Is Ravina Indeed the Last Word?

Consider Rabbenu Chananel on Bava Kamma 6b.

The Mishna had stated that there was a tzad hashaveh between the four categories of damages, and the implication of that is that there may be a case which spanned the boundary of two different Categories of Damange. Four Amoraim had proposed just what that boundary case was:

• Abaye

• Rava

• Rav Ada bar Ahava

• Ravina

Ravina’s explanation was:

רָבִינָא אָמַר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דִּתְנַן: הַכּוֹתֶל וְהָאִילָן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקוּ – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. נָתְנוּ לוֹ זְמַן לָקוֹץ אֶת הָאִילָן וְלִסְתּוֹר אֶת הַכּוֹתֶל, וְנָפְלוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן וְהִזִּיקוּ – פָּטוּר. לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן – חַיָּיב.

Ravina said: The stating of the common denominator in the mishna serves to add the halakha that one is liable to pay damages in this case that we learned in a mishna (117b): In the case of a wall or a tree that fell on its own into the public domain and caused damage, the owner of the wall or tree is exempt from paying damages because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. But if the court had sensed the potential danger and had allotted him a certain amount of time during which he was obligated to chop down the tree or to demolish the wall, and he had not yet done so, and the wall or tree fell into the public domain within the allotted time and caused damage, he is exempt from paying damages. If he did not do so and it fell after the allotted time expired, he is liable to pay the damages.

Now, Rabbenu Chananel wrote that since Ravina is the batrai, the chronologically latest of the four Amoraim, he wins. Alternatively, they aren’t arguing with one another.

(And see Rosh’s analysis of the Rif:

הצד השוה שבהן לאתויי מאי אמר אביי לאתויי אבנו סכינו ומשאו וכו'. רב אלפס ז"ל לא הביא בחבורו כל הני אוקימתא דהני אמוראי אף על גב דכולן הלכות פסוקות הן ולא פליגי אהדדי אלא מר אמר חדא ומר אמר חדא ולא פליגי. דהא אוקימתא דרב אדא בר אהבה ברייתא ודרבינא מתניתין היא וכך אהנהו דאביי ורבא ליכא לאקשויי מידי ומסקינן דילפינן אבנו וסכינו ומשאו שהניחן בראש הגג ונפלו לרה"ר ברוח מצויה והזיקו בתר דנייחי מבור ומאש

)

At any rate, I am not sure I agree with Rabbenu Chananel’s batrai analysis. Yes, Abaye and Rava are fourth-generation Amoraim. And Ravina is later.

However, there were two Amoraim named Rav Ada bar Ahava. The former was second-generation in Pumbedita. The latter was actually officially Rav Ada bar Abba, but is often mangled changed by scribes to Rav Ada bar Ahava. Given his appearance in the sequence after Abaye and Rava, and that sugyot proceed chronologically, this would be Rav Ada bar Ahava (Abba) II, a fifth-generation Amora and Rava’s student, associated with Mechoza.

Not that it’s needed, but the Hamburg 165 manuscript has Rav Ada bar Abba.

Further, there are two Ravinas. The former is the uncle, while the latter is the nephew. Ravina I is fifth-generation, and a student of Rava. There is no reason to leap to associating “Ravina” with Ravina II here, the sixth and seventh generation Amora. I see Abaye and Rava, and a fifth generation contemporary. I don’t see any intervening Rav Ashi. We should typically keep our subgraph of Amoraim participating in a discussion as tight as possible

Given that Ravina I is perhaps arguing with Rav Adda bar Abba, they are contemporaries, rather than Ravina I being the batra.