Rabbi Zeira: When I Ascended to "There"

In yesterday’s daf (Kiddushin 60b):

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בְּבָבֶל הֲוָה אָמְרִינַן: הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.

The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that anyone who states a condition employing the language: On the condition, is like one who states that the agreement will take effect retroactively from now, even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in Babylonia we would say: With regard to that which Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Anyone who states a condition employing the language: On the condition, is like one who states that the agreement will take effect retroactively from now, that is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, but the Rabbis disagree with him.

כִּי סָלְקִי לְהָתָם אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַסִּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא: ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״.

When I ascended to there, to Eretz Yisrael, I found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying the following ruling in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: All concede that with regard to one who says to his wife: On the condition, he is like one who states that the divorce will take effect retroactively from now. They disagreed only with regard to one who said to his wife: From today and after my death, whether he is considered to have added a condition or to have retracted from his initial statement.

Consider that “when we were in Babylonia” seems like a statement one would make when in Israel.

Consider that “then I ascended to there” implies he is speaking when back in Babylonia. Otherwise, would he not say “to here”?

Perhaps the resolution is that כִּי הֲוֵינַן בְּבָבֶל הֲוָה אָמְרִינַן refers to the initial period in Bavel. And כִּי סָלְקִי לְהָתָם is a report about an intervening period, when he visited Israel. But now he is back in Bavel. Alternatively, could we claim that להתם is a scribal error for להכא, perhaps via an intervening abbreviated leha’ ?

What might help us here is knowing which Rabbi Zeira it is. He talks about how to understand Rav Huna citing Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and this is presumably the famous second-generation Rav Huna, rather than who “Rav Huna” refers to occasionally, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s contemporary and Exilarch in Bavel, namely Rav Huna Kamma. (But I wouldn’t dismiss this as a possibility.)

Rabbi Zeira I was a third-generation Amora who studied from Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda before making aliyah to the Land of Israel, and as far as I’ve seen, he does not return. In Israel, he studied from Rabbi Yochanan and also from (third-generation) Rabbi Assi. Rabbi Assi in mentioned in this passage, but why didn’t he hear it directly from Rabbi Yochanan.

Rabbi Zeira II was a fourth and fifth-generation Amora, associated with Mechoza. A contemporary of Abaye and Rava, but he interacted with third-generation Amoraim. He also went to the Land of Israel. I don’t think we can rule him out by virtue of him hearing something from Rabbi Assi, as that seems plausible.

And, I think that Rabbi Zeira II actually traveled back and forth between Bavel and Israel. That would work well with the terminology in our sugya.