Rav Chanan bar Rava / bar Rav Chisda

We recently came across a gemara in Avoda Zara where knowledge of Amoraic biography was necessary, or certainly helpful. First, the biographical background, and then the sugya.

Rav Chanan (or Chanin) bar Rabbi Abba was a second-generation Amora who was Rav’s student. He tutored Rav’s son, Chiyya bar Rav. Rav was impressed, and later, married off his daughter to this Rav Chanan bar Rabbi Abba. Often, the patronymic Rabbi Abba is shortened to Rabba or Rava, but we are not talking about the famous fourth-generation Pumpeditan Amora Rava here.

This Rav Chanan bar Rava has a daughter who married third-generation Rav Chisda. They named their son Rav Chanan (bar Rav Chisda), presumably after his maternal grandfather.

Now, to Avoda Zara 11b:

אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב: חֲמִשָּׁה בָּתֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קְבוּעִין הֵן, אֵלּוּ הֵן: בֵּית בֵּל בְּבָבֶל, בֵּית נְבוֹ (בְּכוּרְסֵי) [בְּבוּרְסִיף], תְּרַעְתָּא שֶׁבְּמַפַּג, צְרִיפָא שֶׁבְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן, נִשְׁרָא שֶׁבְּעַרְבִיָּא. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן יָרִיד שֶׁבְּעֵין בֶּכִי, נִדְבָּכָה שֶׁבְּעַכּוֹ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי נִתְבָּרָא שֶׁבְּעַכּוֹ. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא: יָרִיד שֶׁבְּעַכּוֹ, נִדְבָּכָה שֶׁבְּעֵין בֶּכִי.

§ Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, and some say that it was Rav Ḥanan bar Rava who says that Rav says: There are five established temples of idol worship, and they are: The temple of Bel in Babylonia; the temple of Nebo in the city of Khursei; the temple of Tirata, which is located in the city of Mapag; Tzerifa, which is located in Ashkelon; and Nashra, which is located in Arabia. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The Sages added to these places the marketplace that is located in Ein Bekhi and Nadbekha, which is located in Akko. There are those who say that Rav Dimi was referring to Natbera that is located in Akko. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a teaches the opposite, that it is the marketplace that is located in Akko, and Nadbekha that is located in Ein Bekhi.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי ״קְבוּעִין הֵן״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דְּאִימָּךְ: קְבוּעִין הֵן לְעוֹלָם. תְּדִירָא, כּוּלַּהּ שַׁתָּא פָּלְחִי לְהוּ.

Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Ḥisda: What does it mean that these temples of idol worship are established? Rav Ḥisda said to him: This is what your mother’s father, Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, said: In contrast to festivals, which last for one or several days, they are always fixed as the site of idol worship, as constantly, all year round, worship takes place there.

The gemara opens with alternative attributions of the statement:

אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב:

Consider that in both versions, this is a statement where the person quotes Rav. If so, the second-generation student of Rav, namely רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא, is the one who makes sense. Many a scribe would not be familiar with the family history, so would be confused by the אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא which then follows, thinking that maybe it should be the son of Rav Chisda even above.

But, because the אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי ״קְבוּעִין הֵן״? is said to Rav Chisda, that one is clearly Rav Chisda’s son. And, because Rav Chisda responds by referencing this son’s maternal grandfather, we have confirmation that the earlier reference should be “bar Rava”.

By the way, we have further confirmation of this from Munich 95, which does not have a ve’amri lah alternative:

It just lists the one version, although I believe it is the wrong version. This is also further evidence that ve’amri lah can (and quite often do) come from manuscript variants.

Also, if we wanted to kvetch and preserve the possibility of “bar Rav Chisda” in the first instance, we could look to Paris 1337.

The way that it is phrased, we don’t have to say that Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda was citing Rav. This could be a standalone statement. Even so, the later reference to his maternal grandfather makes it much more likely that this is the earlier Amora, citing Rav.

This is again going to be slightly relevant on the daf for Shabbat, Avodah Zarah 16a reads:

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב: חַיָּה גַּסָּה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה לְפִירְכּוּס, אֲבָל לֹא לִמְכִירָה.

GEMARA: Rav Ḥanin bar Rav Ḥisda says, and some say Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: The status of a large beast is like that of small livestock with regard to a spasm [lefirkus], i.e., the symptoms of vitality required at the time of slaughtering. If an animal in danger of dying was slaughtered but did not display any spasmodic movement when it was slaughtered, it is not kosher. If it did spasm after being slaughtered, its meat is kosher But its status is not the same as that of small livestock with regard to its sale. Rather it is considered like large livestock, and therefore its sale to gentiles is always prohibited.

וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אַף לִמְכִירָה, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְכּוֹר — מוֹכְרִין, שֶׁלֹּא לִמְכּוֹר — אֵין מוֹכְרִין.

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava added: This is the statement of Rav, but I say that even with regard to its sale a large beast is akin to small livestock. Therefore, in a place where the people were accustomed to sell large beasts, one may sell them, and in a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them, one may not sell them.

So, once again we have the alternation. But, this time it is clear that both of these are quoting Rav. That is, it is either:

• Rav Chanin bar Rav Chisda citing Rav

• Rav Chanin bar Rava citing Rav

This is clear because of the immediately following statement, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, meaning that whoever cited Rav is now speaking for himself. The first statement is a quotation, so the second is where he branches off.

If so, it is again clear that it should be Rav Chanin bar Rava, who is a second-generation student of Rav.