Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda shouldn't cite Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya

In yesterday’s daf, Bava Kamma 59a, we had a position by Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in a brayta.

אָכְלָה סְמָדַר – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵן עֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: רוֹאִין כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָכְלָה לוּלְבֵי גְפָנִים וְיִחוּרֵי תְאֵנִים, אֲבָל אָכְלָה פַּגִּים אוֹ בוֹסֶר – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ עֲנָבִים עוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר.

If the animal ate the grapes while they were in the budding stage, Rabbi Yehoshua says: The court views the grapes that were damaged as if they were grapes about to be picked, and appraise the damage based on this. And the Rabbis say: The court views how much the vineyard was worth before the animal ate the grapes, and how much it is worth now. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: In what case is this statement, that the court appraises the vineyard or group of trees that were damaged, said? It is when the animal ate young branches [lulevei gefanim] of vines or shoots of fig trees, but where it ate unripe figs or unripe grapes, the court views them and appraises them as if they were grapes ready to be picked.

Rabbi Yehoshua (ben Chananya) is third-generation, a teacher of Rabbi Akiva, while Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is sixth-generation, a student of Rabbi Shimon. Indeed, in the brayta, he cites Rabbi Shimon (ben Yochai), as he often does. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is his rebbe muvhak.

In Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, Rav Aharon Hyman notes that the “Yehuda” is question isn’t the famous Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Illai, because then it would have said “ben Rabbi” (or beRabbi) Yehuda. Rather, based on other evidence, this Yehuda is Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamda Ish Kfar Akko. His argument for this is that Rabbi Yehuda beRabbi Illai outlived Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai (the rebbe muvhak), so if this Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda were really his son, we’d expect him to quote some Torah from his own father.

Within the gemara’s subsequent analysis, as explained by Ravina, it seems like Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda (citing his teacher) say the same thing, but only differ as to whether we reduce from the damager’s payment some amount. But it is unclear which of these two Tannaim says we reduce. Meanwhile, Abaye (and for reasons I won’t get into into this post, perhaps instead attributed to Abaye based on the immediately following sugya), we indeed know who says we reduce — it was Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda! The evidence for this begins as follows:

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מְסַיְּימִי וּמְסַיְּימִי! מַאן תַּנָּא דְּחָיֵישׁ לִכְחַשׁ גּוּפְנָא – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: אוֹנֵס אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַצַּעַר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְהִצְטַעֵר תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה נִבְעֶלֶת בְּרָצוֹן לְנִבְעֶלֶת בְּאוֹנֶס.

Abaye said: Their respective opinions are certainly defined, and it is possible to know which Sage held which opinion, since who is the tanna who is concerned for the weakening of the vine? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya: With regard to the indemnity payments that a rapist must pay his victim, who had been a virgin, he does not pay compensation for the pain caused by the rape. This is due to the fact that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during her first act of sexual intercourse with her husband when she marries. The Rabbis said to him: The pain of a woman who has intercourse willingly is not comparable to the pain of a woman who has intercourse by rape. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda considers future pain when considering payment of damages, and similarly, he considers the reduced weakening of the vine.

Leaving aside actual content, I am surprised that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda is citing here Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya. After all, while Rav Hyman does consider Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya a contemporary of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yossi, where we ever see Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya quoting someone, it is Rabbi Meir.

Also, it is strange that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, who always quotes plain Rabbi Shimon, his rebbe muvhak, is now citing someone else.

Also, it is strange that the gemara would prove Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda from the other Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, if in one place he is citing his rebbe muvhak, plain Rabbi Shimon, and in the other place he is citing a quasi-contemporary, Rabbi Shimon ben Manasya.

Finally, given the “Rabbi Shimon ben” citing a “Rabbi Shimon”, it seems easy to append a spurious “ben” to the cited person. And, how does the quote begin? אוֹנֵס. Combine the aleph and vav from a scribe with a slight lack of care, and it becomes a mem, and you have the beginning of מְנַסְיָא!

Indeed, if we examine printings and manuscripts, we find that “ben Manasya” doesn’t appear, just as I suggested. Thus, the three printings have it:

But the manuscripts consistently don’t:

For instance, here is Vatican 116:

This makes a whole lot more sense.