It Isn't Mari bar Isak
First, a quick link, to my Pesach column from last year:
On to the daf yomi post.
If I recall correctly, to “cousin” is an archaic verb meaning to claim to be a long-lost relative, perhaps deceiving them in the process. There is a story in yesterday’s daf, going into today’s, where someone claims (perhaps here correctly) that he is Mari bar Isak’s brother. Thus, the story begins (Bava Metzia 39b):
מָרִי בַּר אִיסַק אֲתָא לֵיהּ אַחָא מִבֵּי חוֹזָאֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלוֹג לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא לָךְ.
§ The Gemara relates: Mari bar Isak, who was a wealthy and powerful man, had a brother whom he did not previously know, come to him from Bei Ḥozai, which was distant from central Babylonia. His brother said to him: Divide the property that you inherited from our father and give half to me, as I am your brother. Mari said to him: I do not know who you are.
While this is how the story begins in the Vilna and Venice printing, I think all other sources have an alternative. Thus, Mari bar Isak or else it was Chana / Huna bar Isak. Since the name only appears once at the beginning of the tale, it doesn’t have a check and can ready vary.
A quick search across Talmud shows only four instances of bar Isak.
Now, the problem with it being Mari bar Isak is that, from the other three instances, it is in sixth-generation, interacting with Rav Ashi and Mar Zutra. Meanwhile, this case comes before third-generation Rav Chisda! We would need to say that there is a Mari bar Isak I and Mari bar Isak II. This seems unlikely. Rather, it was Huna / Chana bar Isak, and that was lost in transmission, and mapped to the more famous Mari bar Isak.
I don’t think it is a bleed over from ואמרי לה, but that’s a remote possibility - that it was Huna, or maybe Chana, and the ואמרי turned to מרי.
Another interesting thing occurs in the transition from 39b to 40a. Third-generation, or we might say second- and third-generation Rav Chisda, since he’s a student-colleague of second-generation Rav Huna, and an older contemporary to Rabba bar Rav Huna… Anyway, in the process of bolstering his psak halacha, he points to a Mishnah. The end of 39b:
לְסוֹף אֲתוֹ סָהֲדִי דַּאֲחוּהּ הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִפְלוֹג לִי נָמֵי מִפַּרְדֵּיסֵי וּבוּסְתָּנִי דִּשְׁתַל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לָךְ, דִּתְנַן: הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, וְהִשְׁבִּיחוּ גְּדוֹלִים אֶת הַנְּכָסִים – הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לָאֶמְצַע.
Ultimately, witnesses came and testified that the person from Bei Ḥozai was his brother. At that point, the brother said to Mari bar Isak: Divide and give me half of the orchards and the gardens that you planted since the death of our father as well. Rav Ḥisda said to Mari bar Isak: He spoke well to you, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 143b): If one died and left adult and minor sons, and the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced the property, and the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between the adult sons and the minor sons.
leads into the start of 40a:
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה: הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לָאֶמְצַע. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם, גְּדוֹלִים גַּבֵּי קְטַנִּים יָדְעִי וְקָא מָחֲלִי, הָכָא מִי יָדַע דְּלֵיחִיל?
And likewise, Rabba says: They enhanced the property, and the profit goes to the middle. Abaye said to him: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case that the adult and minor brothers were together, the adults are aware that the minors exist and forgo payment for their effort on behalf of their younger brothers. Here, in the case of Mari bar Isak, was the older brother aware of the existence of the younger brother so that he could forgo payment for his labor?
Rashi already recognizes the issue. We don’t bolster a Mishnah, a Tannaitic source, with “and this random Amora also says the same thing. Also, Rabba (bar Nachmani) is Rav Chisda’s student, so Rav Chisda wouldn’t cite him to prove his point.
וכן אמר רבה השביחו לאמצע - לא גרסינן שאין זה לשון גמרא להביא דברי האמוראים סיוע למשנה ועוד רבה תלמידיה דרב חסדא הוה והיכי אמר רב חסדא שמעתא משמיה ואי גרס ליה וכן אמר רב גרסינן שהיה רבו של רב חסדא משום דאיכא למ"ד בבבא בתרא (דף קמג:) לא שנו אלא ששבחו נכסים מחמת נכסים אבל שבחו מחמת עצמן של אחים השביחו לעצמן אמרה רב חסדא להא דרב הכא למימר דלית לן ההיא שמעתא אלא אפילו השביחו מחמת טורחן של משביחין כי הכא דשתל פרדס השביחו לאמצע:
Therefore, cross out those words. Alternatively, says Rashi, change רבה to רב by removing the ה, and this is Rav Chisda’s teacher. Since there is a position in Bava Batra that restricts the application of this law, Rav Chisda can add that his teacher Rav said to apply it in this case.
Tosafot, meanwhile, would preserve the “Rabba” reading:
וכן אמר רבה גרס - רש"י גרס וכן אמר רב ופליג אמ"ד בפ' מי שמת (ב"ב דף קמג: ושם ד"ה לא) נכסים ששבחו מחמת עצמן של אחין השבח לעצמן וקאמר דאפי' שבחו מחמת טרחם של משביחין כי הכא דשתל פרדיסא השביחו לאמצע וזהו תימה שחולק רבא על רב דהתם רבא קאמר ולא מייתי התם מילתיה דרב ונראה דגרס רבה וכן בספר ר"ת ולא מדברי רב חסדא הוא שהגמ' מביא שמעשה כיוצא בזה בא לפני רבה ופסק דהשביחו לאמצע כמו רב חסדא והביאו הגמרא משום קושית אביי דא"ל אביי לרבה מי דמי כו' ולא חשש רבה מקושיותיו ודן דהשביחו לאמצע:
And especially Rabbeinu Tam, whose guiding principle is to preserve and defend existing texts, against the onslaught of those who would emend them to fix problems. Rather than Rav Chisda says “and so said Rabba”, it is the gemara itself who notes that Rabba held this. And the reason for mentioning this is that Abaye argues, not with Rav Chisda but with Rabba.
Looking at manuscripts, I see something interesting.
(1) One manuscript, Escorial, has רבהשביחה, without a space. We could imagine that from that compression, of Rav - Hishbicha, it was interpreted as Rabba. Related, just say it is an accidental gemination of the heh.
(2) Vilna and Venice printings have Rabba. So too Hamburg 165.
(3) Vatican 115a rubs it out, but what was rubbed out had Rava, rather than Rabba. We might note that Rava works well, perhaps better, for a student of Rav Chisda and someone Abaye argues with.
(4) A few others don’t rub it out, but have Rava. We have Florence 8-9 and Munich 95.
(5) Finally, there is Vatican 117, which has Rav, conforming to a Rashi reading. This is similar to Escorial, discussed above.