Rav Pappa isn't a Papunean!
(1) In two days ago’s daf, Bava Metzia 68a, we encounter this:
אָמַר רָבָא: לֵית הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּטַרְשֵׁי פַּפּוּנָאֵי, וְלָא כִּשְׁטָרֵי מָחוֹזְנָאֵי, וְלָא כַּחֲכִירֵי נַרְשָׁאֵי.
Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa, nor in accordance with those who approve of the documents of Meḥoza, nor in accordance with those who approve of the tenancies of Neresh.
Rav Steinsatz translated פַּפּוּנָאֵי as “of Rav Pappa”. Artscroll did the same.
It is not their fault. They are just reading the ensuing gemara, which defines each of these terms. Thus:
כְּטַרְשֵׁי פַּפּוּנָאֵי – כְּטַרְשֵׁי דְּרַב פָּפָּא.
The Gemara clarifies these statements: The halakha is not in accordance with those who approve of the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa; this is referring to the tacit interest agreement of Rav Pappa (65a). Rav Pappa would sell liquor and accept delayed payment at a higher price, and believed this to be permitted since he did not gain anything from the arrangement.
I vehemently disagree. Neresh is a place, where Rav Pappa was in charge. Mechoza was a place, where Rava was in charge. And there was another place called Papunia, probably Epiphania, where other Amoraim lived. We have Rav Matana, for example, from there. Given the threefold structure, and that פַּפּוּנָאֵי has this global meaning in the Talmud, of course it means “the tacit interest agreement of the Papunians”.
Also, let us run with it being a reference to Rav Pappa. I wonder when Rava said it. Yes, Rava knew Rav Pappa, as he was Rav Pappa’s teacher. But, if Rava said it in his youth, he didn’t know Rav Pappa yet. So he said it when he was older, and Rav Pappa’s teacher.
Where did Rav Pappa discuss this? On 65a:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: טַרְשָׁא דִּידִי שְׁרֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא – שִׁכְרַאי לָא פָּסֵיד, זוּזֵי לָא צְרִיכְנָא, אֲנָא הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵידְנָא מִילְּתָא גַּבֵּי לוֹקֵחַ.
Rav Pappa said: My tacit interest arrangement that I offer customers, where I sell my liquor at the times when the market price is low and agree to have the buyer pay me for it later on when the market price is higher, is permitted. What is the reason for this? My liquor would not be lost were I to store it for a while, and I do not need money at the present time. I could therefore simply hold it to sell at a higher price later. I sell it early because it is I who am performing a beneficial matter for the customer, by selling it to him earlier without demanding immediate payment, and this is not interest.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי לְרַב פָּפָּא: מַאי חָזֵי מָר דְּקָא אָזְלַתְּ בָּתַר דִּידָךְ? זִיל בָּתַר דִּידְהוּ, דְּאִילּוּ הֲווֹ לְהוּ זוּזֵי – הֲווֹ שָׁקְלִי כִּי הַשְׁתָּא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּלֵית לְהוּ זוּזֵי – שָׁקְלִי כְּיוּקְרָא דִּלְקַמֵּיהּ!
Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: What does the Master see to indicate that you should follow yourself, i.e., consider this matter from your perspective, and therefore conclude that it is permitted because you are not earning interest? You could equally follow their side, and consider the matter from the perspective of your customers, as, if they had money available they would buy liquor at the current price, but now that they have no money available they buy it in accordance with the future, more expensive rate. Consequently, they are actually paying interest in exchange for the delay in payment. Rav Pappa did not respond.
Rav Sheisha (/Sheishet) son of Rav Idi bar Avin, was a (fourth- and?) fifth-generation Amora. I’d note: he does call Rav Pappa “mar”, master, which makes me wonder whether he had some sort of student status. Shabbat 147a implies he died before Rav Pappa. In Taanit 13a, his father, Rav Idi bar Avin, interacts with Abaye, with Abaye responding. Then, perhaps or indeed probably not directly, Rav Sheisha explains what his father intended. In Yevamot 74b, he objects to Rava and Rava replies, so that is a direct conversation.
So, my question is: when Rav Sheisha b. Rav Idi objected to Rav Pappa’s purportedly permitted tarsha, when was this? Not in Rava’s youth. Was it in Rav Pappa’s relative youth, when Rava was still around? Or when Rav Pappa was older? If Rava heard the objection and approved it, OK. If he had his own objection, why didn’t Rava object himself?
That is, on 68a, Rashi explains why we don’t rule like Rav Pappa’s tarsha:
טרשא דרב פפא - דאמר לעיל (בבא מציעא דף סה.) שכראי לא פסיד וכו'. לית הלכתא כוותיה כדאמרן מאי חזית דאזלת בתר דידך זיל בתר דידהו:
But that means that fourth-generation Rava is reacting to the conclusion of the fifth-generation Amora conversation. This is not impossible, but it awkward. And especially so if Papunian should not really mean “Pappaitic”, of-Rav-Pappa.
Maybe it just so happened that the Pappunian documents were Rav Pappa documents, and even the Stamma is making the connection based on the unique word tarsha, not on the word Pappa.
(2) Commenting on the “documents of Mechoza”, right after it was defined, we have the following:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר בַּר אַמֵּימָר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַבָּא עָבֵיד הָכִי, וְכִי אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ מְהֵימַן לְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ, אִי שָׁכֵיב וְנָפֵל שְׁטָרָא קַמֵּי יַתְמֵי, מַאי? הָוֵי ״כִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁיֹּצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט״ וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר.
Mar, son of Ameimar, said to Rav Ashi: Father would do so, i.e., he would add the profits to the sum of the loan contract, and when they came before him and told him they had not earned enough profit he would believe them and reduce the debt to the amount they had actually earned. Rav Ashi said to him: This works out well while the lender is still here, but if he dies and the document comes before the orphans, what would happen in that case? Unaware that profits have been added to the document, the orphans would demand the entire sum, which would constitute interest. The Gemara comments: This innocent observation of Rav Ashi’s was “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Ameimar died shortly afterward.
I would note that Ameimar, a sixth-generation Amora, was originally מראשי חכמי ישיבת נהרדעא, but eventually עבר לעיר מחוזא וגם בה שימש דיין. Perhaps being a judge in Mechoza would explain why he held by the documents of Mechoza.
(3) I found this fascinating, on 68a, after Rava nixed the various loan arrangements of different places:
וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּקָא כָתְבִי הָכִי: ״קְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ וּשְׁהֵינָא כַּמָּה עִידָּנֵי, וַהֲדַר חַכְרַהּ״, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
וְלָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא.
The Gemara comments: And nowadays, when we write a document in this manner: We acquired the property from him and we waited a while and then the borrower went and leased it back for such and such a price, a formula that states that the lender has acquired the field and may now lease it to others, which is utilized so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers, it is permitted, as it does not have the appearance of a loan with interest.
The Gemara concludes: But this is not correct, as even if the field is in his possession, since he has not acquired it properly, it is considered interest.
(though see Rashba, as to whether it is actual ribbit ketzutza, or only rabbinically forbidden haaramat ribbit.)
As Rif explains:
אמר רבא לית הלכתא לא כטרשי פפונאי ולא כטרשי מחוזנאי ולא כחכירות נרשאי טרשי פפונאי טרשא דרב פפא דקא כתבינן לעיל טרשאי מחוזנאי דזקפי להו רווחא אקרנא וכתבי ליה בשטרא מי יימר דהוי רווחא חכירי נרשאי דכתבי הכי משכן ליה פלניא ארעא לפלניא והדר חכרה מיניה אימת קניא דמקנא ניהליה והאידנא דקא כתבי הכי וקנינא מיניה ושהינא כמה עידנין והדר חכרה מיניה שפיר דמי (למימר דעבדינן הכי לכתחלה במשכנתא בנכייתא) שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין ולאו מלתא היא אלא הלכתא כדכתבינן במשלם שניא אלין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף והכי פסקו רבנן קשישי:
Regarding the gemara, when was veha’idna written? It is anonymous. It presumably wasn’t during Rav Pappa’s time, when they were debating it. It is anonymous. Was it during Rav Ashi’s era, or later? Then, who overrides it so that it is not correct? Which generation?
Also, who are the רבנן קשישי that Rif points to? Geonim? The reference to משלם שניא אלין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף as the permitted, is the practice of Sura, as described by Ravina to Rav Ashi, when he wonders how it is permitted and Rav Ashi responds, on Bava Metzia 110a; which was in scope in our sugya for the Stamma to have referred. Namely, on 67b, when discussing two variant Talmudic texts of a dispute between Rav Acha and Ravina, with the definition of kitzuta meaning either A or B, they wonder how the one who forbids even kitzuta for a Torah scholar would have that Torah scholar profit from a borrowing arrangement. And they answer by shifting it to the Sura arrangement:
מַאן דְּאָסַר בְּקַמַּיְיתָא שָׁרֵי בְּבָתְרַיְיתָא, מַאן דְּאָסַר בְּבָתְרַיְיתָא, הֵיכִי שְׁרֵי לְמֵיכַל? שְׁרֵי כִּי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא דְסוּרָא, דְּכָתְבִי בַּהּ הָכִי: בְּמִשְׁלָם שְׁנַיָּא אִילֵּין תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף.
The Gemara comments: The one who prohibits the practice according to the first version permits the practice described in the second. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who also prohibits the practice described in the second version, how is it permitted to consume the produce of a mortgaged field? The Gemara replies: It is permitted in a case like that of a mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which this is written in the loan document: Upon the completion of these years, during which the lender may consume the produce of the field, this land shall leave his possession without money and return to the owner, as the entire amount of the loan will have been repaid by means of the consumption of the produce.
It seems strange to think that only the Sura practice is allowed, for it to push off the veha’idna; this was after all specifically how a Tzurba meiRabbanan should conduct himself, not people in general. And it was within the more stringent position, Rav Acha, while we generally, except in three cases, rule like Ravina, who would allow the kitzuta. (In the other three, it is Rav Acha who is lenient, and we rule like him. See Pesachim 74b.) How and why are we just dismissing the anonymous veha’idna?