Rav Acha bar Rav Avya, a Redactor

Continuing my discussion of Bava Batra 68.

(1) Usually, when we encounter really early Amoraim, scholars assume that they made apodictic statements, and even sever part of what they said in terms of reasoning, and make their statement extremely short.

For other Amoraim, scholars assume that they said what they said (though distinguishing between parts of their statement, especially if there is code switching from Hebrew into Aramaic). However, follow-up discussion, with the back and forth, is assumed to be the Talmudic Narrator, the Stamma de-Gemara. If there is an amar leih indicating that the amoraim involved had an explicit back and forth, fine, they said it, but otherwise, if it is Aramaic and anonymous, it is the Stamma.

This might not be the case for one instance in Bava Batra 68a.

גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, עַבְדָּא כְּמִטַּלְטְלָא דָּמֵי; דְּאִי כִּמְקַרְקַע דָּמֵי, נִיזְדַּבַּן אַגַּב מָתָא! וְאֶלָּא מַאי, עַבְדָּא כְּמִטַּלְטְלָא דָּמֵי?! מַאי אֲפִילּוּ?

GEMARA: Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Learn from the mishna that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property, as if it is like that of land, the slave should be sold along with the city. Rav Ashi responded: Rather, what do you claim, that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property? If that is the case, what is the meaning of the mishna’s statement that even if there were cattle and Canaanite slaves in the city, they are all sold? This is obvious, as the slaves should be treated no differently than the rest of the city’s movable property.

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – שָׁאנֵי בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלָא דְנָיֵיד מִמִּטַּלְטְלָא דְּלָא נָיֵיד; אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא עַבְדָּא כִּמְקַרְקַע דָּמֵי – שָׁאנֵי בֵּין מְקַרְקַע דְּנָיֵיד, לִמְקַרְקַע דְּלָא נָיֵיד.

Rather, what have you to say? You must explain that there is a difference between movable property that moves about by itself, such as slaves, and movable property that does not move about by itself, i.e., inanimate objects. In exactly the same manner, one can claim that even if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, there is a difference between land that moves about by itself, i.e., slaves, and land that does not move about by itself.

See what Rav Steinsaltz wrote, as presented in English. They have, in the nonbolded gloss text, Rav Ashi respond. In Rav Steinsaltz’s Hebrew commentary, this is “והקשה לו”.

Meanwhile, Artscroll has it as: The Gemara refutes this argument.

To flesh this out, Rav Steinsaltz may wonder why bother saying that the Amora said this to Rav Ashi. If so, a reaction, even not explicitly attributed, could be ascribed to Rav Ashi. Further, Rav Ashi has a role as Talmudic Redactor, so he can easily be the voice of the Stamma itself.

Meanwhile, Artscroll see that it is unattributed, so describe it as the Gemara’s reaction.

Both approaches make sense, but I think a third way may make even more sense. Look at what Rav Aharon Hyman writes in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim about this Amora, Rav Acha bereih deRav Avya :

הוא היה כמו תלמיד חבר לרב אשי ולקח חלק גדול עם רב אשי בסידור הש"ס כדמצינו תמיד א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי כעירובין מח:, פסחים מד:, כתובות עו., נדרים לה. נא:, נזיר לז., גיטין סב:, (וכן צ"ל בב"ק סב.), ב"מ צו., ב"ב ג. מו: סח. פב. קג., חולין יז: לט: פ., ובכולן משתעי עם רב אשי חבירו דרבינא (ולא עם רב אשי הקדום מה שלא היה), וב"מ קד: שלח לקמיה דרב אשי, ובעירובין יא: אשכחינהו לתלמידי דרב אשי אמר להו אמר מר מידי בצורת הפתח וכו'.

וב"מ ח. א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אדא לרב אשי צ"ל בריה דרב אויא כגרסת דק"ס, וכחולין לא. ששאל לרב מנשה מחטא מאי, צ"ל לרב אשי כגרסת דק"ס, כי רב מנשה היה בזמן רבה, ובמנחות לז. ר' חייא ור' אחא בריה דרב אויא מכוין ומנח, כבר נמחק תיבת ר' חייא, בדק"ס.

ומכל אלו המקומות ברור שהיה בדור רב אשי, אבל רב אחא בר עויא הוא אמורא אחר בר א"י כמבואר בערכו, ובסה"ד ערבבם יחד ולא הרגיש שגם היוחסין הפרידם.

He is a student-colleague of Rav Ashi, who took a great role with Rav Ashi is ordering the Talmud, as we often find that Rav Acha son of Rav Avya said to Rav Ashi… and in all of them…

Within this conception, in which he takes part in assembling the Talmud, his thoughts work their way into the Talmud. If so, perhaps Rav Acha’s contribution is not just the proof but the counterproof, the entire back and forth Stamma-like analysis. By way of analogy in the opposite direction, we occasionally see an Amora pose a question and then answer it, הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ.

(2) I wrote in my article for this past Shabbat about how the square Ktav Ashuri footnotes can often be used not just to look up the source, but to see how we practically rule. From that example:

the gimel for instance shows that we rule like this view attributed to Rabbi Akiva. In our Mishnah on 68, there is strangely only such a footnote for the Tanna Kamma, but not for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

However, there’s a general principle enunciated by Rabbi Yochanan that wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (II) appears in the Mishna, the halacha is like him. What gives?

I think this isn’t deliberate. At issue in the gemara is the identity of a santeir that is sold with the town. Is it a sentry / guardsman, or is it a field? And there are two internal variants (ikka de’amrei) about how that sugya goes, and we end up saying that the beit hashelachin earlier are gardens, while the santeir is a full field. The halachic works summarizing the conclusions didn’t discuss a santeir explicitly, but do discuss a field, so someone writing a footnote might think this is purely Tanna Kamma, when it is not.

(3) By the way, I am somewhat unhappy with the eventual analysis and level of kvetch used in the gemara variant in which is works out this way. Beit hashelachim itself is globally used to denote an irrigated field (as opposed to one receiving rain). While admittedly it doesn’t need to tap into that precision of meaning, taking it to mean gardens as opposed to fields, with it operating as a contrast to a strangely called santeir field later on is a kvetch in the first place.

A second kvetch is that a brayta contrasts it with another foreign term designating the town clerk. We would expect human to be compared to human. To compare human to human is a kvetch.

A third kvetch is that to make that brayta flow normally, we need to flip the text, so that Rabbi Yehuda in the brayta agrees that a santeir is sold but not the clerk.

A fourth kvetch, which isn’t so much of a kvetch, is that Rabbi Yehuda holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in one aspect but argues with him in the other. That is not in and of itself surprising.

However, add them all up and we have all these kvetches in order to say a santeir is a field. And we have none of these kvetches if we say the santeir is a human. That’s what makes me unhappy.