַחֲזִיר פִּתְחוֹ לְמָבוֹי אַחֵר – בְּנֵי מָבוֹי מְעַכְּבִין עָלָיו, אוֹ אֵין מְעַכְּבִין עָלָיו? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּנֵי מָבוֹי מְעַכְּבִין עָלָיו.
§ Rav Huna asked Rabbi Ami: If one of the residents of an alleyway onto which several courtyards open wishes to alter his entrance to a different alleyway, i.e., to make an entrance to his courtyard that will open onto a different alleyway, can the residents of the other alleyway prevent him from opening this entrance, or can they not prevent him from doing so? Rabbi Ami said to him: The residents of the other alleyway can prevent him from making the change.
So we see that Rav Huna is dependent upon Rabbi Ami. Yet, Tosafot point out ad loc. an issue:
בעא רב הונא מרב אמי. והא דאמר בפרק הניזקין (גיטין דף נט: ושם) גבי רב הונא קרי בכהני שאני רב הונא דאפי' ר' אמי ור' אסי כהני חשיבי דארעא דישראל מיכף כייפי לרב הונא והכא היכי בעא מיניה וי"ל דרבי אמי לחוד ורב אמי לחוד:
In Gittin 59b, we say that “Rav Huna is different, because even R’ Ami and R’ Asi, the eminent kohanim of the Land of Israel are subject to Rav Huna”. If so, how come he’s asking him a question. And Tosafot answer that perhaps we can say that Rabbi Ami is one person and Rav Ami is a distinct person.
Once we say that, then it makes sense that many Rav Ami and Rav Asis that appear are subject to Rav and Shmuel as students. It realigns all of the textual evidence.
Now, Rav Hyman doesn’t buy Tosafot’s suggestion. In his Rabbi Ami entry, he writes:
ומה שנמצא ב"ב יא: בעי ר"ה מרבי אמי וכתבו שם התוס' ששנים היו אחד רב אמי ואחד רבי אמי, לאו בדרך ודאי אמרו אלא מפני דוחק הקושיא, אבל כשתעיין לא תמצא בשום מקום ששני ר' אמי היו, ואך סתם רב הונא היו כמה מהן שנזכרו הרבה בירושלמי בשם ר' הונא כמבואר בערכם, ור"ה שבעי מר' אמי אינו רב הונא תלמידו דרב אך היה תלמידו דרב הונא שעלה לא"י והוא בעי מר' אמי.
That is, it is just a possible suggestion from Tosafot. Meanwhile, there is no evidence from elsewhere that there are two Rabbi Amis. Rather, regarding the plain Rav Huna, there is lots of evidence in the Yerushalmi that there are more than one. This Rav Huna isn’t Rav’s student, but a student of Rav Huna who made aliyah to Israel and is asking from Rabbi Ami.
Rav Hyman didn’t have access to all the manuscripts we have on Hachi Garsinan, or he could have posited the following. Look at Hamburg 165:
There it is R’ Chaga who asked Rabbi Ammi. And Rav Chaga I is a fourth-generation Amora, a student of Rav Huna who ascended from Bavel to the Land of Israel. He arrived after Rabbi Yochanan’s death, so studied from Rabbi Yochanan’s students. This would include Rabbi Ami.
So it makes sense that this is who asked the question, but it orthographically looks similar to Rav Huna and so a scribal error shifted it to Rav Huna. Based on lectio difficilior, it is more likely for Rav Chaga to become Rav Huna than vice versa.
The other possibility is that he asked Rav, and the “Ami” is spurious and was copied (via dittography) from above. Because earlier, they keep talking about four cubits, or Amot. And that is what we see in the Escorial manuscript, that Rav Huna asked the non-existent Rav Amot. And the number following, echad, would help that along. Thus, Escorial:
At any rate, that accounts for Rav Huna asking R’ Ami in one sugya in Shas. We don’t need to say that there are two.
And then, back to our own sugya in Kiddushin, Rav and Rav Asi are colleagues, and so Rav Asi can stand his own. And, whether Rav indeed retracted or was just being machmir, we have a dispute between two first-generation Babylonian Amoraim. In order for Rav to win, we need to have some other external reason, such as persuasive argument or later Amoraim operating on a Rav basis. I don’t know that we have this.