Motivating a Chasurei Mechasra?
A curious thing happened the other day in Daf Yomi, in Bava Batra 173b - 174a:
A Mishnah records a dispute between the Sages and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II (henceforth RSbGII’s) about a guarantor. And RSbGII’s position is אִם יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלֹּוֶה – בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב. In other words, the rule only applies if the borrower lacks real estate.
Rabba bar bar Chana quotes Rabbi Yochanan to reduce (seemingly) the Tanna Kamma / Sages’s case to where the the borrower lacks real estate. This is seemingly identical to that of RSbGII.
Usually, we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II in a Mishnah, but Rabba bar bar Chana1 again quotes Rabbi Yochanan (in the Land of Israel) who makes this one of three exceptions, so we rule like the Sages.
But he transformed the Sages into the surface reading of RSbGII!
The Talmudic Narrator makes it into a chasurei mechasra, that the Mishnah is (or is as-if) deficient, and introduces a new level of guarantor, that of the areiv-kablan. So it is that which is the point of dispute between the Sages and RSbGII. We don’t explicitly see Rabbi Yochanan explain the Mishnah as an areiv kablan with a deficiency in the wording, and indeed, this answer is the type almost exclusively suggested by the Talmudic Narrator.
We might imagine that the framing of the Mishnah, via the chasurei mechasra, was such that the casual reader will not emerge with the wrong halacha. After all, since we almost always rule like Rabbi’s father RSbGII when he appears in a Mishnah, we would think to rule like him here as well. But it is OK, since the peshat straightforward reading attributes to him the position that the Sages really hold.
If so, this has the whiff of something we might see on occasion, the reversal of positions so that “the Sages” hold the position we really hold like, even at the cost of accurate attributions.
(An alternative is that perhaps Rabbi Yochanan wasn’t commenting on the Mishnah with his restriction, but was commenting on the practical law. If so, the two quotes via Rabba bar bar Chana are at odds.)
Meanwhile, compare with the parallel in Yerushalmi. When trying to understand Amoraim from the Land of Israel, we should always check for a Yerushalmi parallel. An easy way to find it in Sefaria, since it doesn’t link directly is: Scroll to the Mishnah in Bavli. Look for the Mishnah parallel, and Open it. Click on that actual Mishnah, and look to the Talmud parallel, and scroll until you find the Yerushalmi Bava Batra. That gives us Yerushalmi Bava Batra 10:8:
After the Mishnah, it reads, in full:
הלכה: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרָב כול׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֹוֶה. אֲבָל אֵין נְכָסִים לַלּוֹוֶה יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב. וְאִם אָמַר. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה. יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֹוֶה.
HALAKHAH: “Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the debtor has real estate. But if the debtor has no real estate, he may request payment from the guarantor. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may request payment from the guarantor.
תַּמָּן מָרִין. בְּכָל־מָקוֹם הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חוּץ מֵעָרָב וְצַיידָן וּרְאָייָה אֲחֲרוֹנָה. אָֽמְרִין. וּבִלְבַד בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ. רִבִּי אִמִּי בַּר קָרְחָה בְשֵׁם רַב. וְלָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ. בְּכָל־מָקוֹם הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁהֲלָכוֹת קְצוּבוֹת הָיָה אוֹמֵר מִפִּי בֵית דִּינוֹ.
There, they instruct that practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel except for the guarantor, Sidon, and the last proof. They say, only in the Mishnah. Rebbi Immi bar Qorḥa in the name of Rav: Why did they say, practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? For he pronounced specific practices decided by his court.
So, a few points.
It is not the same transmitter for both statements. Here, it is Rabbi Avahu, who is entirely an Amora of the Land of Israel, who took over the academy from Rabbi Yochanan, who says the first statement. This in contrast to Rabba bar bar Chana, who started in Bavel, went to the Land of Israel to study for a while, was not so accepted, and returned to Bavel, with many of Rabbi Yochanan’s sayings.
There is no question and answer of chasurei mechasra to massage the Mishnah message in the same way it happens in Bavli.
(But see the Mar’eh HaPanim commentary, which distinguishes between the Bavli and Yerushalmi. Based on the wording in Yerushalmi, the restriction of no assets to the borrower goes on the reisha of the reisha, הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרָב לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב, but the seifa of the reisha applies regardless. Meanwhile, in the Bavli, it the restriction seems to go on the seifa of the reisha, which then becomes identical with the Sages / RSbGII dispute, causing a problem and necessitating the chasurei mechasra. Very cool, how different assumes piskaot lead us in different directions.)And finally, the second idea expressed by (the Babylonian) Rabba bar bar Chana is attributed to תַּמָּן מָרִין, “there they say”, with there indicating Bavel.
The Vilna printed text, and the Venice printed text have Rabba bar Chana, missing the second bar. But the Pesaro printing and all manuscripts match parallel gemaras, which have Rabba bar bar Chana.