Rabba vs. Rav Yosef, part II (article preview)

In last week’s column, I mentioned that Rabba and Rav Yosef, third-generation Amoraim who each presided over Pumbedita academy, often argued with one another. A statement in Gittin 74b, וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן הִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה, was taken by Tosafot as a blanket endorsement of Rabba over Rav Yosef, since it didn’t say בְּהָא as it said about a different authority. I objected: some manuscripts had בְּהָא, and the uncharacteristic placement of Rav Yosef before Rabba suggested, with manuscript support, that this was actually an endorsement of Rava over Rav Yosef. Still, Rabba may still win the day, in general.

On Kiddushin 7b, a man betrothed a woman by giving her שִׁירָאֵי, silk. Rabba says that this silk doesn’t require appraisal; Rav Yosef says it does. The Talmudic Narrator proffers two explanations for Rav Yosef’s requirement, either that the man quotes her an accurate valuation but she doesn’t trust it, or that even if they don’t care about the value, so long as it’s a perutah, since it is shaveh kesef (something worth money) operating like kesef, just as kesef must have a fixed value, so must the shaveh kesef. A third alternative I elaborate upon elsewhere¹ is that the Sassanian capital, Ctesiphon, was a terminus on the Silk Road, and certain items on the Silk Road, such as spice bags in Antioch, had an established trading value that they were effectively kesef (Ketubot 67a). Regardless, on Kiddushin 9a, we encounter וְהִלְכְתָא: אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהִלְכְתָא: שִׁירָאֵי לָא צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן. These are rulings for several disputes, namely the most recent one on 9a, then 7b, 8a, and 8a-b.

Why Bother Ruling?

The second ruling, about silks like Rabba, bothers Tosafot (d.h. והלכתא). Why mention this if there’s a general principle, stated in Bava Batra, that the halacha’s like Rabba except for “field, matter, and half”? Some suggest that principle only refers to disputes in Bava Batra, not elsewhere. Tosafot reject this based on the more comprehensive statement in Gittin 74b which I discussed last week. They admit my first point: some texts have בְּהָא for Rabba. Even so, why describe the position (שִׁירָאֵי לָא צְרִיכִי שׁוּמָא) rather than the person (Rabba), as in the next two vehilchetas? Therefore, Rabbeinu Tam says