Lectio brevior potior in Bava Metzia
As we’ve started the second perek, I feature I’ve decided to start paying attention to is the shorter reading. That is, sometimes the printed texts and several manuscripts have a more elaborate reading, while a few texts are much shorter. There is a Latin phrase invoked in textual studies that lectio brevior potior, the shorter reading is stronger. And while other factors might push against that, it seems like something to invoke and consider. The idea being that scribes will not want to willy-nilly remove segments of text, but might add text to elaborate and clarify. (Weighing against it, we might have e.g. haplography, where a scribe skipped from one instance of a text to another.)
Here are a few from the second perek. We should weigh their implications, and also consider Rashi and Tosafot to consider that maybe they did not have that text when they commented. And while the embedding Talmudic comment may be true, it may not be true; it should have the status of an optional peirush.
Here are a few examples:
How explicit are we about the peirot = grain on a threshing floor, that tircha causes one to be mafkir it?
אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: בְּמַכְנַשְׁתָּא דְּבֵי דָרֵי עָסְקִינַן. קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דִּנְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ – לָא טָרַח אִינִישׁ וְלָא הָדַר אָתֵי וְשָׁקֵיל לְהוּ, אַפְקוֹרֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ. בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי – טָרַח וְהָדַר אָתֵי וְשָׁקֵיל לְהוּ, וְלָא מַפְקַר לְהוּ.
Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: We are dealing with kernels of wheat that remained during the gathering of grain on the threshing floor. For kernels scattered with a dispersal ratio of one kav in an area of four by four cubits, whose gathering requires great exertion, a person does not exert himself and does not return and take them. Therefore, he renounces his ownership of them and one who finds the kernels may keep them. For kernels scattered in an area smaller than that, the owner exerts himself and returns and takes them. And therefore, he does not renounce his ownership of them.
See how in Munich 95 and Hamburg 165, the text is just:
אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: בְּמַכְנַשְׁתָּא דְּבֵי דָרֵי עָסְקִינַן. קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לָא טָרַח אִינִישׁ , בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי – טָרַח אִינִישׁ
Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: We are dealing with kernels of wheat that remained during the gathering of grain on the threshing floor. For kernels scattered with a dispersal ratio of one kav in an area of four by four cubits, a person does not exert himself, smaller than that, the owner exerts himself
Even these texts do have the elaboration within Rabbi Yirmeyah’s analysis, which follows, that he is mafkir it. But that could potentially have been an even earlier commentary expansion.
If being mafkir isn’t being mentioned, maybe it is more giving up hope of retrieving it given the effort. Maybe it isn’t aveida midaat, but yei’ush midaat, with midaat meaning with knowledge of its loss, not deliberate abandonment / hefker. It is a kvetch, but maybe this would then tap into the question / dispute about whether yiush is really the same as hefker.
Rabbi Abahu, and whether the location of the zeitim informs, as well as it falling off the tree. The gemara in question:
אֶלָּא סֵיפָא לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּקָתָנֵי ״בְּזֵיתִים וּבְחָרוּבִים אָסוּר״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שָׁאנֵי זַיִת, הוֹאִיל וְחָזוּתוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָתְרִין זֵיתֵי מִידָּע יְדִיעַ, דּוּכְתָּא דְּאִינִישׁ אִינִישׁ הוּא.
But the latter clause of the mishna is difficult according to the opinion of Rava, as it teaches: In the case of olives or of carobs, it is prohibited to take the fruit. Apparently, despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha of an olive is different, since its appearance proves the identity of the owner, as the fruit fallen from the tree appears similar to the fruit on that tree, and even though the olives fall off the tree, the one who finds the olives knows that an olive tree that is located in a place that is owned by a specific person belongs to that person and the owner will not renounce ownership of his fruit.
But the Hamburg and Munich, and I see now also Florence, just have: א"ר אבהו שאני זית הואיל וחזיתו מוכיח עליו. It just talks about its appearance, not its location, or falling. Yes, Rav Pappa talks about its falling in the next statement, but it just isn’t here in the original.
Consider Rashi ad loc.:
חזותו מוכיח עליו - מראיתו ניכר של מי הוא הלכך מריה לכי ידע דנפיל לא מיאש דמימר אמר כולי עלמא ידעי דדידי נינהו ולא הפקר הן ולא שקלי להו:
Its appearance proves about it - It is known whose it is from its appearance. Hence once its owner knows that it fell, he will not abandon [it]. For he will surely say, "Everyone knows that they are mine and they are not ownerless, so they will not take them."
The quote, dibur hamatchil, doesn’t include both of these. His explanation does. But note that the explanation is needed, despite the gemara saying almost the same thing. Also, Rashi doesn’t mentioned the location, just that they know they are mine. What is מראיתו ניכר? Does it mean that olives of each person is unique? (Someone in daf noted that olives weren’t common in Rashi’s land, so maybe they didn’t know about olives, just as they didn’t know about elephants.)
Why did the landowner, Murry son of Itzik, (:-) ) say kilcha eitzel yafos regarding what his sharecropper gave to the Amoraim? Our gemara on 22a:
אַמֵּימָר וּמָר זוּטְרָא וְרַב אָשֵׁי אִקְּלַעוּ לְבוּסְתָּנָא דְּמָרִי בַּר אִיסַק, אַיְיתִי אֲרִיסֵיהּ תַּמְרֵי וְרִימּוֹנֵי וּשְׁדָא קַמַּיְיהוּ. אַמֵּימָר וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָכְלִי, מָר זוּטְרָא לָא אֲכַל. אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא מָרִי בַּר אִיסַק, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ לַאֲרִיסֵיהּ: אַמַּאי לָא אַיְיתֵית לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן מֵהָנָךְ שַׁפִּירָתָא?
The Gemara digresses with a related incident: Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to come to the orchard [levustana] of Mari bar Isak. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate the fruit, but Mar Zutra did not eat the fruit due to the concern that the sharecropper had provided them with the fruit without the approval of the owner of the field. Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came and found them eating his fruit and said to his sharecropper: Why didn’t you bring the Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits?
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ אַמֵּימָר וְרַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: הַשְׁתָּא אַמַּאי לָא אָכֵיל מָר? וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם נִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת מֵהֶן – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, הָכִי אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא אָמְרוּ כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל יָפוֹת אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן תְּרוּמָה בִּלְבַד, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִצְוָה הוּא וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם כְּסִיפוּתָא הוּא דְּאָמַר הָכִי.Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: In a case where the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that; if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. Here too, it is clear that Mari bar Isak approved of the actions of his sharecropper. Mar Zutra said to them that this is what Rava said: The Sages said that the statement: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma, indicates consent of the owner only with regard to the matter of teruma, due to the fact that it is a mitzva and the owner is amenable to having the mitzva fulfilled. But here, in this incident, it is due to shame that he said this: Why did you not bring these Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits? He did not really want to give them the fruit.
However, the very end, that he did it because of shame, is not present in Munich and Hamburg. Similarly, Rava just says that it is restricted to Terumah, not that this is because Terumah is a mitzvah. Thus:
Indeed, if we look at Florence 8-9, it is added as a marginal note:
