Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat Reacts

In today’s daf (Bava Kamma 76b), note the punctuation:

תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – שְׁחִיטָה מַתֶּרֶת?! וַהֲלֹא זְרִיקָה מַתֶּרֶת!

Rabbi Elazar wondered about this discussion: According to the explanations attributed to Rabbi Yoḥanan, which are based on the assumption that this is referring to slaughtering a sacrificial animal inside the Temple, is it the slaughtering of the animal that renders it permitted for consumption? But isn’t it the sprinkling of the blood that renders it permitted? It is prohibited to eat sacrificial meat immediately after the slaughter; only after the sprinkling of the blood is it permitted to consume the meat. As the slaughter itself does not render the animal’s meat permitted, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – שְׁחִיטָה מַתֶּרֶת?! וַהֲלֹא פְּדִיָּיה מַתֶּרֶת!

Rabbi Elazar continues: And according to the explanation of Reish Lakish, who states that the case is referring to the slaughter of a consecrated blemished animal outside the Temple, is it the slaughtering of the animal that renders it permitted for consumption? But isn’t it the redemption of the animal that renders it permitted? Since the thief slaughtered a sacrificial animal, it is prohibited to eat its meat until its sanctity is removed by redeeming it with money. Once again, the slaughter itself does not render the meat permitted, and here too, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

The colon means that Rabbi Eleazar didn’t express astonishment to Rabbi Yochanan (and Reish Lakish) directly. Rather, he is reaction is in response to Ravin’s account of the dispute (though the same would work for Rav Dimi’s earlier presentation).

Rashi writes:

תהי - לשון מריח בקנקן כמו תהי ליה אקנקניה (ב"ב ד' כב.) כלומר דייק לה רבי אלעזר ופריך לרבין אליבא דרבי יוחנן וכי שחיטתו מתרת והלא זריקה מתרת ובשעת טביחה שחיטה שאינה ראויה היא:

Some wonder why Rashi specified Ravin, over Rav Dimi, if the objection still holds. I think Rashi’s point is that the תָּהֵי בַּהּ verb, and the separation of לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן and לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ means that he is expressing wonder at the entirety of the exchange, and tagging Ravin, the most recent in the gemara to report on the overall dispute, is the convenient way of expressing this idea.

With different punctuation, תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, we would get a different picture.

Now, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish were second generation; Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat was second generation, though perhaps quasi-third as also a student of Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Dimi and Ravin were third-and-fourth generation Amoraim.

I would have thought that when Ravin was reporting Rabbi Yochanan’s / Reish Lakish’s teachings in Bavel, Rabbi Eleazar had already moved to Eretz Yisrael. Were these two versions also being relayed in Israel by Rav Dimi / Ravin? I’d have expected him to have heard it first-hand, within the second Amoraic generation.

Perhaps we can read it as a conceptual response - just that he reacts to the overall sugya, to each of the participants’ positions, either directly or indirectly, and not that he had to hear it from Ravin in order to respond.