Rami bar Chama, Agent of the Academy

The other day, I spotted an intresting siman (typically mnemonic) in the Hamburg 165 manuscript. It appeared on Bava Metzia 8:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: דִּיּוּקֵיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵהֵיכָא? אִי נֵימָא מֵרֵישָׁא ״שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית״, הָתָם הַאי קָאָמַר ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וַאֲנָא אַגְּבַּהְתַּהּ כּוּלַּהּ״, וְהַאי אָמַר ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וַאֲנָא אַגְּבַּהְתַּהּ כּוּלַּהּ״.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Adda, said to Rav Ashi: From where in the mishna is Rami bar Ḥama’s inference drawn? If we say that he infers it from the first clause of the mishna, i.e., the case of two people holding a garment, isn’t the case there one in which this one says: All of it is mine, and I lifted the entire garment; and that one says: All of it is mine, and I lifted the entire garment? How can the halakha where one acquires an item for another be inferred from that case?

In the Escorial manuscript, we see this:

And so too in Vatican 115a, with quotation marks above the letters:

The “mnemonic”, or rather Talmudic Masoretic note, is that Rami bar Chama is the agent of the academy throughout the tractate.

What is the point of interjecting this into the middle of the question that Rav Acha son of Rav Avya asked Rav Ashi? I simply don’t know. I can speculate, though.

First, maybe this is an early time that Rami bar Chama weighs in, the third time, with the first two on daf 5. I see that he speaks throughout the tractate: 5a, 5b, 8a, 16a, 16a, 33b, 36b, 36b, 42a, 54a, 54a, 58a, 65a, 90b, 96a, 96b, 96b, 98a. And perhaps more in these particular manuscripts. Maybe we just want to say that this is his role, to introduce an idea that other Amoraim will debate. This would be helpful as a mnemonic to the scribe or the reciter, that he will appear in this particular role.

Second, maybe the text is actually deficient here, and רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא doesn’t mention Rami by name, by asking דִּיּוּקֵיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵהֵיכָא? Rashi on the gemara I cited above explained: מהיכא - מאיזו בבא ממשנתנו קא דייק לומר זאת אומרת. Is this really necessary to tell us the zot omeret, if we said this above? Maybe the zot omeret is a helpful guide as to where the diyuk was. If so, some scribe could tell us that it is a reference to Rami bar Chama, inserting his name, and elaborating that this is true generally. If so, it might make sense to look through these two manuscripts throughout, to see if there are anomalous Rami bar Chamas inserted, following this siman.

Both answers seem forced to me. Regardless, I may be on the lookout within Escorial and Vatican 115a, and also in general for the term שליחא דמתיבתא, who might be someone different in different masechtot.