Rav Yehudai Gaon on Bava Metzia 19

I posted recently about a point R’ Elchanan made about the nature of Bava Metzia and the interjections by Rav Yehudai Gaon, which are post-Talmudic. You can read it here:

Today (though not giving the daf) he asked me again about whether manuscripts had anything to say about Rav Yehudai Gaon insertions, because again the style seemed off.

Indeed, Hamburg 165 makes two such notes. One is here, right at the top of amud bet. Immediately after

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: לָא קַשְׁיָא,

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: This is not difficult.

19b

הָא בְּבָרִיא, וְהָא בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע.

This halakha applies in a case of a gift given by a healthy person, and that halakha applies in a case of a gift given by a person on his deathbed.

there is a lengthy segment beginning with:

מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: הָא אָמַר תְּנוּ נוֹתְנִין – בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע, דְּבַר מִהְדַּר הוּא.

The Gemara explains: The mishna that teaches that if the giver says: Give it to its intended recipient, the finder must give it, applies in a case of a gift given by a person on his deathbed, who is capable of retracting his gift.

And it goes on for a while. Hamburg has:

starting with the marginal lashon shel rav mar Yehudai Gaon z”l and ending with ad kan, right before matkif leih rav Zevid. Here is a small image with that marginal note:

and it ends with an ad kan written above the line, right before Rav Zevid’s objection.

Almost immediately thereafter, right after Rav Zevid’s short question, is another interjection. Thus, right after:

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זְבִיד: וְהָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּיָיתֵקָאוֹת קָא תָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הָא וְהָא בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בֵּיהּ, וְהָא בִּבְרֵיהּ!

Rav Zevid objects to this distinction between the mishna and baraita, asking: But don’t this mishna and that baraita both teach halakhot with regard to wills? How can Rabbi Abba bar Memel explain that the baraita is referring to the gift of a healthy person? Rather, Rav Zevid said that both this mishna and that baraita are referring to the gift of a person on his deathbed, and nevertheless, the contradiction between them is not difficult; this mishna is referring to him, the giver himself, who authorizes the return of the will to its intended recipient, and that baraita is referring to a case where the giver died, and his son is the one who is authorizing the return of the will.

we have this interjection:

דְּקָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ נוֹתְנִין, בְּדִידֵיהּ דְּבַר מִהְדָּר הוּא, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִי נָמֵי יַהֲבַהּ לְאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא לֵית בַּהּ פְּסֵידָא, דְּקַמָּא וּבָתְרָא – בָּתְרָא זָכֵי, דְּהָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ מִקַּמָּא.

The Gemara explains: The mishna, which indicates that if the giver says: Give it to the recipient, the finder must give it to him, is referring to a case where the giver himself authorizes giving the will, as he is capable of retracting it. Therefore, there is no harm in giving the will to the recipient, as we say that even if in the meantime he already gave the property to another person, the latter recipient incurs no loss. This is because in a case where there are two wills, a first one and a last one, the recipient of the last one acquires the property, as the owner evidently retracted the first will.

which goes on for a while. According to Hachi Garsinan, Hamburg has the following, noting that the lengthy passage until tno rabbanan is from Rav Yehudai:

also ending with an ad kan.

It begins here:

and ends here: