Rav Huna's Intellectual Thefts
Rav Huna's Intellectual Thefts
In Bava Batra 133a:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאַחֵר – רוֹאִין; אִם רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם יְרוּשָּׁה, וְאִם לָאו – נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה.
§ Rav Huna says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a document granting all his property to another, the court investigates the legal status of the recipient: If he is fit to inherit from him, e.g., if he is one of his sons, he takes the property as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: גַּנָּבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ? אִי סְבִירָא לָךְ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה, אֵימָא: ״הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה״ – דְּהָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָיךְ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הוּא דְּאָזְלָא!
Rav Naḥman said to him: Why should you steal this halakha and not attribute it to its source? If you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, say explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as your halakhic statement follows the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka that a person can bequeath his property to any of his heirs.
דִּלְמָא כִּי הָא קָאָמְרַתְּ – דְּהָהוּא דַּהֲוָה קָא שָׁכֵיב, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: נִכְסֵיהּ לְמַאן, דִּלְמָא לִפְלָנְיָא? וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: אֶלָּא לְמַאן? וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ: אִם רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם יְרוּשָּׁה, וְאִם לָאו – נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא.
Perhaps this is what you meant to say: There was a certain childless person who was dying, and those around him said to him: To whom should his, i.e., your, property be given? Perhaps it should be given to so-and-so? And he said to them: Rather, to whom if not him? And you, Rav Huna, meant to say to us: If that person is fit to inherit from him, he takes it as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift. Rav Huna said to him: Yes, that is what I was saying.
How are we to understand Rav Nachman’s objection of גַּנָּבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ? Is this a plagiarism issue, that Rav Huna should have provided proper attribution? If so, he is saying that Rav Huna has stolen the words or position. The theft is of the halacha. That is how the English translation of Rav Steinsaltz’s commentary goes, where the Hebrew is more ambiguous, למה לך, לומר כך את דבריך.
The alternative is that he is creeping about like a thief in the night (rather than a bold robber or just a plain person), trying to get to this conclusion without letting it be known that he actually agrees with Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka in the dispute.
Regardless, Rav Nachman then essentially wonders if Rav Huna meant to convey a certain other idea, and Rav Huna concurs that this is what he meant.
This is not the only time that Rav Nachman and Rav Huna have this exchange, so maybe examining parallel sugyot can shed light on the phrase’s meaning.
In Ketubot 19a:
גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: גַּנּוֹבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ. אִי סְבִירָא לָךְ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֵימָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
§ With regard to the matter itself, Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a borrower who admits with regard to a document that he wrote it, the lender need not ratify the document in court. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: Why do you need to conceal the reason for your opinion like a thief? If you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Do not state your opinion in a manner that obscures its connection to a tannaitic dispute.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמָר הֵיכִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי אָתוּ לְקַמַּן לְדִינָא, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: ״זִילוּ קַיִּימוּ שְׁטָרַיְיכוּ וְחוּתוּ לְדִינָא״.
Rav Huna said to him: And what does the Master hold in a case where the borrower admits that he wrote the document? Rav Naḥman said to him: When lenders come before us for judgment, we say to them: Go and ratify your documents and descend and stand before us for judgment. If a lender relies solely on the confession of the borrower, the borrower could claim that although he wrote the document, he then repaid the loan. However, if the document was ratified by the court based on the testimony of the witnesses who signed it, the borrower’s claim that he repaid the loan is not accepted.
In this case, the English Rav Steinsaltz translation makes it surreptitious action. And Hebrew, שאתה מסתיר את טעמי דבריך, כגנב זה שבא בסתר. This is essentially what Rashi says there, גנבא - מתגנב אתה לומר דבריך בלשון שלא נחלקו בו היחיד והמרובים כדי שלא יבטלו את דבריך דאמרת כיחידאה: Essentially, Rav Huna was being sneaky to phrase it in such a way that doesn’t make it clear that you’re holding like an individual over the majority, in order that others don’t dismiss your words.
Finally, in Yevamot 91a:
נִשֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲמַר רַב: הָכִי הִלְכְתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: גַּנָּבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ? אִי סְבִירָא לָךְ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵימָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּשְׁמַעְתָּיךְ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָזְלָה.
§ The mishna taught that if she married without the consent of the court she is permitted to return to her first husband. Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha. Rav Naḥman said to him: Why do you steal in, i.e., why do you state your opinion in a sneaky manner? If you maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then you should explicitly say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as your halakha follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי אָמֵינָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — מַשְׁמַע אֲפִילּוּ בְּקַמַּיְיתָא, אֵימָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה! קַשְׁיָא.
And lest you say: If I were to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that would erroneously indicate that I agree with him even with regard to the first case, that of a married woman who married another on the basis of one witness. If so, you should say the following: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the last case. The Gemara comments: Indeed, the question of why Rav Huna did not state his ruling in this manner is difficult.
Again, this is “in a sneaky manner”. In Hebrew, כלומר, למה לך לומר דבריך בדרך עקיפין והסתר ולא לאומרם במפורש?
The explanation of גַּנָּבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ should be consistent across the three instances. Maybe this could be a complaint about the theft of intellectual property, by plagiarizing via non-attribution, and we’d sit down and think for a while, and get it to work in all three instances. On the other hand, in Ketubot and Yevamot, it is Rav Huna citing Rav who says it in this manner, so how can the issue be a lack of giving credit?
The reason for attribution is therefore what it is typically, so that others can understand the basis for a pesak, and put the idea into the proper conceptual framework.
Finally, it is interesting that all three are Rav Huna (twice, citing Rav), and it is Rav Nachman who levels this criticism. This is an idea to pin and perhaps think about more in understanding their respective approaches and learning styles.