Rabbi Yitzchak as Reish Lakish's Student (full article)
Here is my Jewish Link article for this coming Shabbat, relevant to Shevuot 40a.
The sixth chapter of Shevuot deals with an oath imposed on one who admits part of a claim, that is, modeh bemiktzat. The admission has to be of the same type as the claim. For instance, Reuven claims there’s a kor of his wheat in Shimon’s possession, and Shimon admits to half a kor. However, if Reuven claims wheat and Shimon admits to barley, that’s not the same type, so Shimon is exempt from an oath; however, Rabban Gamliel does require an oath (Mishnah Shevuot 6:3).
In the gemara (Shevuot 40a), Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, a third-generation Babylonian Amora, quotes first-generation Amora Shmuel: If Reuven claims wheat and barley, and Shimon admits to either wheat or barley, he must swear. To this, Rabbi Yitzchak, a third-generation student of Rabbi Yochanan, said “Shkoyach! And Rabbi Yochanan also says this.”
“Does this mean that Reish Lakish disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan?” Rashi explains: that this is a question which the gemara – that is, the Talmudic Narrator, rather than Rav Nachman – asks. Since Reish Lakish is Rabbi Yochanan’s frequent disputant / bar plugta, does singling out Rabbi Yochanan imply disagreement?
The gemara answers: some variant texts (אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי) explain that מִישְׁהָא הֲוָה שָׁהֵי לֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ, Reish Lakish was waiting for him and silent. Rashi explains: this was Reish Lakish’s practice when Rabbi Yochanan spoke in the study hall – he would delay responding until Rabbi Yochanan had fully explained himself, and only afterwards would disagree. While this happened, Rabbi Yitzchak exited the study hall and didn’t hear if Reish Lakish disagreed.
Another variant text, also included in our gemara (אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי) is מִישְׁתָּא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי לֵיהּ וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ, that Reish Lakish was drinking (water) and the time and was therefore silent. This is just another explanation for his silence. Note that this is a girsological variant due to mishearing. מִישְׁהָא and מִישְׁתָּא sound similar, and there’s the influence of the word וּשְׁתֵיק.
Many Amoraim, such as Rav Dimi, Ravin, and Ulla, came to Bavel to relate Rabbi Yochanan’s positions and words, and we ask no such question. Also, statements reported in Rabbi Yochanan’s name often appear in Talmud Yerushalmi in the name of a different Amora from the Land of Israel. Is there something unique about Rabbi Yitzchak, or about the formulation, that sparked this question and answer?
Rabbi Yitzchak’s Biography
It could just be the formulation. Saying יִישַׁר to congratulate an Amora, then singling out Rabbi Yochanan, might convey that he’s deliberately singling out just Rabbi Yochanan, more so than acting in the first place as an “Amora” / Spokesman of an Rabbi Yochanan.
Alternatively, it could be a matter of biography. There were two plain Rabbi Yitzchaks in the third scholastic generation, both students of Rabbi Yochanan. The one who discusses halacha is Rabbi Yitzchak bar Acha. (See Pesachim 114a and Rashbam’s commentary.). He quotes Rabbi Yochanan regarding halacha in Berachot 35a, Shabbat 99b, Ketubot 60a, Nedarim 57b, Sotah 43b, Bava Batra 142b, Shavuot 12a, and Zevachim 43b.
Rabbi Yitzchak also cites Reish Lakish on several occasions: Avoda Zara 14a, Menachot 5b, Bechorot 11a, and Yerushalmi Terumot 10:10. He also cites Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat once, in Avoda Zara 70b, and Rav once in Yerushalmi Shevuot 4:1. Thus, based on citation count, he’s equally a student of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. If he attended to both of them in the same academy, and they were in agreement, we’d expect Rabbi Yitzchak to say shkoyach and quote both of them.
Reish Lakish Keeps Drinking
This wasn’t the only time congratulations were in order for concurring with Rabbi Yochanan. The opening Mishnah (44b) stated that all Biblical oaths involve swearing so as not to pay, but there are Rabbinic oaths where people swear and collect, such as a hired worker who claims he has not received his wages. In Shevuot 45b, responding to that, Rav Nachman quotes Shmuel that this is only when he was hired in the presence of witnesses. Otherwise, since (מִתּוֹךְ) the employer could have denied ever hiring him and been believed, he’s also believed to claim he’d already paid the wages. To this, Rabbi Yitzchak says “Shkoyach! And so said Rabbi Yochanan!” The gemara then asks the same question – whether this implies Reish Lakish disagrees – and gives the same two variant answers, about Reish Lakish either waiting or drinking.
In Chullin 75b, a sugya involving shechita of a pregnant animal culminated in Rav Chisda explaining that four simanim, rather than the typical two, are deemed fit for the purpose. When Rabbi Zeira moved from Bavel to the Land of Israel, he repeated this shmayta (either individual law / statement, or the whole sugya). Rabbi Assi, a third-generation Amora and Rabbi Yochanan’s student, heard him and said “Shkoyach! And so said Rabbi Yochanan!” Again, the gemara asks the question about Reish Lakish, and provides the variant answers of waiting or drinking.
It’s possible that Reish Lakish was always drinking in the study hall, but this seems like a one-off. If he consistently waited in respect, then three separate occurrences makes sense. Still, it feels like Chullin could be the primary sugya, with the two instances in Shevuot borrowing from there. I don’t mean the יִישַׁר / “Shkoyach”, but the Reish Lakish follow up . Consider that both Rav Steinsaltz’s and Artscroll’s translations put the question / answer in the Gemara’s mouth in Shevuot and in Rabbi Zeira’s / Rabbi Assi’s mouth in Chullin. Also, Rabbi Zeira just moved to Israel and might be interested in which Israeli Amoraim concur with Babylonian Torah.
Disputants Indeed Exist
The Talmudic Narrator dismissed the idea that Reish Lakish or “Reish Lakish”, meaning another Amora, certainly disagreed, we can examine parallel Yerushalmis to see if disputants exist. There’s no Yerushalmi on Chullin, so we cannot explore that.
Regarding wheat and barley and admitting barley, where Bavli has Rabbi Yochanan require an oath, Yerushalmi Shevuot 6:4 records a few positions, with Rabbi Yochanan always taking a contrary position. Rabbi Ami quoting Rabbi Yochanan exempts him. Rabbi Chiya quoting Rabbi Yochanan exempts him, but Reish Lakish disagrees and requires the oath. In a practical case, Rav ruled like Reish Lakish. That is, someone claimed wheat, barley and spelt. Rav said “wait until he finishes making all his claims upon you, and then you’ll swear about all of them.” I’d say that our Talmudic Narrator isn’t technically wrong. Namely, regarding the position Rabbi Yitzchak attributes, to Rabbi Yochanan, Reish Lakish doesn’t disagree. (However, see Pnei Moshe about variant Yerushalmi texts between manuscripts and print.)
Regarding an employer and hired laborer, again, the parallel Yerushalmi Shevuot 7:1 is at odds with our Bavli regarding Rabbi Yochanan’s position. There, Rabbi Eleazar (ben Pedat) argues for the מִתּוֹךְ logic, such that without witnesses to the hiring, the employer is believed in his claim that he paid. Rabbi Yochanan argues that אֵין אוֹמְרִים בְּמָמוֹן מֵאַחַר, a mitoch / migo / me`achar claim cannot be made in monetary matters. Regarding what Rabbi Yitzchak attributes to Rabbi Yochanan in Bavli, the disputant Rabbi Eleazar concurs. (And again, see Pnei Moshe who makes Rabbi Yochanan’s statement rhetorical, perhaps in order to harmonize with Bavli.)
At the same time, parallel Yerushalmis provide quite a different impression. A disputant indeed exists, but his name is Rabbi Yochanan!