Rav Chisda Shouldn't Cite Rabbi Yochanan

It has been a few days without posting due to the chag, and I have thoughts on Daf Yomi.

On Bava Batra 120b:

וְהָא ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה, הָכִי נָמֵי – בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.

The Gemara objects: But the phrase “the heads of the tribes” is written explicitly in the portion of the vows, indicating that the matter is not entrusted to laymen. The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in a different context: The mention of the heads of tribes teaches that vows may be dissolved by a single expert halakhic authority; so too here, this phrase teaches that vows can be nullified by a single expert halakhic authority.

This citation seems (and seemed) questionable to me. Would Rav Chisda, a third-generation Babylonian Amora, cite Rabbi Yochanan, a second-generation Israeli Amora? How did he encounter Rabbi Yochanan’s statement, if he never traveled to the Land of Israel. Besides this, elsewhere, he is quite dismissive of Rabbi Yochanan, saying to someone citing him, “who heeds you or your teacher”? See my article about this on Nedarim 59a:

Then, as a follow-up a few weeks later, I had another article, where some sugyot attributing this statement about yachod mumcheh to Rav Chisda citing Rabbi Yochanan.

I looked at other sugyot where this appeared at the time, trying to explain where the spurious אמר רבי יוחנן came from in the primary sugya. One image I showed was this:

where it was just Rav Chisda, and the following statement was attributed to Rabbi Yochanan. There was, perhaps, a hasagat gevul, intruding into one’s neighbor’s boundary, helped along by a scribe. And maybe there was an iteimei amar rabbi yochanan as a marginal note, and this amar rabbi yochanan was copied into the main body of text, thus unwittingly creating a citation.

Let’s examine our own sugya again. It goes:

וְהָא ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה, הָכִי נָמֵי – בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.

The Gemara objects: But the phrase “the heads of the tribes” is written explicitly in the portion of the vows, indicating that the matter is not entrusted to laymen. The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in a different context: The mention of the heads of tribes teaches that vows may be dissolved by a single expert halakhic authority; so too here, this phrase teaches that vows can be nullified by a single expert halakhic authority.

This is clearly not the primary sugya. That is what כִּדְאָמַר means. Just like he says in a different context, so too, says the Talmudic Narrator, will we apply this idea in the present context. So wherever אמר רב חסדא אמר רבי יוחנן said it, is wasn’t here. Compare with Nedarim 78b above, where it is not כִּדְאָמַר but a direct statement.

Now let us look at variants within our Bava Batra sugya.

Hmmm. Vilna has כִּדְאָמַר but the other printings (Venice and Pesaro) just have de-amar. This still looks like a transfer from a different, primary, sugya. After all, the words הָכִי נָמֵי are also present, so it is definitely an application of the rule from elsewhere.

Next, some manuscripts.

Hamburg 165 has כִּדְאָמַר, so it is the Narrator quoting from elsewhere.

Munich 95 is interesting. It begins with אמר רב חסדא. But then, what does Rav Chisda say? He says “like Rabbi Yochanan said” in another context, as well as the הָכִי נָמֵי. I don’t think this is correct, but if we read it straight, Rav Chisda is taking the role that the Talmudic Narrator frequently takes, applying an idea by a named Amora to a new situation.

Vatican 115b does the same thing as Munich.

Another one, Paris 1337:

Here the scribe (accidentally) left off כד and just has אמר. Then a scribe adds the two letters above the line.

Regardless, the הָכִי נָמֵי is still present. So it almost turned it into a primary sugya instead of a dependent sugya. Finally, we have the text I think is correct, in the Escorial manuscript:

That is, we only cite Rav Chisda, again as a dependent sugya. This was preserved from the original text in the primary sugya.