Rabba Transfer
Continuing last post about Sunday’s daf, another two points.
(1)
In terms of the aphorism that Jonathan cited:
אָמַר לָהֶן, כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִבֵּית אֲבִי אַבָּא: לְעוֹלָם יַשְׂכִּיר אָדָם עַצְמוֹ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאַל יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת.
Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity.
וְהוּא סָבַר – לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מַמָּשׁ; וְלָא הִיא, אֶלָּא ״עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״ – עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁזָּרָה לוֹ, כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: נְטוֹשׁ נְבֵילְתָּא בְּשׁוּקָא וּשְׁקוֹל אַגְרָא, וְלָא תֵּימָא: גַּבְרָא רַבָּא אֲנָא וְזִילָא בִּי מִילְּתָא.
The Gemara comments: And he, Jonathan, thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that is not so, that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, here the term idol worship, literally: Strange service, is referring to service, i.e., labor, that is strange, i.e., unsuitable, for him. In other words, one should be willing to perform labor that is difficult and humiliating in his eyes rather than become a recipient of charity. As Rav said to Rav Kahana, his student: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a great man and this matter is beneath me.
The first line is Hebrew. The vehu sevar may be Aramaic, or a mix. If so, it would be vocalized as vela as above instead of velo. And כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ is certainly Aramaic. It is a later stratum interjecting into the earlier layer.
When you have a כְּדַאֲמַר, it means it is borrowed from another sugya, and Masoret HaShas points us to that sugya, namely Pesachim 113a. It was part of a group aphorisms Rav told him. And in context there, he directs aphorisms to other Amoraim. Here is Pesachim:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: הֲפוֹךְ בִּנְבֵילְתָּא וְלָא תֵּיפוֹךְ בְּמִילֵּי. פְּשׁוֹט נְבֵילְתָּא בְּשׁוּקָא וּשְׁקֵיל אַגְרָא, וְלָא תֵּימָא ״כָּהֲנָא אֲנָא, וְגַבְרָא רַבָּא אֲנָא, וְסַנְיָא בִּי מִלְּתָא״. סָלְקַתְּ לְאִיגָּרָא — שֵׁירוּתָךְ בַּהֲדָךְ. מְאָה קָרֵי בְּמָתָא בְּזוּזָא — תּוּתֵי כַּנְפָיךְ נִיהְווֹ.
Rav said to Rav Kahana: It is better for one to turn over a carcass than to turn over his word, i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me. It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If you ascend to the roof, carry your food with you. One should always carry his sustenance with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If one hundred pumpkins in the city cost a zuz, place them carefully under the corners of your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive.
Our girsa there in Vilna includes not just “I am a great man” but also “I am a kohen”. Rashbam notes a similar variant here in Bava Batra. Makes sense, since the name Kahana indicates his kohen status.
Actually, not all Rav Kahanas were Kohanim, but there are actually something like four or five Rav Kahanas. See my post about two of them, and Tosafot grappling with Rav Kahana not being a kohen vs. indeed being a kohen.
Indeed, all manuscripts at Hachi Garsinan have this in Bava Batra, even if one lacks the gavra rabba bit.
If he is really listening what he thought was a family tradition, only he got misunderstood it, it is a bit strange that the gemara continues with seeing that money was precious to him. The point was not relying on charity.
I also wonder if the original statement was indeed to be reinterpreted in this way, as “avoda zara” == avoda / hard labor which is zara / dishonorable to him. That is how the later Stammaic stratum reinterprets it, so that it each word is literally true. It seems more to stand on its own, as an aphorism, but one in which the genre is homiletic, not literally intended to such an extent. Similar to casting oneself into a fiery furnace rather than embarrassing another person.
(2) Another point I find interesting is the borrowing of Rabba’s statement. Thus:
וְהָאַחִין מִן הָאָב נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין וְכוּ׳. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה: אַתְיָא ״אַחְוָה״–״אַחְוָה״ מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב; מַה לְהַלָּן, מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם; אַף כָּאן, מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם.
§ The mishna teaches: And paternal brothers inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. From where do we derive this halakha? Rabba said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the word: Brothers, stated with regard to inheritance, and the word: Brothers, found in the verses concerning Jacob’s sons. When Jacob’s sons speak to Joseph, they state: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 42:13), and in the passage discussing inheritance the verse states: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers” (Numbers 27:10). Just as there, in the verse concerning Jacob’s sons, the word brothers is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers, as the twelve of them shared only the same father, so too here, where this term is used with regard to inheritance, the verse is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers.
וּלְמָה לִי? ״מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ״ כְּתִיב – מִשְׁפַּחַת אָב קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״, מִשְׁפַּחַת אֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״!
The Gemara asks: But why do I need this proof from the verse concerning Jacob’s sons? It is written in the passage concerning inheritance: “Then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it” (Numbers 27:11). When the term “family” is used in the Bible, one’s father’s family is called one’s family, while one’s mother’s family is not called one’s family, so that in all matters of inheritance, it is the patrilineal relatives who are taken into account.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי; וְכִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבָּה, לְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם אִיתְּמַר.
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that the verbal analogy is not needed to teach the halakha of inheritance, and when Rabba’s explanation was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of levirate marriage, teaching that levirate marriage is performed only by a paternal brother but not by a maternal brother.
This is the Gemara itself noting that it had engaged in a ha’avara, a transferred sugya. Masoret HaShas at the very first occurrence of Rabba’s statement had pointed us to Yevamot 17b where that was the context:
אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו״, שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהֶם יְשִׁיבָה אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם, פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ. ״יַחְדָּו״ — מְיוּחָדִים בַּנַּחֲלָה, פְּרָט לְאָחִיו מִן הָאֵם.
§ The Gemara turns from a review of the language used in the mishna to a discussion of the halakhot of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist. Where is it written that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply in the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states “If brothers dwell together and one of them dies” (Deuteronomy 25:5), meaning that they had a common dwelling together in the world. This excludes the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Furthermore, it is derived: “Together” means that they were united together in an inheritance; i.e., they are united in that they inherit together. In other words, since property is inherited by sons from their father, it can be inferred that the verse is speaking specifically of brothers from the same father. This excludes his maternal half brother, with whom he is not united by inheritance, since only brothers who share the same father inherit from each other.
רַבָּה אָמַר: אַחִין מִן הָאָב יָלֵיף ״אַחְוָה״ ״אַחְוָה״ מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב: מַה לְהַלָּן — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם.
Rabba said: One learns the ruling that levirate marriage applies only to brothers from the same father by the verbal analogy between the term brotherhood used in the context of levirate marriage and the term brotherhood from the children of Jacob. Just as there, with regard to the children of Jacob, they are all brothers from the father and not from the mother, since they were from four different mothers, so too, here, in the case of levirate marriage, it is referring specifically to brothers from the father and not from the mother.
So it seems that the Gemara’s redactors first brought this floating statement from another context, but then analyzed it and said that it was out of place. Most often, a ha’avara is not acknowledged by the gemara itself.
(3) The word לֵירוֹת. This is the shin / tav Hebrew / Aramaic switch-off, so it is just yerusha. In a whole span of gemara. This is useful to realize, in noticing which parts of the gemara may be earlier or later, or which parts may be attributed to Amoraim vs. Stammaic insertions.
Still, this statement:
וְאֶלָּא
Abaye asked Rav Pappa: And rather,
מַאן כּוּ׳ לֵירוֹת? אַטּוּ בַּר קַשָּׁא דְּמָתָא לֵירוֹת?! הָכִי קָא אָמֵינָא: אִיכָּא בֵּן וּבַת – לָא הַאי לֵירוֹת כּוּלֵּיהּ וְלָא הַאי לֵירוֹת כּוּלֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא כִּי הֲדָדֵי לֵירְתוּ!
who then should inherit? Is that to say that the ruler of the city should inherit? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what I meant to say: If there is a son and a daughter, this one should not inherit all of the estate, and that one should not inherit all of the estate, but they should inherit it in equal portions to one another.
is placed in Abaye’s mouth, and הָכִי קָא אָמֵינָא is clearly in Rav Pappa’s mouth. What I’m saying is look for the contrast, that is, one text with clear Hebrew and the next with clear Aramaic, and try to deduce what you can from this.