Rav Ketina and Kitniyot
In a recent daf, Bava Batra 93b.
גְּמָ׳ תָּאנֵי רַב קַטִּינָא: רוֹבַע קִטְנִית לִסְאָה. וְעַפְרוּרִית לָא?! וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חִיָּיא קְטוֹסְפָאָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: בּוֹרֵר צְרוֹר מִגׇּרְנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ –
GEMARA: Rav Ketina taught: When the mishna states that a buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of impurities per se’a may be present, that means only that he accepts upon himself the presence of a quarter-kav of legumes, but he does not accept upon himself the presence of a quarter-kav of dirt. The Gemara asks: And is it so that the buyer does not also accept upon himself that some quantity of dirt might be present in the produce? But doesn’t Rabba bar Ḥiyya Ketosfa’a say in the name of Rabba: One who picks out a pebble from the wheat on another’s threshing floor
This modified the Mishna,
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע טִנּוֹפֶת לִסְאָה. תְּאֵנִים – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר מְתוּלָּעוֹת לְמֵאָה. מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר קוֹסְסוֹת לְמֵאָה. קַנְקַנִּים בַּשָּׁרוֹן – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר פִּיטָסוֹת לְמֵאָה.
(1) The word “Tanei” might mean that he teaches a variant text of the Mishna, as opposed to explaining it. The words קִטְנִית and טִנּוֹפֶת share several letters and sounds, like the chirik, the tet, the nun, and the tav, so we might imagine it was simply transmitted differently.
Alternatively, he is clarifying what tinofet in the Mishnah means. Not utter garbage, not actual dirt, but edible and plantable material. Just that the edible material isn’t what you expected.
If the gemara attacks him on it based on another Amora’s words, it seems that it is a peirush rather than a girsa.
However… ? The gemara itself has a brayta that lists kitnit as the bad stuff accompanying wheat, chaff as accompanying barley.
הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ, חִטִּין – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע קִטְנִית לִסְאָה. שְׂעוֹרִים – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע נִישּׁוֹבֶת לִסְאָה. עֲדָשִׁים – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע עַפְרוּרִית לִסְאָה.
And the Tosefta has this:
המוכר פירות לחבירו ה"ז מקבל עליו רובע טינופת פיגים לסאה שעורים מקבל עליו רובע קטנית קישואין מקבל עליו עשר מארות למאה קנקנין מקבל עליו עשר נאות פינוסות פינוסות מגופרות למאה יתר על כן בכולן מחזיר לו את השאר ונוטל ממנו דמים.
So tinofet vs. kitnit might indeed be girsological.
(2) His name is Ketina and he is discussing Kitniyot.
He likely didn’t get his name from this interpretation — he says a lot else. Is this a case of coincidence, or of pseudepigraphic attribution, that they attributed it to Rav Ketina because of the content? Or did he gravitate towards teaching this statement because of his name? I’ve written about this phenomenon in the past, for instance in this article:
(3) Also, they attacked Rav Ketina above as follows:
וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חִיָּיא קְטוֹסְפָאָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: בּוֹרֵר צְרוֹר מִגׇּרְנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ –
But doesn’t Rabba bar Ḥiyya Ketosfa’a say in the name of Rabba: One who picks out a pebble from the wheat on another’s threshing floor
First off, all the manuscripts on Hachi Garsinan have him quoting Rav, rather than Rabba.
This makes more sense. Think about it. Rav Ketina is a second-generation Amora, quoted by third generation Amoraim like Rabba bar Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Meanwhile, Rabba is a third generation Amora. Why should a (the presumably) 4th-generation Amora quoting a 3rd-generation Amora present a challenge to the 2nd-generation Amora? However, a 2nd-generation contemporary quoting Rav, 1st-generation, is indeed a strong challenge.
Also, Rabba bar Rav Huna and Rav Chisda are Sura-associated, and quote Rav Ketina, while Rabba is Pumpedita-associated.
(4) What is this place Ketosfa’a? Ctesiphon was a royal capital for the Parthian and Sasanian eras. This was on the right side of the Tigris river. Mechoza was a suburb of Veh-Ardashir, on the left bank
