Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda’s Absurdities (full article)

Here is my Jewish Link article for this week. You can also see it here.

On Shevuot 12b, Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda expounded that / taught publicly that (A) birds are not used as supplementary offerings. Rava reacted by stating that this was בּוּרְכְתָא, an absurdity / something entirely unfounded. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak comes to the other’s defense: What’s the absurdity? אֲנָא אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, וּמִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא. I told him this, and did so based on / in the name of Rav Shimi of Nehardea, who said that (B) the surplus [lambs] are allocated from the communal gift-offerings; (C) and there are no olah bird offerings offered by the community.

An inference is different from a quote. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that he told him (A) in Rav Shimi of Nehardea’s name. Now, Rav Shimi of Nehardea certainly said (B), but did he also say (C)? Or, was this Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s inference? I assume the latter.

The same pattern with the same players appears two other times in the Talmud. In Chullin 88b, Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda expounded that kisuy hadam, covering the blood of slaughtered animals or birds, can only be done with something in which seed is sown and it sprouts. Rava declared it an absurdity and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak denied its absurdity. “I taught it to him, and from this brayta I taught it to him: “One traveling in the desert without access to dirt can grind a gold dinar to use to cover; one traveling by ship without access to dirt can burn his cloak and cover to use to cover.” This brayta does not explicitly declare the requirement that dirt be plantable, but they assume sand in the wilderness, which is not plantable. Thus, (B) was the quote and (C) was the inference.

Meanwhile, in Ketubot 63b, Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda expounded that the halacha follows the Sages (in the preceding brayta), who voted that we announce regarding a moredet for four consecutive weeks, after which she loses her entire ketuba. (This contradicts or revises the Mishnah that there is a gradual reduction of seven half-dinars each week until the ketuba money is exhausted.) Rava declared it an absurdity and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak denied its absurdity: I taught it to him, and said it in the name of a great man; and who is that? Rabbi Chanina.

I emended the Ketubot text to match the earlier printings and manuscripts; the Vilna printing has the great man being Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina, who appeared in the preceding sugya, causing his introduction here. Rather, the great man is Rabbi Chanina. I didn’t devote enough time, but I was unable to discern how the Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina statement had any bearing on gradual or sudden ketuba loss – though again, it should have no bearing. I also couldn’t readily find an explicit Rabbi Chanina statement (B) from which we can reason to (C). Thus, we might think that the entire statement (A) was a direct quote from Rabbi Chanina, which Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was privy to.

The Great Man

When a statement refers to a Sage using an descriptive appellation such as גַבְרָא רַבָּה, then immediately asks וּמַנּוּ, and finally names a Sage, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, I consider this an interjection from the Talmudic Narrator. If we can argue with the (perhaps Savoraic) Talmudic Narrator, then we could search for other “great men”, and discover if they uttered some pertinent statement (B).

Indeed, on the very page, Ketubot 63a-b, two candidates appear: Rabbi Akiva, returning from twenty-four years of study absent from his wife, was described as a גַּבְרָא רַבָּה coming to town; Rav Zevid’s daughter-in-law rebelled against her husband and was in possession of an article of clothing. Rav Gamda accused other Sages of twisting the halacha either pro or against Rav Zevid, for he was a גַּבְרָא רַבָּה. There are many others, e.g. Rav Shizbi, so described by Rava. Or, perhaps it’s Rav Sheshet, for Rava depends on one version of his statement, but another Amora gives a different version of the statement.

I’d endorse the Talmudic Narrator’s suggestion, with the twist that he intended Rabbi Chiyya (Rabba), author of the Tosefta together with Rabbi Oshaya (Rabba). If so, I don’t think that transforming חנינא to חייא involved adding two nuns. Rather I’d guess that רבי חייא was contracted to ר”ח which was then erroneously expanded to רבי חנינא, especially in light of the presence of רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא.

Tosefta Ketubot 6:5 states המורדת על בעלה וכ’ זו משנה ראשונה רבותינו התקינו שיהו [מתרין בה] ארבע וחמשה שבתות זו אחר זו פעמים בשבת יתר על כן אפי' כתובתה מאה מנה אבדה הכל. That is, it briefly quotes the Mishnah, states that it is a Mishnah Rishona (which has thus been supplanted), and then states that our Sages enacted this ruling about announcing four or five weeks, after which she loses everything. I would label this a (B), from which we can readily deduce that the (C), the halacha follows the brayta instead of the Mishnah.

Scholastic / Personal Relationships

Biographical details add a new dimension to these interactions. Recall that Rava eventually married Rav Chisda’s daughter, after her first husband Rami bar Chama’s death. That means that he is labeling absurd the proclaimed halachic positions of Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda, his brother-in-law.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak might be considered a fourth-generation Amora, like Rava, but I’d say he’s primarily fifth-generation and Rava’s student. He thus is standing up to his teacher and in support of his student.

In Taanit 21b, Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda presided over the large city of Drokart, which could send out 500 infantrymen. Once, they removed three dead over the course of one (or perhaps three) days, and he declared a public fast for the plague. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak corrected him, showing that this corresponded with Rabbi Meir’s position, and provided reasoning showing that it was rejected. Impressed, Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda invited him to Drokart and preside as leader of the community. He demurred, because a place does not honor a person; rather, a person honors a place. Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda then proposed to move himself to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s locale to study. He demurred because of the relative greatness of their fathers – his father Yitzchak was not ordained. “100 dinar son of 100 dinar shouldn’t come to 100 dinar son of 50 dinar.) Regardless, this story demonstrates relative lack of expertise in Rav Chisda’s son, and his willingness to study more generally from Yitzchak’s son. Perhaps Rava was right to suspect Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda’s statements as absurdities, and perhaps Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak subsequently taught him much more than the few statements we’ve seen.