Rav Chisda's Sons?
Rav Chisda's Sons?
In yesterday’s daf, Bava Batra 141, Rav Chisda said that he preferred daughters to sons.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הָכָא בִּמְבַכֶּרֶת עָסְקִינַן, וְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא – דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בַּת תְּחִלָּה – סִימָן יָפֶה לְבָנִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דִּמְרַבְּיָא לַאֲחָהָא, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דְּלָא שָׁלְטָא בֵּיהּ עֵינָא בִּישָׁא. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּלְדִידִי – בְּנָתָן עֲדִיפָן לִי מִבְּנֵי.
And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons. There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, i.e., helps in their upbringing, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father. Rav Ḥisda said: And as for myself, I prefer daughters to sons.
Since this is reactive to the preceding gemara discussing having only daughters being something negative, a straightforward interpretation here is that Rav Chisda also only has daughters. On the other hand, “prefer” might indicate that he experienced both, and therefore had a preference.
Rashbam notes that Rav Chisda was talking about specifically as a firstborn, but from the language of “לדידי” being employed, he doesn’t think so. Rather, he did not get (or keep) sons, but rather daughters.
א"ר חסדא לדידי בנתן עדיפן לי - אית דמפרשי לדרב חסדא במבכרת כשמעתיה אך הלשון מדקאמר לדידי אינו מוכיח כך ונראה בעיני שלא נתקיימו לו בנים כי אם בנות לכך מתאוה היה לבנות ולא נתיישב לי יפה דעתו של רב חסדא:
Tosafot find this problematic. Thus,
לדידי בנתן עדיפן לי מבני. פי' בקונטרס שלא נתקיימו לו בנים ואין נראה דהרבה בנים היו לו כדאשכחן (לעיל בבא בתרא ח.) ר"נ בר ר"ח (לעיל בבא בתרא ז:) מר ינוקא ומר קשישא בני ר"ח (ע"ז יא:) רב חנן בר ר"ח וכן רב מרי ורב פנחס בני ר"ח בהגוזל בתרא (ב"ק דף קיז.) אלא נראה לר"י דלהכי קאמר בנתן עדיפן לי מבני לפי שהיו חתניו גדולי הדור רבא (ורב מרי בר חמא) ומר עוקבא בר חמא:
That is, they note the existence of several sons of Rav Chisda. There is:
Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda in Bava Batra 7b;
Mar Yenoka and Mar Kashisha sons of Rav Chisda in Avoda Zara 11b (and elsewhere);
Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda
as well as Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas sons [sic] of Rav Chisda in Bava Kamma 117a. Rather, the Ri says that he meant that he preferred his daughters over his sons for a specific reason, namely that his sons-in-law were the Gedolei HaDor, Rava and Mar Ukva bar Chama.
I am less than convinced by this. Each entry above is a claim, that this was Rav the famous Rav Chisda’s son(s). At least some of these are suspect.
In terms of (2), Mar Kashisha and Mar Yenoka, see this article I wrote.
Rav Chisda was third-generation, while Mar Yenoka and Mar Kashisha seem to operate as sixth-generation Rav Ashi’s contemporaries or even his seventh-generation students. That makes the chronology rather tight. Yes, Rav Chisda lived to about 92, but he’d have to have them in his old age. We also don’t see them citing their father. Rav Aharon Hyman would have preferred that they were sons of a later Rav Chisda, but alas, there is no later plain Rav Chisda. I point out that there is a later plain Rabbi Chisda, plus in a patronymic, you don’t always list the patronymic’s patronymic, so even X bar Rav Chisda bar Avdimi or bar Avira would still appear as X bar Rav Chisda. So I really do not think that these two are his sons.
As for (4), Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas sons [sic] of Rav Chisda, I see this in Bava Kamma 117a:
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם, וְאַחְוִי אַחַמְרָא דְּרַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״דְּרִי וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַן״, דְּרָא וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, פַּטְרִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara recounts another incident: There was a certain man that gentiles had coerced and so he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and the gentiles said to him: Carry the wine and bring it with us. Complying with the gentiles, he carried and brought it with them. The case came before Rav Ashi, and he exempted the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine.
So again, it is before sixth-generation Rav Ashi. Now, in our text, Rav Chisda is the grandfather instead of father, as it is X son of Y son of Rav Chisda, which means, say 6th son of 5th son of 4th. Rav Chisda is really 3rd generation, but maybe we can kvetch it. But if there are two sons as Tosafot had it, we have the same chronological issues as with item #2. We could look at manuscripts.
In terms of Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda, these names are close to one another, so they might be the same person. חנן and נחמן, I think I have seen these as variants within names in the past.
So, for (3) there seem to be four instances of the name occuring:
We would need to explore these. Note how in Avoda Zara 11b, there is an internal text variant where the name might actually be “Rav Chanan bar Rava” quoting Rav, not “Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda”. We need to figure out which is correct. And in the next quote from Avoda Zara 11b, well, that is the very next line, where he talks to Rav Chisda. So we are either having him talk to his father Rav Chisda, or some other person talking to Rav Chisda. It is just that the gemara doesn’t carry through with the “Rav Chanan bar Rava” over and over throughout the sugya. Meanwhile, the presence of Rav Chisda in the sugya could have been what introduced a corruption, that he was Rav Chisda’s son.
Chullin 63b seems to have “Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda” quoting “Rav Chanan bar Rava” quoting Rav. Quite similar names, and ones that appeared in Avoda Zara as alternatives to each other. This might also be a ve’iteima, originating as such.
You can know a fellow by the company he keeps, but I don’t know what to do with Temurah, when Rav Chanan bar Rav Chisda doesn’t interact with anybody, but just analyzes a brayta.
On the other hand, (1), Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda, seems quite well established. I am 85% certain that he is (A) a real person and (B) the son of the famous Rav Chisda. Thus, here are the exactly 25 occurrences:
However, he also appears twice as Rav Nachman bar Chisda, where his father does not get the title.
Who does he interact with? I’ve seen him interact with third-generation Amoraim, namely with plain Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov) and even Rav Chisda. However, he seems to operate in the fifth-generation, regarding Rava’s student Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak in high regard, while he himself, albeit an Amora, is nowhere near as big a talmid chacham. Here are three sources which seem to indicate that he is the famous Rav Chisda.
First, in Moed Katan 25a,
פְּתַח עֲלֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: רָאוּי הָיָה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה עָלָיו שְׁכִינָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּבֶל גָּרְמָה לוֹ.
Rabbi Abba opened his eulogy for him: Our Rabbi was worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, except for the fact that Babylonia caused it not to rest. In other words, it was only because he lived in Babylonia and not in Eretz Yisrael that the Divine Presence did not rest upon him.
מֵתִיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר חִסְדָּא: ״הָיֹה הָיָה דְבַר ה׳ אֶל יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן בּוּזִי הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים״!
Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda raised an objection against this, and some say that it was Rav Ḥanan bar Ḥisda: Is it not stated: “The word of the Lord came [hayo haya] to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans” (Ezekiel 1:3), thereby implying that a prophet can prophesy outside of Eretz Yisrael?
טְפַח לֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ בְּסַנְדָּלֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אָמֵינָא לָךְ לָא תִּיטְרוֹד עָלְמָא? מַאי ״הָיָה״ — שֶׁהָיָה כְּבָר.
His father tapped him with his sandal on his foot, thereby hinting to him that he should be quiet. He said to him: Have I not told you not to trouble everyone with questions in the middle of a eulogy? The Gemara answers the question: What is the meaning of the doubling of the word “came [hayo haya]”? It implies that it had already come before, i.e., that Ezekiel had already begun to prophesy in Eretz Yisrael, and his prophecy in Babylonia was merely a continuation of that prophecy.
Not named explicitly as Rav Chisda (and indeed listed as plain Chisda), Rashi still explains אֲבוּהּ, “his father”, as “Rav” Chisda. I’d also note that it was Rabbi Abba who was delivering the eulogy. Could this be a scribal error, and Rabbi Abba hit him with the shoe?
Second, in Taanit 21b, he is extremely impressed with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and tries to invite him to move to his town. He’s rejected, and then considers moving to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s town. Then,
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, נֵיקוּם אֲנָא לְגַבֵּי מָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּטָב יָבֹא מָנֶה בֶּן פְּרָס אֵצֶל מָנֶה בֶּן מָנֶה, וְאַל יָבֹא מָנֶה בֶּן מָנֶה אֵצֶל מָנֶה בֶּן פְּרָס.
Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: If so, let me arise and come to the Master, to learn Torah from you. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: It is better that one hundred dinars that is the son of a peras, fifty dinars, should come to one hundred dinars that is the son of one hundred dinars; but one hundred dinars that is the son of one hundred dinars, should not come to one hundred dinars that is the son of a peras. In other words, although Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was a learned scholar, comparable to one hundred dinars, it was nevertheless more appropriate for him to come to Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda. Whereas Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the son of a peras, an ordinary man, Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda was the son of a scholar.
Thus, his father is really great, and would almost certainly be the famous Rav Chisda.
In Toledot Tannaim VaAmoraim, Rav Aharon Hyman had a different proof that he’s the son of the famous Rav Chisda. Thus:
He emends Sanhedrin 8a, so that Rav Nachman bar Yaakov says “so says your mother’s father” in the name of Rav. This person would be Rav Chanan bar Rava, who we discussed above. This person was Rav’s son-in-law, as well as Rav Chisda’s father-in-law. This works out as famous Rav Chisda as the father of Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda. Still, the required emendation makes it only slightly less solid.
I don’t have the time right now to look into manuscripts. Regardless, having a very young son — he seems contemporary to Rava’s student, while Rava married his sister) shouldn’t stand in the way of Rav Chisda making the statement. Maybe Rav Chisda made it before he was born. Also, consider Tosefot’s comparison to Rami bar Chama and Rava. Indeed, he does not seem to stack up, based on Taanit.