Musings on the three-fold chain / cord

(The style of this post is a tad unstructured, as I muse about different aspects of the sugya. This is the easiest way to present it.)

On Bava Batra 59a, we saw the threefold chain or cord, the chut hameshulash. Thus,

אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: מְעַכֵּב. רַבִּי חָמָא, אָמַר: אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. אֲזַל שַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרַבִּי בֵּיסָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מְעַכֵּב. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: ״וְהַחוּט הַמְשֻׁלָּשׁ לֹא בִמְהֵרָה יִנָּתֵק״ – זֶה רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חָמָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי בֵּיסָא.

It was stated that there is a dispute with regard to this issue, as Rabbi Oshaya says: The owner of the courtyard can prevent the owner of the roof from sealing the pipe, while Rabbi Ḥama, Rabbi Oshaya’s father, says: He cannot prevent it. Rabbi Oshaya went and asked Rabbi Ḥama’s father, Rabbi Bisa. Rabbi Bisa said to them: He can prevent it. Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “And if a man prevail against him that is alone, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12), saying that this applies to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Bisa, three generations of Torah scholars in one family who knew one another and conversed with each other with regard to matters of halakha.

One manuscript doesn’t have beno shel X beno shel Y, “son of”, in between the listings, but instead have ו, “and”. That wouldn’t make them a descendant chain.

Thus, in the BL: Or. 5558 K/34–37 fragment, we have:

Intermediate to arriving at this “and” is having just a bet, thus, X beR’ Y beR’ Z, which can be misheard as a vav. Several manuscripts have this:

But indeed, this was father, son, grandson in play. Indeed, check out Ketubot 62b:

רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר בֵּיסָא אֲזַיל יְתֵיב תְּרֵי סְרֵי שְׁנֵי בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא. כִּי אֲתָא, אֲמַר: לָא אֶיעֱבֵיד כִּדְעָבֵיד בֶּן חֲכִינַאי. עָיֵיל יָתֵיב בֵּ[י] מִדְרְשָׁא, שְׁלַח לְבֵיתֵיהּ. אֲתָא רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּרֵיהּ, יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ. הֲוָה קָא מְשַׁאֵיל לֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתָּא, חֲזָא דְּקָא מְחַדְּדִי שְׁמַעְתָּתֵיהּ, חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: אִי הֲוַאי הָכָא, הֲוָה לִי זֶרַע כִּי הַאי.

Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this.

עָל לְבֵיתֵיהּ, עָל בְּרֵיהּ, קָם קַמֵּיהּ. הוּא סָבַר לְמִשְׁאֲלֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתְּתָא קָא בָעֵי, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: מִי אִיכָּא אַבָּא דְּקָאֵים מִקַּמֵּי בְּרָא? קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: ״הַחוּט הַמְשׁוּלָּשׁ לֹא בִּמְהֵרָה יִנָּתֵק״ — זֶה רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר בֵּיסָא.

Rabbi Ḥama went in to his house and his son went in with him. Rabbi Ḥama then stood up before him to honor a Torah scholar, since he thought that he wanted to ask him a matter of halakha. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son? The Gemara comments: Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is referring to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa, as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family.

What is this chut hameshulash? Is it manifest in one person, namely Rabbi Oshaya? Or, does it refer to a cord made of three people, and they are the chut hemeshulash?

The answer to this depends on whether Rami bar Chama applied the verse “upon him” or “upon them”. This statement appears both here and Ketubot, so we would have to examine the manuscripts in each.

Our printed texts of Vilna and Venice have עליה, the singular but the Pisaro printing has עלייהו, the plural.

Manuscripts are similarly divided:

We cannot tell for Paris 1337 because the scribe abbreviated. Meanwhile, in Ketubot, all printings and manuscripts on the Hachi Garsinan website have the singular עליה. Another point is that we say Zeh X bar Y bar Z, which strongly suggests it is one person, unless we say this is a way of referring to the existence of the chain.

Also, is it a chain or a cord? I think that as a matter of peshat (by which I mean authorial intent) in the verse, a chut hameshulash is a threefold cord, that is, three cords twisted together. However, as a matter of peshat (by which I mean authorial intent), maybe we aren’t tapping into a cord (cord) so much as a chain, both physical and conceptual. Instead of, or in additional to hameshulash meaning threefold — and here there are indeed three Sages — there is the sense of a shalshelet, a chain, with one dependent upon the preceding link in the chain.

I also wonder which story prompted Rami bar Chama to apply the verse. Was it Bava Batra or Ketubot? Or just the existence of these three Sages? In Bava Batra, it might be that in the dispute with his father, Rav Oshaya prevails, as decided by his grandfather, or it might be that all three would way in. In Ketubot, again, the focus is on the greatness of the grandson. So perhaps he is the chut hameshulash, more than others before him.

---

Also, there is a Tosafot that wonders at the ordering of positions.

והחוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק. כמה היו שהן ואבותיהם ואבות אבותיהם היו תלמידי חכמים ולא קאמר עליהם החוט המשולש אלא הכא היינו טעמא לפי ששלשתן ראו זה את זה והא דמזכיר ר' אושעיא קודם רבי חמא אביו במחלוקת לפי שהיה גדול יותר מדאי כדאמר (עירובין דף נג.) לבן של (ראשונים) כפתח [היכל] זה ר' אושעיא ואמר נמי ר' אושעיא בדורו כר"מ בדורו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו:

They start with why these three are called a chut hameshulash, more than any other three generations of related scholars, and answer that its because they saw one another. This plays in to the question of who is referred to, one or three.

They also wonder at Rabbi Oshaya and his position appearing first (meakev) and his father Rabbi Chama appearing next (aino meakev), and the grandfather then deciding like the grandson. Shouldn’t the father go first. Tosafot answer that it was due to Rabbi Oshaya’s greatness, pointing to e.g. Eruvin 53a, with Rabbi Yochanan’s praise (at least according to the second internal variant).

Perhaps. Sometimes, sugyot don’t proceed in chronological order. It isn’t entirely mechanical. For instance, if the gemara, or Amoraim, are about to analyze one of the two opinions, the sugya flows more smoothly if we first dispense with those who aren’t analyzed, even if this means listing student before his teacher. Or perhaps here, since Rabbi Oshaya was contradicted by his father, they put him and his position first, to show that he was challenged, after which his grandfather sided with him.