Rav Kahana, the son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

Inventing a Tanna

In Nazir 43b, we encounter a rather novel Tanna.

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַב כָּהֲנָא בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: לָהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְאֵבָרִים. פְּרָט לִכְזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וּכְזַיִת נֶצֶל, וּמְלֹא תַרְווֹד רָקָב.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rav Kahana, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, said: The words “for her he becomes impure” (Leviticus 21:3) indicate that to bury her he becomes impure…

Such a scholar, Rav Kahana, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, is surprising on several counts. We’ve never heard of him before. While his father is the famous Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (of whom there were two), his title is Rav, which we expect of a Babylonian Amora.

What gives?

First, let us consult the Hebrew Steinsaltz commentary:

ומקשים: והתניא [והרי שנינו בברייתא] של רב כהנא בשם ר' אליעזר בן יעקב: "לה יטמא" (ויקרא כא, ג) — לה הוא מיטמא, כשהיא כולה, ואינו מיטמא לאברים ממנה, ובא הכתוב ללמד: פרט לכזית מן המת, וכזית נצל (ליחה היוצאת מן המת) ומלא תרווד רקב של המת.

So Adin Rav Steinsaltz himself doesn’t say that Rav Kahana would be the son. Rather, the ב here means “in the name of”. Similarly, Artscroll English has the word בְּרַבִּי, but renders it “But Rav Kahane taught the following Baraisa of R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov”. It points us to footnote 16, which reads:

[See Mefaresh.] R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov’s opinions were considered highly authoritative (see Eruvin 62b) and would not likely be disputed by Rav Chisda (Shitah LeChachmei Evreux.)

So everyone has the text בְּרַבִּי, but the errant translation seems like it was introduced by the English Koren editor in their haste.

But is בְּרַבִּי actually correct here? This seems quite awkward!

Looking at the earlier Venice printing, and at the Munich 95 and Vatican 110 manuscripts, they all have a kaf, thus keRabbi…, that Rav Kahana taught like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. This is still slightly awkward phrasing, but it is easier to see how that means it than בְּרַבִּי.

Thus, Venice printing:

and Munich 95:

where the smooth letter is a kaf, and a bet would have an indentation on the right hand side, and Vatican 110:

with the same.

So it looks like, for their text, both Artscroll, Steinsaltz and Koren simply followed the printed Vilna text.

Even more so, they were likely encouraged in that textual reading by the Mefaresh (/Pseudo-Rashi):

והתני רב כהנא בר"א - כלומר בברייתא דר' אליעזר בן יעקב:

Note the ב in בר”א. Thus, even as explaining it as the brayta of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the text is ברבי with a bet.

Indeed, that is how the dibur hamatchil appears in the Vilna Shas:

However, I’d caution reliance on that printed Vilna text, which already deviated in the Talmudic text. Maybe they did the same in the dibur haMatchil. Indeed, look at the Venice printing, and it has כרבי!