Is Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Reliable?
On Bava Batra 134, after Rav Yosef, a third-generation Amora, has established a reasoning approach labeled ho’il, we get this:
כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּעַל שֶׁאָמַר ״גֵּרַשְׁתִּי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. מְנַפַּח רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בִּידֵיהּ: אֲזַל לֵיהּ ״הוֹאִיל״ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף.
When Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A husband who says: I have divorced my wife, is not deemed credible. Rav Sheshet waved his hand disparagingly, as if to say that Rav Yosef’s statement that he is deemed credible since it is in his power to divorce her is gone due to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.
אִינִי?! וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּעַל שֶׁאָמַר ״גֵּרַשְׁתִּי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי״ – נֶאֱמָן!
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A husband who says: I have divorced my wife, is deemed credible?
לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן לְמַפְרֵעַ,
The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. Here, in the statement that the husband is not deemed credible, Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to a retroactive testimony. For example, in a case where he testified that he divorced her on a certain date, and it is discovered that she engaged in sexual intercourse with another man after that date, his testimony is not accepted concerning whether the woman is liable to receive punishment; she is not considered to have been divorced at the time. This is because it is not in the husband’s power to divorce her retroactively.
כָּאן לְהַבָּא.
By contrast, the statement there, where Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the husband’s testimony is deemed credible, refers to testimony for the future, e.g., where he says that he divorced her on that same day, or without specifying a date, in which case his statement is relevant only for the future. Since it was in his power to divorce her at that time, his testimony is deemed credible; if he dies, she is exempt from levirate marriage, and if she engages in sexual intercourse with another man, she is not considered to have committed adultery.
I had a few thoughts about this.
Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef, despite his name, is not Rav Yosef’s son.
Rav Yosef himself may not feel bounds by the earlier statement by (second-generation Amora) Rabbi Yochanan.
Rav Sheshet reacted in a somewhat humorous manner. Oh well, I guess we can dispense with Rav Yosef’s ho’il! :)
I don’t know that Rav Sheshet was aware of a contrary quote of Rabbi Yochanan. In the story, it he is only reacting to Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef’s statement.
Rather, it is the Stamma that works to harmonize, to explain that these two Rabbi Yochanan quotes are not contradictory. Presumably this Talmudic Narrator wants to harmonize here, alongside a general harmonizing approach, because otherwise Rav Sheshet reacted too quickly in dismissing Rav Yosef. (Assuming it is a real dismissal.)
But the alternative approach to harmonization is that they actually do disagree, so Rav Sheshet reacted hastily.
Consider that all over the place, we have ki ata Ravin, as well as a ki ata Rav Dimi. And they say different versions of the same statement, including the exact reverse of each other. The question is then who is more reliable, and there is a whole discussion to be had about Ravin vs. Rav Dimi in this.
With this in mind, let us see what Rav Aharon Hyman says about Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim. Only short excerpt:
If he’s always citing Rabbi Yochanan to folks in Bavel and is thus such a talmid of Rabbi Yochanan, how come he’s never mentioned in Yerushalmi?
His conclusion is that he’s actually a student of Rabbi Abahu, or Rabbi Yirmeyah, who is in turn is Rabbi Yochanan’s student, and so never heard from Rabbi Yochanan directly.
Also, he is perhaps not a bar samcha. Abaye reveals the great secret to us. Thus, Ravin was not as reliable in his reporting of Rabbi Yochanan as was Rav Dimi:
And so too, about Yitzchak Sumka. This “Yitzchak the Red” is the same as Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef. See this gemara, in Yevamot 64b:
אָמַר רָבָא: וּמִי אִיכָּא דְּעָבֵיד עוֹבָדָא בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ כִּי הַאי, וְהָא אִיהוּ דְּאָמַר: אָבִין — דְּסַמְכָא, יִצְחָק סוּמָּקָא — לָאו בַּר סַמְכָא. אָבִין — יֶשְׁנוֹ בַּחֲזָרָה, יִצְחָק סוּמָּקָא — אֵינוֹ בַּחֲזָרָה. וְעוֹד: אֵימַר דִּפְלִיגִי לְעִנְיַן מִילָה, בְּנִישּׂוּאִין מִי פְּלִיגִי?
Rava said: Is there anyone who performs an action like this and endangers himself by marrying such a woman? Wasn’t it he, Abaye, who said that Avin is reliable but Yitzḥak the Red, i.e., Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, is not reliable? He proceeds to explain the difference between them: Avin returns to Eretz Yisrael and hears whether the Sages there rescind their previous rulings, whereas Yitzḥak the Red does not return to Eretz Yisrael and never finds out if the Sages there rescind their rulings. And furthermore, say that they disagree with regard to whether a presumption is established by two or by three deaths due to circumcision, but do they necessarily argue with regard to marriage?
And not being a bar Samcha might mean that they didn’t ordain him, such that he was titled Rav rather than Rabbi; and that he isn’t reliable, that we may be somech on him.
Great! Now that we know that, according to Abaye, Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef isn’t as reliable, how does he stack up against the other Amora who quoted Rabbi Yochanan, namely Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin?
Well, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin is almost certainly wrong. He is a fourth-generation Amora. Certainly the text should be Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, a third-generation Amora who was Rabbi Yochanan’s great student, who conveyed many of his teachings to Bavel. This is the reading in Munich 95, Firkovich, and Vatican 115b.
Now, Rabbi Chiya bar Abba is certainly a bar samcha! He has the title “Rabbi”. And Rabbi Yochanan liked him so much that
If so, then I would suggest that we not rely on the Talmudic Narrator’s harmonization. Rather, we have a reliable transmission which does not impugn Rav Yosef’s ho’il approach, and so Rav Yosef should prevail.