Rabbi Zakkai the Amora

At the top of Sanhedrin 62a, Rabbi Zakkai teaches a brayta before Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yochanan reacts by telling his “teach it outside”. And Amoraim analyze it, and the Stamma analyzes it further. We hear two versions of this account in Bavli on this daf, with the first beginning:

תָּנֵי רַבִּי זַכַּאי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זִיבַּח, וְקִיטֵּר, וְנִיסֵּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

§ Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one sacrificed an animal as an idolatrous offering, and burned incense as an idolatrous offering, and poured a libation to an idol, and bowed to an idol, all in the course of one lapse of awareness, forgetting that these actions were prohibited, he is obligated to bring only one sin-offering; he is not obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go out and teach it outside; i.e., such a baraita must not be taught in the study hall, as the halakha is that one is obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.

Who is this Rabbi Zakkai? He is probably not a the fifth-generation Tanna who is Rabbi Shimon’s student (thus a contemporary of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi), because Rabbi Yochanan should be old in this interaction. And, Rabbi Yochanan acts rudely to him. Also, teaching a brayta before Rabbi Yochanan connotes a power dynamic in Rabbi Yochanan’s favor.

Rather, this is a second-generation Amora, a Babylonian who was Shmuel’s student who then traveled to the Land of Israel where this interaction happened. Here is what Rav Aharon Hyman writes in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim:

Rav Hyman notices the Yerushalmi parallel, in Yerushalmi Shabbat 7:1:

מְנָן אִלֵּין מִילַּייָא. וְעָשָׂ֕ה אַחַת. וְעָשָׂה הֵנָּה. וְעָשָׂ֕ה מֵהֵֽנָּה: וְעָשָׂ֕ה אַחַת. לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. הֵנָּה. לְחַייֵב עַל כּוּלְֹּהֹן אַחַת. מֵהֵֽנָּה: לְחַייֵב עַל הַתּוֹלְדוֹת. אוֹ נֵימַר. בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי זַכַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִיבֵּחַ קִיטֵּר וְנִיסַּךְ בְּהֶעֱלֶם אֶחָת חַייָב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּבָלַייָא. עֲבַרְתְּ בָיָדָךְ תְּלָתָא נְהָרִין וְאִיתָבַּרְתְּ. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. עַד לָא יַתְבְּרִינֵּהּ בְּיָדֵיהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן אַחַת אֵין כָּאן הֵנָּה. מִן דְּתַבְרָהּ בְּיָדֵיהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן הֵנָּה אֵין כָָּאן אַחַת. וִיהִי כֵן בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. בָּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ כַּעֲבוֹדַת הַגָּבוֹהַּ בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. בָּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. בָּעֲבוֹדַת הַגָּבוֹהַּ לְחַייֵב עַל כּוּלְֹּהֹן אַחַת. בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְחַייֵב עַל מִקְצָתָהּ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצָחָק. כְּתִיב אִ֣ם הַכֹּהֵ֧ן הַמָּשִׁ֛יחַ יֶֽחֱטָ֖א לְאַשְׁמַ֣ת הָעָ֑ם וְהֵבִיא פָּר. מִצְוֹת שֶׁהַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן פָּר. יָצָאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ פָר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה בִלְבַד. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי חֲלָבִים וָעֲרָיוֹת הֲרֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ פָּר. לָא אֲתִינָן מַתְנֵי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן תּוֹלְדוֹת. חֲלָבִים אֵין לָהֶן תּוֹלְדוֹת. עֲרָיוֹת עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרִין. שַׁבָּ֥ת הִיא לַֽיי. לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. כְּתִיב כָּל־הָֽעוֹשֶׂה ב֛וֹ מְלָאכָ֖ה יוּמָֽת: לֹא הָעוֹשֶׂה בוֹ וּבַחֲבֵירוֹ. אַתָּ אָמַר. אֵין הָשַּׁבָּתוֹת מִצְטָֽרְפוּת. חוֹלְקוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן רִבִּי בּוּן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפוּת כָּךְ אֵין חוֹלְקוֹת.

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together. Of these, to obligate for derivatives. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken; he is liable only once. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them. Like prostration to obligate for partial action. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written, if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, it is written: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

A few thoughts:

1. I think I am unsure about וְאִיתָבַּרְתְּ as meaning “and you were broken”. Even though other words יַתְבְּרִינֵּהּ and דְּתַבְרָהּ align with it — perhaps those should also be reconsidered, or even emended. The assumption here is that it is the tav of וְאִיתָבַּרְתְּ is an Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew shin, so shever == broken. The alternative I want you to consider is that this tav is the tav of morphology, namely the reflexive or passive itpae’l. If so, we have the root of bar or even bad. If bar then it corresponds to “outside”. You are saying an outside / incorrect tradition. Compare now with Bavli in which Rabbi Yochanan says פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא, “go teach it outside.”
   
   I don’t think it is bad, but sometimes you see the dalet / resh alternation in this word. As in beduta hi vs. beruta hi, it is made up, or it is external and thus wrong.
   

2. There is this overlap between Shabbat and avodah zarah, so it is interesting that in the Yerushalmi, it appears in a more Shabbat-central sugya. Still, something similar, not from Rabbi Zakkai before Rabbi Yochanan, appears in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:10.
   

3. There is a Babylonian element to this. Rabbi Zakkai is a Babylonian Amora in Rabbi Yochanan’s Israeli academy. And Rabbi Yochanan indeed invokes this, saying בַּבָלַייָא. עֲבַרְתְּ בָיָדָךְ תְּלָתָא נְהָרִין וְאִיתָבַּרְתְּ, “Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken; he is liable only once.”
   
   So, Rabbi Zakkai did not invent this, but is carrying over a Babylonian brayta to the Land of Israel.
   

   Further exploring the Babylonian angle, the underlying argument, as laid out by the Bavli, is between two fifth-generation Tannaim, Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Natan. At play is how to interpret a specific Biblical violation which is singled out from the general class. Rabbi Yossi says that singling it (for Shabbat, kindling a fire) out turns it into a lesser prohibition; Rabbi Natan says singling it out effectively divides the class into each individual subclass (avot).
   
   Note that Rabbi Natan is a Babylonian, Rabbi Natan HaBavli. He would say that one would be liable for distinct avot (subclasses) committed in one lapse of awareness. Certainly by Shabbat, but perhaps also by idolatry.
   

4. There’s a contradiction between Bavli and Yerushalmi as to what position Rabbi Zakkai expounded in this brayta, and what Rabbi Yochanan responded.
   
   In Bavli, Rabbi Zakkai the Babylonian goes against the position (applied to new topic) of Rabbi Natan the Bavli. For Rabbi Zakkai says he’s only liable for one, whereas Rabbi Natan would say he’s liable for multiple. And Rabbi Yochanan rejects him, and says that of course for idolatry he’d be liable for each and every disjoint act, like slaughtering and libating.
   
   In Yerushalmi, Rabbi Zakkai the Babylonian agrees with the position (applied to a new topic) of Rabbi Natan the Bavli. For Rabbi Zakkai says חַייָב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת, that he is liable for each and every one. Just as Rabbi Natan divides the subclasses, so there would be multiple liability. And Rabbi Yochanan criticizes him, and tells him that of course he’s be liable only for one.
   
   I mentioned Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:10 before, and there is also Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:9. Rabbi Yochanan does not appear there, but a different Amora discusses Rabbi Eleazer son of Rabbi Shimon about Molech being specified to make it lighter; similarly, multiple acts of idolatrous worship only incur one, though there’s a particular case where he’d incur multiple. Regardless, I don’t think we can figure out Rabbi Yochanan’s position to distinguish between them.
   

5. There’s a famous Rif at the end of Eruvin arguing that we should generally side with Bavli over Yerushalmi. The reason: the Babylonian Talmud was redacted later, and there were later Babylonian Amoraim. These Amoraim were greater experts in Yerushalmi than we are. This is, in a quasi-invocation of hilcheta kevatrai, ruling like the chronologically later Amora. Rav Hershel Schachter has occasionally questioned that assumption in shiur.
   
   Regardless, here we have two versions in Bavli of the Rabbi Zakkai / Rabbi Yochanan interaction, so who says that we should give Bavli’s version credence. Also, we should expect the Yerushalmi, perhaps redacted in part by Rabbi Yochanan’s students or grandstudents, to be more familiar with what happened in the Land of Israel and what Rabbi Yochanan said.