Rabbi Marianus and the Ambiguous Antecedent

The other day, Bava Batra 56a, we encountered Rabbi Marinos (as Artscroll spells it), who is either a Tanna or an Amora. This has impact on the word משמו, in terms of who is being quoted, a Tanna or an Amora. That is Tosafot vs. Rashbam. At the end of this, I’ll provide two alternatives, in which no one is being quoted.

Thus, to start:

אֵין שָׁם לֹא מֶצֶר וְלֹא חָצָב, מַאי? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי מָרִינוּס מִשְּׁמוֹ: כׇּל שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בֵּי גַרְגּוּתָא דִּפְלָנְיָא״.

The Gemara returns to discuss the acquisition of a field that belonged to a convert who died without heirs. The Gemara asks: If there was no boundary and there was no sea squill, what are the limits to the acquisition? Rabbi Marinus explains in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Any area that is called by his name. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where it is called by his name? Rav Pappa said: Where it is called: The place that is irrigated by so-and-so’s well. The entire area referred to as such would be considered one section with regard to acquisition.

“in his name” is ambiguous. What is the antecedent?

(1)

Rav Steinsaltz’s English commentary adds “of Rabbi Yochanan”. This follows Rashbam:

פירש רבי מרינוס משמו - של רבי יוחנן:

This goes way back to the middle of the preceding folio, where Rabbi Yochanan had been quoted by other students, but with lots of intervening text and named Amoraim weighing in. This was perhaps why the gemara reintroduces the topic of “if there was no boundary and no sea squill, what?” This earlier Rabbi Yochanan was:

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמֶּצֶר וְהֶחָצָב מַפְסִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן פֵּאָה וְטוּמְאָה – לָא. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ לְפֵאָה וְטוּמְאָה.

§ Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The boundary between fields and the sea squill that was planted to demarcate the border between fields serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the property of a convert who died without heirs, so that one who takes possession of the property acquires land only until the boundary or the sea squill, but not other land the convert had possessed beyond that point. But they do not serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the matter of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], and ritual impurity, and even the area beyond it is considered to be part of the same field. When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They serve as a barrier between the fields even with regard to the halakhot of pe’a and ritual impurity.

(2) The alternative is that it binds to Rabbi Eleazar or Eliezer, whichever way the girsa goes. Thus, in much closer proximity, in explaining what Rabbi Yochanan had meant when saying “nor with ritual impurity”, the gemara brought this brayta:

טוּמְאָה – מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לְבִקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְטוּמְאָה בְּשָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית, וְאָמַר: הָלַכְתִּי לַמָּקוֹם הַלָּז, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִכְנַסְתִּי לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וְאִם לָאו – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין.

The Gemara further clarifies: What is the halakha of ritual impurity that is affected by determining whether an area is one or two fields? As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:5): With regard to one who enters into a valley during the rainy season, i.e., winter, when people generally do not enter this area, and therefore for the purpose of this halakha it is considered a private domain, and there is a principle that in a case of uncertainty concerning whether one contracted ritual impurity in a private domain he is ritually impure; and there was ritual impurity in such and such a field, and he said: I know I walked to that place, i.e., I walked in the valley, but I do not know whether I entered that place where the ritual impurity was or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure and the Rabbis deem him impure.

שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סְפֵק בִּיאָה – טָהוֹר, סְפֵק מַגַּע טוּמְאָה – טָמֵא.

Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, as Rabbi Eliezer would say: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., it is uncertain whether he entered the area where the ritual impurity is located, he is ritually pure. But if he certainly entered the area where the ritual impurity is located and the uncertainty is with regard to contact with ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. It is with regard to this halakha that Ravin said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that a boundary or sea squill defines these fields as distinct areas.

So Rabbi Marianus could be citing this Tanna. This is what Tosafot suggest:

אין שם לא מצר כו'. אטומאה קאי כדמוכח בהדיא בתוספתא דטהרות (פ"י) דקתני הנכנס לבקעה בימות הגשמים וטומאה בשדה פלוני אמרו לפני רבי אליעזר הרי היא של רה"י פירש ר' מרינוס משמו כל שיש לה שם בפני עצמה כו' ולא כפ"ה דפירש משמו דקאמר רבי מרינוס היינו משמו של רבי יוחנן:

Indeed, a search showed two instances of Rabbi Marianus in a brayta. There are others instances qualified by a patronymic who are Amoraim.

(3) There is also the strange wording of peiresh mishmo, which is not the typical word amar used to cite someone. Indeed, פירש is reminiscent of what we see for Rav Achai:

פָּשֵׁיט רַב אַחַאי:

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי:

This is Rav Achai Gaon, whose commentary was incorporated in places into the central Talmudic text. Could this Rav Maryanus actually be a post-Talmudic figure. I don’t know, but the name didn’t end there. For instance, Ibn Ezra often refers to R’ Yona Ibn Janach as R’ Marianus.

How would this work? Consider the text again:

פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי מָרִינוּס מִשְּׁמוֹ: כׇּל שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בֵּי גַרְגּוּתָא דִּפְלָנְיָא״.

So Rav Pappa says “that they call it Bei Garguta of Planya (that is, Ploni)”. This might be hard to understand, so on the margins, a Rabbi Maryanus could chime in and explain that it refers to whatever is called after his name. And then, that comment made its way into the main body of text. Thus, the order should be reversed. It still is unclear what the antecedent of mishemo is, but stay tuned!

(4) It is somewhat strange that they made this antecedent so ambiguous. I suppose, for the Tanna, that it is understandable, as the brayta keeps being interrupted by later analysis by the gemara and Amoraim, after which is resumes. Similarly, if we are dealing with a diachronic sugya, one that developed over time, then within each stratum, the antecedent, be it Rabbi Eleazar or Rabbi Yochanan, immediately precedes.

But maybe the word mishmo doesn’t belong at all! Consider the statement again:

פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי מָרִינוּס מִשְּׁמוֹ: כׇּל שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בֵּי גַרְגּוּתָא דִּפְלָנְיָא״.

Note the repetition of shemo. Could it be that what Rabbi Marianus commented was “mishmo”? Or that he’s commenting upon the word mishmo (regarding which I don’t know its location), to say that it is called upon his name? Or that both mishmo and kol shenikreit al shemo are comments on Rav Pappa?

(5) Indeed, maybe the entire word mishmo is spurious, to he’s really saying kol shenikreit. Let us look to the manuscripts. While printings, including Pisaro (shown) have mishmo, Florence 8-9 and Hamburg 165 omit it.

Other manuscripts certainly have the first mishmo:

Vatican 115b is interesting, in that besides Rabbi Marianus in the main body, it has Marianus (without the title) in the margin.

Perhaps this is actually just a way of saying it should just be Marianus but without the citation of Rabbi Yochanan? Because that’s another thing the text has - after mishmeih (equal to mishmo), it has de-Rabbi Yochanan.

Another interesting manuscript, not yet mentioned, is Paris 1337.

The scribe did not write the word mishmo, but he or another scribe subsequently penned it in over the line. As we see, it common and quite justifiable not to have the word mishmo there.

To sum up, I think that mishmo is not meant to have an antecedent in a Tanna or Amora. It might not even belong, being a dittography of the later shemo. Alternatively, it is content, not attribution. Further, the word peiresh might indicate that it was originally a marginal gloss, and would be explaining Rav Pappa’s statement, rather than the reverse.