Is Ravina Too Humble to be a Torah Scholar?
(1) A quick throwaway girsological point, on Bava Metzia 67a.
We have a quote by Mar bar Rav Yosef, quoting Rava:
אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָא מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי, אֲכַל שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי – מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ.
Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava: With regard to this following type of mortgage, in which the lender holds part of the borrower’s land and may consume its produce, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land once the loan is repaid, then once the lender consumed a measure of produce equivalent to the amount of money that he lent, we remove him from the land at that point, as the produce consumed is considered repayment of the loan.
A bit later, we have Rava bar Rav Yosef, quoting Rava:
אָמַר רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הַאי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְסַלְּקִי – לָא נֵיכוֹל אֶלָּא בְּנַכְיְיתָא. וְצוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ בְּנַכְיְיתָא לָא נֵיכוֹל. אֶלָּא בְּמַאי נֵיכוֹל? בְּקִיצּוּתָא.
§ Rava, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: With regard to this following type of mortgage, in which the lender holds part of the borrower’s land and may consume its produce, the halakha depends on the local custom. In a place where the custom is that the borrower can repay the loan at any time and the court removes the lender from the land, the lender may consume the produce of the land only with a deduction in the amount of the loan granted to the borrower, equivalent in value to that of the produce consumed by the lender. And a Torah scholar [tzurva miderabbanan], who must be especially careful with regard to his conduct, may not consume the produce even with a deduction in the amount of the loan. The Gemara poses a question: But if so, in what manner may he consume the produce? The Gemara answers: By a fixed payment, the details of which the Gemara will soon explain.
However, there’s no such as Amora named Rava son of Rav Yosef. This is an obvious scribal error. Venice printing first messed it up, by having Rav bar Rav Yosef, which was presumably “corrected” to Rava bar Rav Yosef:
but all the manuscripts have the correct Mar bar Rav Yosef.
I think this may be third-generation Rav Yosef’s son in Pumbedita, who studied from fourth-generation Rava. Scholastic generations sometimes work like that.
(2) But the focus of this post is on an internal Ravina contradiction noticed by Tosafot. First, that second (corrected) Mar bar Rav Yosef cited Rava said that in land deposit, in locales where early payment will evict the lender from the land, לָא נֵיכוֹל אֶלָּא בְּנַכְיְיתָא, the only allowable consumption of produce is with deduction. But that a Torah scholar shouldn’t even avail himself of that.
Rather, he should perhaps avail himself of קִיצּוּתָא, which is a dispute between Rav Acha and Ravina, but with two textual variants included in the gemara (ikka de’amrei) about just what קִיצּוּתָא is. For brevity, let’s cite the first of the two, from 67b:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִיצּוּתָא שַׁרְיָא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִיצּוּתָא אֲסִירָא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִתְּמַר: קִיצּוּתָא, פְּלִיגָא בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא. חַד אָמַר: קִיצּוּתָא שַׁרְיָא, וְחַד אָמַר: קִיצּוּתָא אֲסִירָא. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי קִיצּוּתָא? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: עַד חֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין אָכֵילְנָא לַהּ בְּלָא נַכְיְיתָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ שָׁיֵימְנָא לָךְ כּוּלְּהוּ פֵּירֵי.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a fixed payment is permitted, but according to the one who says that a fixed payment is forbidden, what is there to say? As it was stated: With regard to a fixed payment, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed: One said that a fixed payment is permitted, and one said a fixed payment is forbidden. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this fixed payment? The Gemara explains: One case of a fixed payment is where the lender says to the borrower: For a period of up to five years, I will consume the produce of the field without a deduction in the amount of the loan; from that point forward I will appraise for you the value of all the produce I consume and subtract this sum from the debt.
Tangentially, we say elsewhere that is Rav Acha and Ravina disputes, it is always Ravina who takes the lenient position, and we rule like him, except in three instances.
The problem is that, a bit later in the gemara, we get this:
רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב פָּפָּא וְרַב אָשֵׁי לָא אָכְלִי בְּנַכְיְיתָא. רָבִינָא אָכֵיל בְּנַכְיְיתָא.
The Gemara relates: Rav Kahana, and Rav Pappa, and Rav Ashi would not consume the produce of mortgaged fields even with a deduction in the amount of the loan, as they were concerned about the possible violation of the prohibition of interest. Ravina would consume this produce with a deduction in the amount of the loan.
How come Ravina would consume with a deduction. After all, Rava had been quoted (by someone else) saying that בְּנַכְיְיתָא was forbidden to a Torah scholar, and the gemara had framed within this the dispute, wherein קִיצּוּתָא was the perhaps permitted alternative (and should indeed be so for Ravina, the lenient one).
Tosafot ask that question:
רבינא אכל בנכייתא - תימה דלעיל אמרינן דצורבא מרבנן אפי' בנכייתא לא ניכול ועוד דלעיל איפליגו בקיצותא רב אחא ורבינא ואפי' מאן דשרי מודה בנכייתא דאסור לכל הפחות לצורבא מרבנן ואומר ר"ת דרבינא לא היה רוצה ליטול השם ולעשות עצמו צורבא מרבנן ועוד נמצא מוגה בספרו של רבינו תם רפרם במקום רבינא בפלוגתא דקיצותא וי"מ דהך נכייתא דרבינא היינו קיצותא דאיכא דאמר לעיל חמש שנים אכליה בנכייתא מכאן ואילך שיימינן לכולהו פירות דהא פליגי רב אחא ורבינא וקיימא לן דרבינא לקולא ונראה שגם ר"ח סובר כן שפסק דקיי"ל כרב אשי דלא אכיל בנכייתא ולא שרי לצורבא מרבנן אלא כמשכנתא דסורא אם כן ר"ל דנכייתא דהכא הוה קיצותא מדלא שרי אלא כמשכנתא דסורא:
Some answers:
Rabbeinu Tam: Ravina wasn’t haughty and didn’t want to consider himself a “Torah scholar”.
Found in Rabbeinu Tam’s corrected text, that it is Rafram (I: a sixth, or II: a seventh-generation Amora) rather than Ravina in the קִיצּוּתָא dispute. I personally think that is unlikely.
The new definition of נַכְיְיתָא that Ravina is permitting here is a consistent one, namely קִיצּוּתָא. After all, he’s the lenient one in Rav Acha / Ravina disputes.
It strikes me that maybe Ravina doesn’t actually operate within the נַכְיְיתָא disallowance, and the קִיצּוּתָא is a separate argument. That was just the gemara’s apparent framing.
But, more than that, are we sure that the contradiction is real, and that we are talking about the self-same Ravina? After all, Ravina I was the uncle, a student of Rava, while Ravina II was the nephew, a student of Rav Ashi.
In the second story, Rav Pappa and Rav Kahana are Rava’s students. Rav Ashi is Rav Pappa’s student. While Ravina is separated off because he holds a contrary position, are we going a bit back in time. Or perhaps it is acceptable because Ravina I is also a colleague of Rav Ashi, not just Rava’s student?
What about Ravina in Rav Acha and Ravina. Rav Hyman, in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, I think maintains that this is Ravina I. This relies on several assumptions, perhaps all justified:
Rav Acha is Rav Acha bar Rava. Where the bar Rava is not the famous Rava.
Rav Acha bar Rava is in constant argument with Rav Ashi. The nature of their argumentation makes Rav Hyman consider them to be colleagues, rather than Rav Acha bar Rava being a student. (I’m not so convinced here, as there are strong students who often argue with their teachers, such as Abaye with Rabba and Rav Yosef.)
Yes, once, Rav Ashi came to town and Rav Acha and Ravina brought their slaughter knives to him, showing that they are subservient. But, that is subserviant colleagues, not students. (I might argue.)
Ravina should therefore be Rav Ashi’s contemporary as well, so it is Ravina I.
As I said, I am not so convinced at this chain of logic. If Ravina is Ravina II, that could also relax the contradiction.