Rav Pappa the Elder

In yesterday’s daf, we encountered Rav Pappa the Elder, that is, Rav Pappa Sava. In discussing whether lists in Mishnayot and braytot are intentionally ordered, we see a claim that it generally is not, except for specific ones. That was Rava quoting Rav Sechora quoting Rav Huna, discussed in an earlier post / article.

Then, we have this, later on Sanhedrin 49b:

רַב פָּפָּא סָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: אַף אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת. מִדְּקָא מִפְּלִיג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דַּוְקָא קָתָנֵי. וְאִידָּךְ, בִּפְלוּגְתָּא לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.

Rav Pappa the elder says in the name of Rav: The four types of the death penalty are also taught in order. This is apparent from the fact that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first order; conclude from it that it is taught in an exact order. The Gemara adds: And the other Sage, Rav Huna, does not include this mishna among those in which the order is significant, as he is not speaking of mishnayot where there is a dispute with regard to the correct order.

He cites Rav directly, so he would not be the typical fifth-generation Amora / student of Rava.

Here is what Rav Aharon Hyman has to write about Rav Pappa Sava:

“He is always citing Rav, such as in Kiddushin 71b, Sanhedrin 49b, and Menachot 33b. And in Yuchsin (from Rabbi Avraham Zacut), in the entry for Daru bar Papa, he brings an opinion that these are 11 sons are of Rav Pappa the Elder who lived in Rav’s time; and he writes that he heard form his father than he received from Zekeinim that this (recitation) helps against forgetfulness.

And in Sefer HaEshkol [hilchot sefer Torah?] he wrote that the 11 sons of Rav Pappa are not from a single Rav Pappa, but they were from different times. And he has a tradition that they (reciting their names) is helpful for driving away forgetfulness, and from there we have the custom of mentioning their names when we complete a tractate.”

I wrote about some of Rav Pappa’s sons in prior articles. I made the point that many of the ones I discussed were not the sons of the fifth-generation Amora, because interactions with other Amoraim demonstrated that they were third-generation Amoraim. See here:

That article did NOT survey all ten (or eleven) sons — only five of them. I had said that I might explore the other five later, but have not yet gotten around to it. Among those other five, maybe there are some sons of the famous fifth-generation Rav Pappa.

Another thing to notice is that, later in the sugya, the regular Rav Pappa appears.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אַף סֵדֶר יוֹמָא, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הָאֲמוּרִים עַל הַסֵּדֶר, אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

Rav Pappa says: The order of the service in the Temple on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, is also taught in its proper order, as we learned in a mishna (Yoma 60a): With regard to all actions performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur, which are stated in the Mishna, as in the Torah, in order, the halakha is: If the High Priest performed one action before another, i.e., if he diverged from the order that is written, it is as though he has done nothing.

וְאִידָּךְ, הָהוּא חוּמְרָא בְּעָלְמָא.

And the other Sage, Rav Huna, does not include this mishna because that is merely a stringency. Although a change in the order invalidates the Yom Kippur service, this is not due to the importance of some rites relative to others, but because this order was established by the Torah.

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: אַף סֵדֶר תָּמִיד, דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ ״זֶהוּ סֵדֶר תָּמִיד״. וְאִידָּךְ – הָהוּא לְמִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: The order of the daily offering, described in the mishna at the end of tractate Tamid (33b), is also essential; as it is taught with regard to it: This is the order of the daily offering, indicating that it should be performed in exactly that order. And the other Sage, Rav Huna, does not include this mishna, as that requirement is merely for the mitzva. In other words, it is preferable that the offering be sacrificed in that order, but it is not disqualified if one deviates from that order.

We can strongly guess that this is the normal, fifth-generation, Rav Pappa, because he is followed by his colleague and frequent disputant, Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua.

If so, we have the two Rav Pappas in the sugya, with a qualifier of Sava for the first. That qualifier might be prompted only, or in part, by the need to disambiguate from the later Rav Pappa. I mention this because, IIRC, there are other sugyot where Rav Pappa seems like a man out of time, and people say that this is Rav Pappa Sava. Does this perhaps lend credence to it — that it appears here to disambiguate, so where no disambiguation is needed, they will run with just “Rav Pappa”?