Rav Yehuda called Rabbi Yehuda?
A curious title in yesterday’s daf, which is Chullin 62a:
Why Rabbi Yehuda and not Rav Yehuda? After all, Rechava is the the father of two prominent fourth-generation Amoraim of Pumbedita: Avimi and Eifa. That means that he is third-generation, and his rebbe muvhak is Rav Yehuda, who established Pumbedita academy. Surely that is who his is citing! Also, see my discussion of the word mishum. If citing a Tanna, we should use mishum instead of amar.
I would give the obvious answer that this is a scribal error, and some sofer along the way wrote Rabbi instead of Rav, or even that it was first contracted from Rav to R’ and then wrongly expanded from R’ to Rabbi. This is a known phenomenon. However, that is not the route Tosafot take. Rather:
That is, Tosafot say that this amar Rechava amar Rabbi Yehuda refers to the plain Rav Yehuda (bar Yechezkel, the second-generation Amora), and because Rav Yehuda was Rachava’s rabbo muvhak, primary teacher, he referred to him as “Rabbi”.
They note an approach others take, that Rechava was unsure whether he had heard from Rabbi Yehuda the Tanna (presumably indirectly) or from Rav Yehuda the Amora. And that that is what leads to the common expression “he delved and learned Torah-reports (shmayta) from the mouth of his teacher, like Rechava of Pumbedita, for Rechava quoted R’ Yehuda that הַר הַבַּיִת סְטָיו כָּפוּל הָיָה…” Tosafot reject this because there is a different expression applied to others (Rav Yehuda) that even a safek in who said it he is gores, like Rav Yehuda, perhaps in the name of Rav and perhaps in the name of Shmuel. Also, they should have not only quoted הַר הַבַּיִת סְטָיו כָּפוּל הָיָה but also our sugya. Rather, that expression just means that he uses his teacher’s language.
I could understand that alternative approach (of doubt) more if he quoted R’ Yehuda, rather than Rabbi Yehuda. But of course, they were not saying “Resh Chupchik Yehuda” in speech, so that is not plausible. I suppose the suggestion is that the title “Rabbi” is ambiguous enough, since some Amoraim (say, of the Land of Israel, those who received semicha there) received it. Regardless, Tosafot reject it.
Going back to my suggestion, that we should cross out the yud of Rabbi and that an errant scribe is at fault, here are the printings and manuscripts.
Vilna printing has the full Rabbi Yehuda. Soncino and Venice printings have R’ Yehuda, which is ambiguous.
Hamburg have Rav Yehuda, either bare or later when cited by Rechava.
Munich has Rava quoting the ambiguous R’ Yehuda. The later one is irrelevant perhaps because throughout we have Rav Yehuda in this sugya saying things (though this is a related thing about the torin shel rechava — maybe see more later).
Finally, the various Vatican manuscripts, and one fragment, have R’ Yehuda throughout, which tells us nothing.
Why don’t Tosafot just emend the text? A few thoughts, arguing in the other direction.
Which of the baalei Tosafot are we dealing with. Rabbeinu Tam was famously against textual emendation, and he wrote a Sefer HaYashar to champion many difficult readings in the gemara, to show why the difficult reading was correct and original. In this respect, he was deeply opposed to Rivam and Rashbam who were quite quick on the draw to proposed emendations.
This is not the only place where this occurs, Rechava quoting Rabbi Yehuda. In his entry on Rechava, Rav Aharon Hyman writes:
ומצינו רחבה אמר רבי יהודה כברכות יח. לג:, שבת סג., פסחים יג:, ביצה יא., יומא עב., מנחות לג:, לט:, חולין סב., ובשבת מ: מפרש דברי רב יהודה.
At least I thought so. This is an OCR error where the original Toledot Tannaim veAmoraim has Rechava quoting Rav Yehuda. Still, drilling down into some of these instance, we see Rabbi Yehuda being quoting in that version of the text.
Separately, this is an instance of an eponymic attribution, that Rechava eventually talks about the birds of Rechava. These are not his own birds, but birds of a specific type.
It might be a case of birds of a feather flocking together. Or rather, Rechava wants to talk about birds of Rechava which is why he jumps at the chance of relating this Rav Yehuda statement. Or, it might be random chance. Alternatively, maybe it really was never him saying it — see the two statements, with plain Rav Yehuda speaking — and this was not pseudepigraphic attribution (the redactors making up the name), but rather a scribe getting confused by the later appearance of Rechava in the statement, and duplicated the word amar.
Finally, that there are two statements, and the latter is attributed to plain Rav Yehuda, and explaining that these are the very doves of Rechava from earlier might make someone think that the speakers must be different. That would be Rav Yehuda analyzing or referring to a statement of Rabbi Yehuda (as quoted by Rechava), which in turn accounts for the change of Rav Yehuda to Rabbi Yehuda in the first statement.