Rabbi Yossi Reacts?

A short idea for today. In today’s daf, Bava Batra 12a, regarding dividing an orchard.

אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: בַּת שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין.

As for an orchard, Shmuel’s father says: It should be divided only if each party will receive an area large enough to plant three kav, one-third of the measure required for a field.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״מְנָת בַּכֶּרֶם אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ״ – סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה קַבִּין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא דִּבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת.
That opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to another: I am selling you part of a vineyard, without specifying how much of the vineyard, Sumakhos says: He may not give him less than an area large enough to plant three kav. Rabbi Yosei said: These are nothing other than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement, and it is as if based on prophecy and a heavenly decree, as the seller did not mention any area, but rather spoke in the most general of terms: Part of a vineyard.

In this presentation, Rabbi Yossi is part of the brayta. This makes sense, because plain Rabbi Yossi as appearing regularly in Bavli should be the Tanna. Maybe he is then rejecting Sumchos. As the explanation goes, “I don’t see the logic behind this statement.”

Meanwhile, in Artscroll, Rabbi Yossi’s statement is presented as part of the gemara, not the brayta. And his reaction is to the statement of Shmuel’s father. Thus, “The Gemara comments on the ruling… These words [of Shmuel’s father] are nothing but prophecy.”

They elaborate in a footnote based on Rashi here and elsewhere, that since there is no logic behind it, he must have heard it from his teachers. I think we could also support this from the idea that Shmuel (a great man) said something that was also said by another, earlier great man, Sumchos, which an Amora later suggests is a sign of prophecy. So it makes sense that this would be a comment by an Amora named Rabbi Yossi, about a transitional Tanna / Amora, Shmuel’s father.

The words themselves are all in Hebrew, not Aramaic, and are said by a Rabbi Yossi, so (a) the simplest read is that it is part of the brayta and (b) it is acceptable to be either a brayta or an Israeli Amora.

However, plain Rabbi Yossi in Bavli should preferably be the Tanna, and I wouldn’t expect him to respond to Shmuel’s father.

This is where manuscript variants can come in. Artscroll and Steinsaltz are following the printings, as well as the Florence manuscript, Munich, Escorial and Ferkovich.

But, Vatican 115 has Rav Yosef saying it.

Hamburg 165 has R’ Asi, with an ambiguous R’

Then there’s these two:

Oxford has Rav Yosef. Paris has R’ Ami, but this would be derivative and a likely error of a R’ Ami reading. All of these are Amoraim, so would be well placed to comment on a statement by Shmuel’s father.

By the way, in understanding the statement “this is nothing but prophecy”, we should see how it is used elsewhere. This is also used in Eruvin 60b:

וְכִדְרַבִּי אִידִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בַּחֲצִי הָעִיר — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲצִי הָעִיר. כָּלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בְּסוֹף הָעִיר — נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וּמַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.

And this is in accordance with the opinion stated by Rabbi Idi, as Rabbi Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If one was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the location of his Shabbat residence outside the city, and his measure terminated in the middle of the city, he has only half the city, i.e., he may walk only to the end of his two thousand cubits. If, however, his measure terminated at the far end of the city, the entire city is regarded as four cubits, and he completes the rest of the Shabbat limit on the other side of the city.

אָמַר רַבִּי אִידִי: אֵין אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא דִּבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת. מָה לִי כָּלְתָה בַּחֲצִי הָעִיר, מָה לִי כָּלְתָה בְּסוֹף הָעִיר?

Rabbi Idi said: These are nothing more than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement. What difference is it to me if the measure terminated in the middle of the city, or if it terminated at the far end of the city?

There, despite the expansion given by Sefaria, it is R’ Iddi or Rav Iddi, never explicitly Rabbi Iddi. And not all manuscripts have him first quote Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi before reacting to it.

Regardless, the gemara, or R’ Iddi, explains the prophetic aspect of it in that it doesn’t make sense.