Rav Shizvi (article summary)

Here is my article from last week, on Rav Shizvi (flipdocs, HTML, paywalled Substack). Or, in this image form:

My quick summary of it.

(1) The sugya can be read here, in Gittin 55b. I won’t try to summarize the sugya, since you should just read it inside. At one point, though, we have:

אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: כָּרֵת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. אַחִיכוּ עֲלֵיהּ – כָּרֵת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִי אִיכָּא?! אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אָמַר מִילְּתָא, לָא תְּחוּכוּ עֲלַהּ; כָּרֵת שֶׁעַל יְדֵי דִּבְרֵיהֶן בָּאתָה לוֹ – אוֹקְמוּהָ רַבָּנַן בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיחַיַּיב עֲלַהּ.

Rav Sheizevi said: This means that he is liable to receive karet by rabbinic law. Those who heard this laughed at him. Is there such a thing as karet by rabbinic law? Rava said to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. What Rav Sheizevi means is karet that comes to him through the words of the Sages, who declared that the thief’s consecration is valid. It is the Sages who placed the animal in his possession, so that he would become liable for it.

אָמַר רָבָא: הָא וַודַּאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי – כִּי אוֹקְמוּהָ רַבָּנַן בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ, מִשְּׁעַת גְּנֵיבָה אוֹ מִשְּׁעַת הֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְגִיזּוֹתֶיהָ וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ. מַאי? הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִשְּׁעַת הֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר.

Rava said: Although I agree with Rav Sheizevi, this matter is certainly a dilemma for me. When the Sages placed the animal in his possession, did they do so from the time of the theft or from the time of the consecration? What is the difference between these possibilities? There is a difference with regard to its wool and with regard to its offspring. If the animal was placed in his possession from the time of the theft, the wool that it grows and the offspring that it births are his, and he is not required to return them to the animal’s owner. But if the animal becomes his only when he consecrates it, he is required to return them. What is the halakha? Rava then said, in answer to his own question: It stands to reason that the Sages placed the animal in his possession from the time of the consecration. This is so that the sinner not profit from his crime. Otherwise, the thief would benefit from the rabbinic decree that was instituted to increase his liability.

(2) It is nice to see Rava standing up for his challenger. He’s a mentch, just as he is in other sugyot.

(3) We can look into Rav Shizvi’s biography. He was from Rav Chisda’s town, and Rav Chisda predicted his birth, as the birth of a great man. He cites Rav Chisda on occasion. So, is there something Rav Chisda-esque in his karet midivreihem. In fact, last Sunday, we saw Rav Chisda interpret Rabbi Yossi’s gezel gamur as midivreihem.

(4) Yes! Rav Chisda has a fundamental dispute with Rabba, where he holds that rabbinic enactments have Biblical standing, so a Rabbinic mamzer can marry a Biblical mamzeret. So too here, you don’t have to appeal to hefker beit din hefker (for Rashi, for Rava), but their enactment would make this Biblical kodeshim bachutz, invoking a karet.