Rav Yehuda's Sick-Visit

Gittin 16b relates sick visit involving Rav Yehuda visiting Rabba bar bar Chana:

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה חֲלַשׁ, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּה, לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״, אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין? אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין צְרִיכִין – מָה אִילּוּ יֹאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ״, מִי לָא מְהֵימְנִי?!

§ The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was weak, and Rav Yehuda and Rabba entered to visit him and to inquire about his well-being. While they were there, they raised a dilemma before him: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to issue this declaration? He said to them: They are not required to say it, for the following reason: What if they said: She was divorced in our presence, wouldn’t they be deemed credible? Therefore, they do not have to state the declaration.

אַדְּהָכִי, אֲתָא הָהוּא חַבְרָא, שְׁקַלָה לִשְׁרָגָא מִקַּמַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר: רַחֲמָנָא! אוֹ בְּטוּלָּךְ, אוֹ בְּטוּלָּא דְּבַר עֵשָׂו.

In the meantime, while they were sitting there, in came a certain Persian priest [ḥabbara] and took the lamp [sheragga] from before them. It was a Persian holiday on which the Persians prohibited the public from maintaining light outside their temple. Rabba, who was from Eretz Yisrael, said: Merciful One! Let us live either in Your shadow or in the shadow of the descendants of Esau, the Romans.

He was accompanied in this by Rabba (bar Nachmani). The person reading the gemara for Daf Yomi accidentally read it as “Rava”, and was swiftly corrected to read Rabba. After all, Rav Yehuda is second-generation, Rabba is third-generation, Rava is fourth-generation. Rav Yehuda died in 299 CE and Rava was born in 280 CE, so perhaps they could have met, but we wouldn’t have expected them to go together to visit the sick. They are not in the same social circle. Regardless, our texts explicitly say Rabba.

Except note the Hagahot Habach on the side:

He notes an alternate girsa, that it was Rav Yehuda and the Rabbanan, the Sages. And that this was the girsa of the Aruch. (The “earlier on Gittin 5a” is an explanation of the word לעיל in Rashi, and doesn’t pertain to Rabba / Rabbanan.)

The Vilna, Venice, and Soncino printings all have Rabba:

However, the Faro 1497 printing already has Rav Yehuda accompanied by the Rabbanan. Thus:

Munich 95 and Firkowitz 187 have Rabbanan as well. Vatican 127 omits who visited entirely.

and still other manuscripts have the Rabbanan as well.

I think it is clearly the Rabbanan, and some shorthand of veRabban’ got misinterpreted as Rabba. For instance, here is Vatican 140 with the shorthand.

Though, come to think about it, there might as well be haplography or dittography from the immediately preceding sugya, which ended with Rabbi (though shortened to R’) Yehuda and the Rabbanan - a different Rabbanan, and the beginning of the sugya which starts with “Rabba”.

The reason I strongly favor Rabbanan, besides the overwhelming manuscript evidence, is that this is how a Torah scholar is visited — by a delegation of Sages headed by a prominent Sage. That is, look for the phrase חֲלַשׁ, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ, and you will discover not just our sugya but also Arachin 20a, רבא חלש עול לגביה אביי ורבנן ויתבי וקאמרי. Admittedly, closer by, in Gittin 72a, וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ חֲלַשׁ עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא וְרַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב נַחְמָן בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה. But in such a case, Rav Nachman and Rav Huna are participants and deserve mention. We just have a mass of indetermined Sages who pose the question.