Rabbi Zeira Inquires
On Bava Metzia 6a, Rabbi Zeira poses a dilemma:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ, מַהוּ?
§ Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If two people together had a garment in their grasp and one of them seized it in its entirety from the grasp of the other in our presence, i.e., before the court, what is the halakha?
Is this the earlier third-generation Rabbi Zeira I, student of Rav Yehuda who moved to Israel? Or is it the fourth-generation R’ Zeira II, centered in Pumbedita?
Well, Rav Nachman responds, and plain Rav Nachman is third-generation Rav Nachman bar Yaakov.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֲדוּקִין בָּהּ, אֲבָל הָיְתָה טַלִּית יוֹצֵאת מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי נֵימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא שֶׁתְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ.
Rav Naḥman says: Come and hear a solution to the dilemma from what was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said that both of them take an oath and each receives half of the garment? It is said in a case where both of them are still holding the garment. But if the garment was in the possession of only one of them, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, i.e., the one not holding the garment. In the absence of proof, the item remains in the possession of the one holding the garment. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that it is to be understood as it is taught, it is obvious that one who claims an item that is in another’s possession must bring proof to support his claim. Rather, it must be referring to a case where one of them seized it in our presence, which is the case to which Rabbi Zeira referred.
At this point I would guess #1. But oops! It seems that “bar Yitzchak” was accidentally omitted from our printed Vilna texts (but not earlier printings or manuscripts). Presumably because plain Rav Nachman appears earlier on the page. But, here is the evidence. Vilna and Venice have the error, as does Vatican 117:
However, other manuscripts have Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Besides the ones above, we have these:
The big practical difference is that we rule like plain Rav Nachman in monetary matters. Further, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is fifth-generation, Pumbeditan Amora Rava’s student, rather that Rava’s teacher. If he reacts to R’ Zeira, it makes sense that we would be speaking of #2.