Rav Nachman vs. Rav Yehuda

In Sunday’s daf (Kiddushin 70a), we saw a showdown between Rav Nachman and Rav Yehuda. A rude man from Nehardea had insulted Rav Yehuda in a Pumbeditan butcher shop, and Rav Yehuda first placed the man in cherem and then declared him genealogically unfit, with the status of a Canaanite eved. The man brought a court case against Rav Yehuda, in the court in Nehardea, which was presided over by Rav Nachman.

I recall Dr. Elman analyzing this story in class.

Recall that Rav Nachman and Rav Yehuda were both students of Shmuel. Rav Nachman took over Shmuel’s place in the academy in Nehardea. Rav Yehuda first studied from Rav until the latter’s death, then Rav Asi, and finally Shmuel. Rav Yehuda went on to found the the academy in Pumbedita. The repeated citations of Shmuel is in effect Rav Yehuda saying that he is the legitimate heir to Shmuel. Everything that Rav Nachman does is purportedly wrong, based on a statement by Shmuel. (Compare who is the legitimate heir of the Rav, Rav Soloveitchik, among his various students, and how each has a different spin.)

Also, the culture in Nehardea and Pumbedita was quite different. I don’t recall the specific parallels Dr. Elman used, but it might have been that Nehardea was like the Upper West Side and Pumbedita was like Lakewood. Nehardea was more acculturated / “sophisticated”, and you could see this in Rav Nachman’s word choice, and Rav Yehuda’s critique. (For instance, the nun of etrogna instead of etrog or etrogra.) “Speak like a rabbi, or speak like a normal, down-to-earth person!” Similarly, in terms of their conduct, e.g. having the daughter bring drinks, speaking to a woman. The Pumbeditan approach was frummer than the Nehardean approach.

---

Separate from that, I think we might want to consider genre when approaching this story and trying to deduce halacha from it. Yes, the Rosh excerpts the story, mining it for pesak. But we might be wary of doing this here. I last discussed genre in the following Substack post:

Here, it a story. Maybe we don’t derive halacha from aggadah — I saw someone suggest this many years back. But don’t confuse midrash aggada — derivations of Biblical narrative to say what happened in the story — with aggadeta, which is sometimes fantastical Talmudic stories, or with something else I’m searching for a term for, say aggada, a practical incident which occurred and they needed to rule on how to conduct themselves. The last of these may be even more influential as to halacha, having the status of maaseh rav.

Still, this is a possibly polemic story about the supremacy of Pumbedita over Nehardea, with Rav Yehuda being the legitimate heir and conduit of Shmuel (and even Rav’s!) teachings. We might wonder at the Nehardean version of the tale, as we sometimes see these polemic stories in Yerushalmi vs. Bavli, where important details differ and one’s own side comes out looking better.

Even within the story, we see that Rav Yehuda is annoyed, and is standing up for his honor. He’s trying to pick a fight, so everything that Rav Nachman does or says has to be wrong. And for instance, in terms of kol be’isha erva, that a woman’s voice — even to greet — is sexually improper to experience — is not taken by the Meiri as the binding halacha, even though Rav Yehuda asserted that Shmuel extended it that far. Also, even Rav Nachman eventually challenges Rav Yehuda’s report of Shmuel’s declaration about Beit Chashmonai. His reason: if a talmid chacham cites someone about the halacha before the incident occurs, we believe him, but if after the incident happens, we don’t listen to him. (He might be deliberately, or conveniently accidentally, misremembering the citation in a way that happens to favor him and his position.) For the Beit Chashmonai descendants, Rav Yehuda is able to bring a second witness, Rav Matna, who heard Shmuel make the statement, and perhaps this legitamacy would then spread to all of Rav Yehuda’s citations. But maybe not, and each citation ended up attacking Rav Nachman, his antagonist. If so, we should see how these statements are used in other gemaras, assuming that they are.