Rav Yehudai Gaon's Interjections in Bava Metzia
The person who gave yesterday’s daf at Rinat (Bava Metzia 14, but maybe was referencing comments on 13) quoted Rabbi Shalom Rosner that the Rishonim say parts of these gemaras in Bava Metzia are actually commentaries from Rav Yehudai Gaon that were included in the main text of our gemara. Rabbi Rosner had mentioned the stylistic aspect, namely the lengthy overexplaining; R’ Elchanan, the maggid shiur at Rinat, also mentioned the strangeness in which a brayta is cited as a tiyuvta, refutation, of two sides of an Amoraic dispute, but one half of the brayta is an attack on one side and a proof for the other side, and the other half is the flip.
I’ve addressed Rav Yehudai Gaon insertions in the past, and within Bava Metzia have mentioned how the beginning of the masechet, until Rabbi Chiyya says, is really Stammaitic. (See here and then here on Substack.)
So now I decided to track down what various Rishonim say on this. Here is my Sefaria search.
I see within the Shita Mekubetzet about the nature of the masechet, and how a sement (kol halashon hazeh) up to Tnei Rabbi Chiyya on 3a is from Rav Yehudai Gaon, and that there are nuschaot that don’t have it.
בין לרבנן בין לרבי יוסי. פירוש כל הלשון הזה עד תנא רבי חייא אינו מעיקר הגמרא אלא מלשון רב יהודאי גאון והביאוה ספרי בעיקר הגמרא והרבה יש כיוצא בו במסכתא זו ואיכא נוסחי דלא גריס ליה אבל רש"י גריס ליה
and on the more recent daf, I see that the Rashba says this about the gemara on 13b. The gemara reads:
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שְׁטָרי שֶׁיֵּשׁ (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. וְשֶׁאֵין (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים.
The baraita continues: As Rabbi Meir would say: With promissory notes that include a property guarantee, one can collect the debt from liened property; but with those that do not include a property guarantee, one collects the debt only from unsold property. And the Rabbis say: With both this type and that type of promissory note, one can collect the debt from liened property.
Then, continues at length, starting with :
תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, דְּאָמַר: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְקָאָמַר: בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא.
This is a conclusive refutation of one element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that according to Rabbi Meir, with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee one can collect a debt neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. And Rabbi Elazar also says that according to both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, we do not suspect that there is collusion between the debtor and the creditor.
and the Rashba writes:
שהיה ר' מאיר אומר שטר שיש בו אחריות נכסים, גובה מנכסים משועבדים, ושאין בו אחריות נכסים, גובה מנכסים בני חורין, וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה גובה מנכסים משועבדים. עד כאן גרסת הספרים ותו לא. ויש ספרים שכתוב בהם מפורש רב יהודאי גאון ז"ל תוספת לשון כך, תיובתא דר' אלעזר בחדא, דאמר לר' מאיר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים אינו גובה לא מנכסים משועבדים ולא מנכסים בני חורין, ואמרינן בין לר' מאיר בין לרבן לקנוניא לא חיישינן, ובהך ברייתא קתני שטר שאין בו אחריות וכו',
and so on. So he is saying that this was originally a commentary, but got incorporated into the text. And further, I think he goes on to argue with it.
I don’t see any manuscripts on the Hachi Garsinan website that lack the text in question. However, in Vatican 115a, the text is introduced with the word פירוש, meaning that it is a commentary interjected in the text.
I wonder if we could collect all these Yehudai Gaon insertions and train a model to distinguish it from typical Stammaic discourse (which is also anonymous and Aramaic). There might be certain individual words, or bigrams or trigrams, though tiyuvta presumably appears elsewhere, or complexity and density of thought vs. amount of elaboration.