Rav Sheshet Feigns Ignorance

In Shevuot 45, there’s a discussion of Shmuel’s statement about a worker and boss — that the hiring must have been done with witnesses, for the worker to be able to swear and collect. Otherwise, mitoch — since the boss could have denied the hiring, he’s believed when he said he hired but already paid. Several other Amoraim sign on to this statement — Rav Nachman had quoted Shmuel; someone else quoted Rav; and Rabbi Yitzchak had quoted Rabbi Yochanan, though I had some issue with this. I wrote an article on the topic, which can be read here.

Then, we have this, on Shevuot 45b:

קָרֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״וַיָּשֶׂם דָּוִד אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּלִבּוֹ״. דְּאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְרַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּנֵי מָר מִידֵּי בְּשָׂכִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, תְּנֵינָא: שָׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ – נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. כֵּיצַד – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: ״שְׂכַרְתַּנִי וְלֹא נָתַתָּ לִי שְׂכָרִי״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרֶךָ״; אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ: ״שְׁתַּיִם קָצַצְתָּ לִי״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא קָצַצְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא אֶחָת״ – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

§ Rami bar Ḥama would cite this verse about Rav Sheshet: “And David laid up these words in his heart” (I Samuel 21:13), as Rav Sheshet took it upon himself to find sources that would support or contradict the statements of Rav and Shmuel. As it is recounted that Rav Sheshet encountered Rabba bar Shmuel and said to him: Does the Master teach any halakhot about a hired worker? Rabba bar Shmuel said to him: Yes, I teach this baraita (Tosefta 6:1): A hired worker within his time for receiving wages takes an oath and receives payment. How so? This applies in a case when the worker said to the employer: You hired me but did not give me my wages, and the other, the employer, says: I hired you and gave you your wages. But if the hired worker said to him: You fixed two coins as my payment, and the other, the employer, says: I fixed only one coin as your payment, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, who must provide witnesses to testify that the wage was the greater sum.

הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא בִּרְאָיָה הָוֵי – רֵישָׁא בְּלֹא רְאָיָה.

Rav Sheshet suggested: Since the latter clause addresses a case in which proof, witness testimony, is required, the first clause must address a case in which proof is not required. This contradicts the statements of Rav and Shmuel above that the worker may take an oath and receive payment only when he has witnesses that this person hired him.

What is the meaning of fourth-generation Rami bar Chama applying that particular verse to third-generation Rav Sheshet? The explanation in the above translation stemming from Rav Steinsaltz, as well as the explanation of Artscroll, faithfully follows the understanding of Rashi and Ri Megash.

That is, וַיָּשֶׂם דָּוִד אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּלִבּוֹ, (really bilvavo), “And David laid up these words in his heart” refers to Rav Sheshet’s dedication. To put my spin on it, even though this statement was said by greats of prior Amoraic generations like Rav, Shmuel, and Rabbi Yochanan, he took it upon himself to investigate whether this was really so. Was there some brayta that supported or attacked it.

Along with this explanation would be the attribution of the words הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא בִּרְאָיָה הָוֵי – רֵישָׁא בְּלֹא רְאָיָה. Both Rav Steinsaltz and Artscroll attribute this to Rav Sheshet. Looking at the plain words of the sugya, I would have thought that this was a continuation of Rabba bar Shmuel. He was asked if anything Tannaitic was pertinent to this question, so he cited a brayta and explained how it was pertinent. It seems strange to attribute that portion to Rav Sheshet, except that the pasuk shows how he’s searching for a source to support or undermine, so we should expect Rav Sheshet to provide the reasoning somewhere in the sugya.

I believe there’s a stronger alternative to this read, though it goes against Rashi and Ri meGash.

First, we need to read pasuk in I Shmuel 21:13 in context. David had just fled Shaul. He came to the court of King Achish of Gat. People there said to the king:

Why, that’s David, king of the land! That’s the one of whom they sing as they dance:
Saul has slain his thousands;
David, his tens of thousands.”

David was afraid for his life because of this. That is what the pasuk means in context:

וַיָּ֧שֶׂם דָּוִ֛ד אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה בִּלְבָב֑וֹ וַיִּרָ֣א מְאֹ֔ד מִפְּנֵ֖י אָכִ֥ישׁ מֶלֶךְ־גַּֽת׃

These words worried David and he became very much afraid of King Achish of Gath.

So, what did David do when he took it to heart? The following context is that he feigned madness:

וַיְשַׁנּ֤וֹ אֶת־טַעְמוֹ֙ בְּעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם וַיִּתְהֹלֵ֖ל בְּיָדָ֑ם וַיְתָו֙ עַל־דַּלְת֣וֹת הַשַּׁ֔עַר וַיּ֥וֹרֶד רִיר֖וֹ אֶל־זְקָנֽוֹ׃ {ס}

So he concealed his good sense from them; he feigned madness for their benefit.^-f He scratched marks on the doors of the gate and let his saliva run down his beard.

Achish then sent away the madman.

OK, fine, but if that is the meaning, then why would Rami bar Chama apply this to Rav Sheshet?

We need two more details. First, while Rabba bar Shmuel often recites braytot, he quotes third-generation Rav Chisda. I’d say that may place him in the fourth scholastic generation. Second, when the contemporaries, Rav Chisda and Rav Sheshet, would meet, they would each tremble about their ensuing debate. Rav Chisda would tremble because of Rav Sheshet’s great mastery of braytot, while Rav Sheshet would tremble at Rav Chisda’s tremendous analytical ability.

Rami bar Chama was Rav Chisda-affiliated, being his student and son-in-law. If Rabba bar Shmuel quoted Rav Chisda, perhaps he is also Rav Chisda-affiliated.

Now, Rav Sheshet is entering enemy territory. And he approaches their brayta expert, Rabba bar Shmuel, to ask him if he knows any relevant braytot and their import. In doing so, he calls Rabba bar Shmuel “Mar”. However, shouldn’t an expert like Rav Sheshet already know this brayta?!

That is why Rami bar Chama quotes that verse from sefer Shmuel. He is saying that, just as David HaMelech concealed his good sense, Rav Sheshet concealed his brayta sense, so that people may have thought him ignorant.

If so, we can readily say that the explanation was also proffered by Rabba bar Shmuel, rather than by Rav Sheshet.