Rav Nachman is "older" than Rav Chisda
An interesting point I saw in an Artscroll footnote this morning related to Talmudic biography and the daf.
On Menachot 36a-b:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְצַלּוּ בְּהוּ בְּאוּרְתָּא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov. The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would pray in the evening, i.e., the evening service, with phylacteries. Some say that Rav Naḥman ruled that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov but in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that the mitzva of phylacteries ends at sunset.
36b
וְהָא רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְצַלּוּ בְּהוּ בְּאוּרְתָּא? הָהוּא פְּלִיגָא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would pray in the evening with phylacteries. The Gemara explains: That opinion represented in this incident disagrees with the ruling of Rav Naḥman.
Thus, in the first internal Talmudic variant, Rav Nachman takes a position and two other Amoraim, Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna do likewise.
In the second internal Talmudic variant — אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי — Rav Nachman takes a contrary position to Rabbi Yaakov. Then, the word וְהָא acts as a bridge, a word indicating that their action does not conform with Rav Nachman.
In terms of the first Talmudic variant, the Shitta Mekubetzet wants to insert the word deha, to match the second internal variant’s veha. The idea of deha is that it is a bridge word suggesting causation, and thus agreement. Meanwhile veha was “and behold”, which was taken rhetorically to indicate disagreement and disproof.
I did not spot the word in any of the Hachi Garsinan manuscripts.
In a footnote, ArtScroll notes the Shita Mekubetzet and also cite some other commentary that takes issue with this. How could the actions of Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna be taken by Rav Nachman as evidence to his position? After all, Rav Nachman was older! I am not sure it was intended as evidence by Rav Nachman, as opposed to, say, additional evidence by the Talmudic Narrator that this was the correct position, and therefore, this is what Rav Nachman must have actually said.
Regardless, the point about the relative scholastic generations is a good one. Let us explore.
Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov) was a quasi- second-generation Amora, in this he seems to be treated by Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, both of the second generation, as colleagues in various incidents. Still, Rav bar Yaakov also could be considered a quasi- third-generation Amora in other incidents. Note that both Rav Nachman and third-generation Rav Chisda were teachers of Rava.
Meanwhile, Rav Chisda was also mostly third generation but also quasi- second generation, in that he was a student-colleague (talmid chaver) of Rav Huna. After Rav Huna died, yes, he helped continue Sura academy by joining with the clear third-generation Amora, Rabba bar Rav Huna, who was the famous Rav Huna’s son, but did so as an older guiding figure. Therefore, I don’t really see the problem of Rav Nachman being older than at least Rav Chisda.
It seems strange that this contradiction should even be a question to the Talmudic Narrator. Rav Nachman is the leader of Nehardea academy. Rav Chisda together with Rabba bar Rav Huna were the leaders of the Sura academy, in the next generation. Yes, Sages in different academies often took contrary opinions from one another.