Rav Chanina bar Sheila the Tunneler

In today’s daf, Sanhedrin 72, Rav makes a surprising statement:

אָמַר רַב: כֹּל דְּאָתֵי עֲלַאי בְּמַחְתַּרְתָּא – קָטֵילְנָא לֵיהּ, לְבַר מֵרַב חֲנִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּצַדִּיק הוּא – הָא קָאָתֵי בְּמַחְתַּרְתָּא! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקִים לִי בְּגַוֵּויהּ דִּמְרַחֵם עָלַי כְּרַחֵם אָב עַל הַבֵּן.

Rav says: With regard to anyone who breaks into my house, I would kill him, as I would presume that he is ready to kill me, except for Rav Ḥanina bar Sheila, whom I would not kill. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav excludes Rabbi Ḥanina bar Sheila? If we say that Rav trusts him because he is a righteous person, this is difficult, as the case is one where he broke into his house, which indicates that he is not a righteous person. Rather, it is because he would say: I am certain that he would have mercy upon me just like a father would have mercy on a son.

Rav Chanina bar Sheila

There’s a parallel Yerushalmi, the end of Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 8:8:

רַב אָמַר. כָּל־דְּיֵיתֵי עֲלַי אֲנָא קְטַל לֵיהּ חוּץ מֵחֲנַנְיָה בֶן שִׁילָא דַּאֲנָא יְדַע דְלָא אֲתִי אֶלָּא מֵיסַב מְגוּסָתֵיהּ מִינַּיי. אֲמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. מִכֵּיוָן דְּאַבְרֵי לִיבֵּיהּ עֲלוֹי לְמֵיעֲבֲד לֵיהּ דָּא מִילְּתָא אֵין זֶה חֲנַנְיָה בֶן שִׁילָא.

Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rebbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila

Rav Aharon Hyman, in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, discusses the identity of this Amora, and the different explanations of this statement as found in Bavli and Yerushalmi.

קרוב הדבר לומר שהיה בן שילא אחי ר' חייא דודו של רב. והיה אוהבו של רב כסנהדרין עב: דאמר רב כל דאתי עלי במחתרת קטלינא ליה, לבר מרב חנינא בר שילא, ופריך מ"ט אילימא משום דצדיק הוא, קאתי במחתרתא? אלא משום דקים לי בגוויה דמרחם לי כרחם אב על הבן, וכירושלמי שם פ"ח סה"ח רב אמר כל דייתי עלי אנא קטל ליה חוץ מחנניה בן שילא דאנא ידע דלא אתי אלא מיסה מגוסתיה מיניי, א"ר יצחק מכיון דאברי ליביה עלוי למיעבד ליה דא מלתא אין זה חנניא בן שילא, ובמבוא הירושלמי לג: יאמר לפעמים הירושלמי מפרש בדרך רחוק מאוד והבבלי בדרך פשוט, ומביא ראיה מזה שהבבלי מפרש משום דמרחם עלי כאב על בנו, ובירושלמי מפרש דלא אתי אלא מיסב מגוסתיה מיניה.

וכמה זרות יש בדבריו ללא אמת ולא ידע שהבבלי והירושלמי נשלבין יחד וכדאמרו ד"ת עניים במ"א ועשירין במ"א, ונפרש.

בלי שום ספק שהמעשה הזה בא מבבל לא"י יען שרב אמר זה על ר' חנינא ב"ש כשידע אותו היטב, וחנניה ב"ש היה בבלי ובבבל וכאשר נביא לקמן, ורב אמר עליו סתם כל דאתי עלי – חוץ מחנניא בר שילא, ורב לא פירש טעמו, ואך הרבנן שקלו וטרו בישיבה מאיזה טעם אמר רב עליו כן, ורצו לומר רבנן דירושלמי יען שהיה בא אך ליקח ממונו ולא נפשו, וע"ז א"ר יצחק שא"כ אין זה חנניה ב"ש, ובבבלי סברו לומר אילימא משום דצדיק הוא הא קאתי במחתרת (א"כ אין זה חנניא ב"ש וכקושית ר' יצחק), אך בבבלי באו לידי מסקנא מטעם אחר דקיים ליה בגוויה דמרחם עליו כרחם אב על הבן, ובזה לא קשה א"כ אין זה חנניה ב"ש יען שגם האב הבא במחתרת על בנו לא כדין עושה אבל מ"מ אסור להורגו, יען שברור שלא בא להרוג את בנו, ומסקנת הבבלי חסרה בירושלמי מפני שלא נסדרה כראוי כהבבלי וזה ברור.

I am rather under the weather today, so I thought I could experiment with ChatGPT (o1, a reasoning model), to translate it, and see if it was useful. Alas, I was unhappy with the translation even in the first sentence. Here is what ChatGPT outputted, followed by my thoughts:

It seems likely that Ben Shila, who was Rabbi Ḥiyya’s brother and Rav’s uncle, was also Rav’s close friend. This is implied in Sanhedrin 72b, where Rav says: “Anyone who comes against me in the tunnel (to kill me), I would kill, except for Rav Ḥanina bar Shila.” The Talmud there asks: “What is the reason? If you say it is because he is righteous—would he really come in the tunnel? Rather, it must be that I know he has mercy on me, as a father has mercy on his son.”

Likewise, in the Jerusalem Talmud (ch. 8, hal. 5), Rav says: “Anyone who comes against me, I would kill, except for Ḥananya ben Shila, for I know he comes only to take back what is his from me.” R. Yitzḥak responds: “Since his heart impelled him to do such a thing (i.e., to break in), then this is not Ḥananya ben Shila.” And in the Introduction to the Jerusalem Talmud, fol. 33, it is noted that sometimes the Jerusalem Talmud interprets matters in a very distant manner, whereas the Babylonian Talmud does so more straightforwardly. They bring a proof from the fact that the Babylonian Talmud explains the reason as that he is merciful to me like a father toward his son, whereas the Jerusalem Talmud explains it as his only wanting to retrieve his money from me.

There is much that is strange in that author’s words, which are not accurate. He did not realize that the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud complement each other, as is said: “Words of Torah are poor in one place and rich in another.” Let us explain:

There is no doubt that this incident was transmitted from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, because Rav said this of R. Ḥanina b. Shila when he knew him well. Furthermore, Ḥananya b. Shila was Babylonian and lived in Babylonia, as we will show later. Rav stated simply: “Anyone who comes against me—except for Ḥananya ben Shila,” yet he did not explain why. So the Sages in the study hall debated the reason behind Rav’s exception.

The Jerusalem Talmud: The rabbis there suggested that he came only to take his property, not his life. R. Yitzḥak replied, “If that is so, then this person is not Ḥananya ben Shila.”

The Babylonian Talmud: They similarly began by suggesting, “If it is because he is righteous—would a righteous man come in the tunnel?” (meaning, if that were so, it would not match Ḥananya ben Shila, paralleling R. Yitzḥak’s objection). In the end, however, the Babylonian Talmud concluded with a different explanation: Rav knew with certainty that Ḥananya ben Shila would have compassion on him, like a father on his son. And so there is no contradiction in the fact that he might appear in the tunnel—for even a father who tunnels into his son’s home is not acting according to the law, yet one is forbidden to kill him, as it is clear that he does not come with murderous intent.

Thus, the Babylonian Talmud’s conclusion is missing in the Jerusalem Talmud because the latter was not arranged as systematically as the Babylonian Talmud. And this is entirely clear.

1. קרוב הדבר לומר שהיה בן שילא אחי ר' חייא דודו של רב. והיה אוהבו של רב כסנהדרין עב: דאמר רב כל דאתי עלי במחתרת קטלינא ליה, לבר מרב חנינא בר שילא
   
   It seems likely that Ben Shila, who was Rabbi Ḥiyya’s brother and Rav’s uncle, was also Rav’s close friend. This is implied in Sanhedrin 72b, where Rav says: “Anyone who comes against me in the tunnel (to kill me), I would kill, except for Rav Ḥanina bar Shila.”
   
   No! Ben Sheila was not Rabbi Chiya’s brother. Sheila was Rabbi Chiyya’s brother and Rav’s uncle. Here is a picture from Hebrew Wikipedia:

   

   So this Rav Chanina bar Sheila is a first-cousin, not an uncle.
   
   Further, Rav Hyman was saying “it seems likely” about the familial identification — it seems likely that this was a first cousin. Not that it seems likely that he was Rav’s close friend. That is a separate sentence, which he says with absolute conviction. And ohavo could mean close friend or someone who loved him.
   

2. וכירושלמי שם פ"ח סה"ח רב אמר כל דייתי עלי אנא קטל ליה חוץ מחנניה בן שילא דאנא ידע דלא אתי אלא מיסה מגוסתיה מיניי, א"ר יצחק מכיון דאברי ליביה עלוי למיעבד ליה דא מלתא אין זה חנניא בן שילא,
   
   Likewise, in the Jerusalem Talmud (ch. 8, hal. 5), Rav says: “Anyone who comes against me, I would kill, except for Ḥananya ben Shila, for I know he comes only to take back what is his from me.” R. Yitzḥak responds: “Since his heart impelled him to do such a thing (i.e., to break in), then this is not Ḥananya ben Shila.”
   
   The word “likewise” is wrong. Based on context and regular writing patterns, and confirmed by looking in my printed original, it is ובירושלמי with a bet, not a kaf. Rav Hyman was saying “and IN the Yerushalmi”, because there seems at first glance to be a contrast.
   
   The translation “only to take back what is his from me” is wrong. It is arcane Galilean Aramaic, so ChatGPT did not know what to translate. Instead, it put in what might be expected. But it is “to take his meal”, meaning that he only comes for monetary purposes but not to kill. (Also, there was an OCR error of מסה instead of the original printed מסב.)
   

3. Mevo HaYerushalmi is Zecharia Frankel, and can be read on HebrewBooks.

   

   Nothing really to complain about except that it has the same questionable explanation of the Yerushalmi.
   

The rest is fine.