Rav Malkiyo (article Summary)...
My Jewish Link article last week was about Rav Malkiya vs. Rav Malkiya, two Amoraim from different scholastic generations, and how other Amoraim who preside over Talmudic recensions differ in their assignments of scholars to statements. You can read it in the image below, access it on the Jewish Link website (HTML, flipdocs), or on this Scribal Error substack. An editor changed my “b. Rav” to “ben Rav”, but it should be “bereih de-Rav…” Outline summary description below.
Based on stories involving other Amoraim, we can place the similarly named Rav Malkiya and Rav Malkiyo in their respective scholastic generations. Rav Malkiya moved an extinguished lamp on Shabbat, upsetting Rabbi Simlai, so that makes him 2nd or 3rd generation. Rav Malkiyo arranged a ketuba for a deaf-mute in his neighborhood, earning Rava’s praise, making him a 4th generation Amora.
Many of all of the six quotes in the corpus involve quoting Rav Ada bar Ahava I, so confusion between these similarly named Amoraim is likely.
Run through each of the six instances, with content and context of other Sages. This includes whether it is a shmayta — participating in an Amoraic discussion, or matnita — discussing a Tannaitic source. One of the instances is ambiguous.
Identity Rav Chinena bar Rav Ikka, and Rav Pappa, as fifth-generation Amoraim. Discuss matni and how they use it; how this can be understood as parallel proto-Talmuds within different Amoraic academies.
So here, Rav Chinena bar Rav Ikka and Rav Pappa ascribe different statements to either Rav Malkiya or Rav Malkiyo. Generally speaking, there’s tremendous overlap, but there is a difference in the attribution of one — or perhaps two — statements.
There is a mnemonic for Rav Pappa’s alignments, based on matnita — Tannatic sources. And the gemara labels only one of the six as shifting, strangely instead of two. Whether the other is shifted in the other direction is a Rishonic dispute. But recall that one of the six was ambiguous, with both Amoraic and Tannaitic aspects.
I don’t know if Rav Pappa or the Talmudic Narrator devised that mnemonic.
What happens in our own gemaras, both printed and manuscript? That is, looking at the six, do they align according to Rav Pappa or according to his disputant, Rav Chinena bereih de-Rav Ikka? It seems like the latter. But if so, why the mnemonic.
Munich 95 in once instance shortens is to Rav Malkiy’ leaving off the last letter. I thought it might be to cleverly preserve the ambiguity. Still, Munich’s scribe regularly abbreviates words, and does not abbreviate in another of the six sugyot where it goes like Rav Chinena bereih de-Rav Ikka.