Rabbi Avina or Ravina?

Another point to make about Bava Batra 170 is this. We have a statement by Rabbi Avina:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבִינָא, הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם כָּתוּב בּוֹ: ״הוּזְקַקְנוּ לְעֵדוּתָן שֶׁל עֵדִים, וְנִמְצֵאת עֵדוּתָן מְזוּיֶּיפֶת״ – שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל, כִּדְרַבִּי אַבָּא; לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים כְּלָל, דְּרַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי. וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.

Rather, Rabbi Avina said a modification of Abaye’s explanation. All concede that if it is written in the document: We, the court, engaged in an investigation of the testimony of the witnesses and have determined that they signed the document, and their testimony was found to be false, the document is not valid, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abba. They disagree only with regard to a document upon which there are no witnesses signed at all. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of the transmission of the document effect the transaction. Signatory witnesses are not necessary, and the deed can therefore be used as proof. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction, so the deed cannot be used. Therefore, the only valid proof would be based on his presumptive ownership.

An Artscroll footnote notices that in Rashbam’s commentary, this name is actually written as “Ravina”. Thus, in the dibbur hamatchil of Rashbam:

אלא אמר רבינא הכל מודים - רבי ורשב"ג מודים שאם מזוייף מתוכו שהוא פסול כדר' אבא דמודה ר' אלעזר כו':

it indeed states Ravina.

As a [square brackets] edit to that Artscroll footnote, an editor points to an earlier Rashbam, on Bava Batra 74a. That gemara reads:

כִּי אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנַן, אֲמַרוּ לִי: כֹּל ״אַבָּא״ – חַמְרָא, וְכֹל ״בַּר בַּר חָנָה״ – סִיכְסָא! לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא עֲבַדְתְּ הָכִי? לְמִידַּע אִי כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִי כְּבֵית הִלֵּל? אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִימְנֵי חוּטִין וּלְמִימְנֵי חוּלְיוֹת.

When I came before the Sages, they said to me in rebuke: Every Abba is a donkey, and every bar bar Ḥana is an idiot. For the purpose of clarifying what halakha did you do that? If you wanted to know whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai or in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as to whether there are four or three threads and joints in ritual fringes, in that case there was no need to take anything with you, as you should have simply counted the threads and counted the joints.

And Rashbam writes:

כל אבא חמרא - רבה בר בר חנה היינו רבי אבא בר חנה וכמו כן רבינא כמו רב אבינא:

Thus, Rabba is an expansion of Rabbi Abba, just as Ravina is an expansion of Rav Avina.

Looking at manuscripts, all have R’ Avina, with the printings spelling out Rabbi Avina. Except for one, which does have Ravina, namely Hamburg 165:

Here is the actual Hamburg image:

As you can see, it has R’ Chanina, but over the line, a scribe corrected to Ravina. This might have, in turn, been motivated by Rashbam’s dibbur hamatchil, or comparison with other manuscripts.

One nitpick I have with the square brackets Artscroll footnote is that it essentially equated to figures of Rabbi Avina (as we have in our texts) with Ravina. But, that earlier Rashbam was talking about Rav Avina, not Rabbi Avina.

The Ravina I and Ravina II we know and love are uncle and nephew, and were essentially an elder colleagues and a student of Rav Ashi. That is sixth and seventh-generation. Meanwhile, there was a Rabbi Avina, but he is earlier, of the third (or if you want, into the fourth) generation of Amoraim. If the “Rabbi” is right, he was also an Amora of the Land of Israel — and indeed, he appears in the Yerushalmi. And, in Bavel, he was the student of Rav Huna, Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba, and Rav Chisda.

In Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, Rav Aharon Hyman tags our sugya of Bava Batra 170 as a sugya in which this Rabbi Avina, third generation Amora. He says that if we call this person Ravina, he is Ravina Kadmon, who is thus earlier than the typical Ravinas discussed.