Rav Nachman calling Rav Huna "Mar"?
Still playing a bit of catch-up. On Bava Batra 51b:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: לָא הֲוָה מָר גַּבָּן בְּאוּרְתָּא בִּתְחוּמָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא אָמְרִיתוּ? הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – קָנְתָה, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן לְגַלּוֹיֵי זוּזֵי הוּא דְּבָעֵי.
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: The Master was not with us in the evening in the study hall that is within the boundaries of the town, where we said a superior matter. Rav Huna said to him: What superior matter did you say? Rav Naḥman responded: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it, and we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money.
Note that he called Rav Huna by the referential title Mar, “master”. This may seem at odds with what we’ve seen recently, on Batra Batra 57b, that second and third-generation Rav Nachman will refer to Rav Huna without a title. Thus:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא: כּוּלָּן שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה – רְאָיָיתָן רְאָיָה, וּמַעֲמִידִין שָׂדֶה בְּיָדָן. גַּזְלָן שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה – אֵין רְאָיָיתוֹ רְאָיָה, וְאֵין מַעֲמִידִין שָׂדֶה בְּיָדוֹ.
§ Rav Naḥman said: Rav Huna said to me that with regard to all of the types of people who do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, when they bring proof by means of a document or witnesses that a field belongs to them, their proof is a valid proof and the court places the field in their possession. But if there is a robber who brings proof that a field is his, his proof is not a valid proof, and the court does not place the field in his possession. This is due to a concern that the proof was obtained through
He considers him a colleague. Indeed, here Rav Nachman is boasting a superior matter that he wished that Rav Huna would have heard.
We generally expect Mar to refer to a teacher, but hold on a bit and I’ll challenge that. For now, what do the manuscripts have to say? Do they indeed all have this Mar here?
Well, the printings (Vilna, Venice, Pisaro) all have Mar.
Manuscripts that also have Mar include Florence 8-9, Munich 95, and Oxford 369. However, here are some that omit the word, and just have הוית, you were, instead of הוה, which requires a target word to follow. There is Hamburg 165:
as well as Paris 1337, Escorial, and Vatican 115b.
I’d side with the shorter version. Besides lectio brevior potior, the briefer text is stronger. Especially since it makes sense either way, but a scribe would feel that one version, lacking Mar, is inappropriate, so might introduce it incorrectly.
Still, as I noted above, I don’t think that people will only say Mar to a teacher. They will also say it about a colleague, especially if speaking about that colleague to a third party. And perhaps they would also say so about a colleague. I wrote two articles in the Jewish link about a related topic. Namely, Abaye refers to Mar, and does this mean Rabba or Rav Yosef. Thus:
In reviewing all the sugyot in which Abaye says Mar, we have to consider whether some of these instances might be Rava, given Rava / Rabba switch-offs.