Rabbi Yirmeyah Disses Babylonian Scholars
In today’s daf, Zevachim 60b, Rabbi Yirmeyah (a third and fourth-generation Amora) has a harsh reaction to hearing Abaye’s interpretation. Thus:
כִּי סְלֵיק רָבִין, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר: בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי – אַמְּטוּל דְּיָתְבִי בְּאַרְעָא חֲשׁוֹכָא, אָמְרִי שְׁמַעְתָּא דִּמְחַשְּׁכָא! לָא שְׁמִיעַ לְהוּ הָא דְּתַנְיָא: בִּשְׁעַת סִילּוּק מַסָּעוֹת – קָדָשִׁים נִפְסָלִין, וְזָבִים וּמְצוֹרָעִים מִשְׁתַּלְּחִים חוּץ לַמְּחִיצָה;
The Gemara relates: When Ravin ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha, that even items of lesser sanctity are disqualified if the altar is damaged or missing, in the presence of Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halakhot that are dim. Have they not heard that which is taught in a baraita: At the time when the Jewish people would dismantle the Tabernacle in order to depart on their journeys in the wilderness, sacrificial food was disqualified from being consumed, since the altar was not in place. Nevertheless, zavim and lepers were sent out of the relevant partition; a zav was sent out of the Levite camp and a leper was sent out of the Israelite camp.
Ravin was one of the nechutei, who carried teachings back and forth between Babylonia and the Land of Israel. Rashi explains that it was Abaye’s teaching:
לשמעתא - הא דאביי דאמר קדשים קלים נפסלין בפגימת המזבח ומייתי לה מדרשא דרבי יוסי:
and Abaye is certainly a Babylonian, born and raised. Note that Abaye bases himself on the derasha of of a fifth-generation Tanna, Rabbi Yossi (ben Chalafta). If we stop and think for a moment, we might note that Rabbi Yossi was also of Babylonian descent. See my discussion here.
Indeed, Rabbi Yirmeyah, this Amora of the Land of Yisrael, is also of Babylonian origin. He was born in Babylonia but moved to the Land of Israel while still young. Maybe that is what motivated him to utter such a negative stereotypical statement — awareness of his own origins.
Note that Rava, who is a fourth-generation Amora and Abaye’s colleague, perhaps heard of this statement. In Ketubot 75a, Rava reacts:
״וּלְצִיּוֹן יֵאָמַר אִישׁ וְאִישׁ יוּלַּד בָּהּ וְהוּא יְכוֹנְנֶהָ עֶלְיוֹן״. אָמַר רַבִּי מְיָישָׁא בַּר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אֶחָד הַנּוֹלָד בָּהּ, וְאֶחָד הַמְצַפֶּה לִרְאוֹתָהּ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף כִּתְרֵי מִינַּן. אָמַר רָבָא: וְחַד מִינַּן כִּי סָלֵיק לְהָתָם — עֲדִיף כִּתְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ. דְּהָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה דְּכִי הֲוָה הָכָא לָא הֲוָה יָדַע מַאי קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, כִּי סְלֵיק לְהָתָם, קָרֵי לַן ״בַּבְלָאֵי טַפְשָׁאֵי״.
§ Since the Gemara quoted a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s grandson, the Gemara cites another exposition in his name. The verse states: “And of Zion it shall be said, this man and this man were born in her, and the Most High shall establish her” (Psalms 87:5). Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said: Both the man who was actually born in Zion and the one who looks forward to seeing her are equally considered sons of Zion. Abaye said: And one of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael is superior to two of us, Babylonians. Rava said: And one of us Babylonians, when he ascends to Eretz Yisrael, is superior to two people born and raised in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara cites a proof for Rava’s claim: As Rabbi Yirmeya, when he was here, in Babylonia, did not even know what the Sages say. He was not considered an important scholar. But when he ascended there, it was he, and not the other Sages of Eretz Yisrael, who called us foolish Babylonians. Evidently, he became even greater than they were.
Note that Abaye is humble and, in generous spirit, says that one Amora from Israel is worth two Babylonians — and is interpreting אִישׁ וְאִישׁ. Rava may be agreeing with Abaye but adding more, about promotion of Babylonians when they move. (A yes, and…)
On the other hand, maybe we can read this as Rava’s disagreement with Abaye in how to interpret the pasuk. And maybe he is also interpreting the pasuk — אִישׁ וְאִישׁ יוּלַּד בָּהּ וְהוּא יְכוֹנְנֶהָ עֶלְיוֹן, there’s a man, and there’s a man born in it (say Bavel, or say Eretz Yisrael), and he [that man from Bavel] is the one who establishes it [those of Eretz Yisrael] as most high.
Also, maybe Rava is being snarky. He’s saying that among us, Rabbi Yirmeyah was nothing. He was not considered important, and didn’t know Torah content. And now he goes to the Land of Israel and he calls us foolish Babylonians?
Note that none of this, in terms of Rabbi Yirmeya’s words, has, or really should have, halachic weight. Many such statements found in Chazal are really polemical, not literal, and try to establish the supremacy of their own group and not the other group, and the supremacy of their derech halimud. We should take it with a grain of salt and recognize it for what it is. And we should see that there is value to the approach of Bavel, and of Eretz Yisrael, of the Tosafists (who follow the Savoraic approach of compare / contrast and global harmonization), and of the Geonim (who give the primary sugya primacy).
I’ve seen some modern groups claim that due to such texts, we must restore Torat Eretz Yisrael and it should always trump Torat Bavel and later development based on Talmud Bavli. This strikes me as wrongheaded, and misunderstanding the genre of these statements as perhaps a foolish Babylonian might.