Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba I (article preview)

Here is a preview of my upcoming article in the Jewish Link, for this coming Shabbos.

The Mishnah on Bava Batra 64b discusses someone who sells his house without explicitly mentioning in the contract that he’s also selling the cistern on the land. In such circumstances, the pit / cistern isn’t included in the sale. However, how can the seller access that cistern, as he’d have to traverse the buyer’s property? Fourth-generation Tanna, Rabbi Akiva maintains that the seller must turn around and purchase an access path, while the Chachamim (Sages, presumably fourth-generation Tannaitic colleagues) say that this isn’t necessary, because an access path was surely also withheld from the sale.

In our slightly erroneous printed gemara text (in Vilna, Venice and Pisaro), second-generation Rav Huna, who is Rav’s famous student who took over Sura academy after Rav’s death, quotes Rav that the we rule like the Sages. Meanwhile, Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba I, a second-generation student-colleague of Rav, cites Shmuel that the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva. Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba I then challenges Rav Huna’s account of Rav, for he often said before Rav that we rule like Rabbi Akiva, and Rav never spoke up to oppose the idea.

Here we’ll interject to point out the irregularity. Yes, Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba will occasionally quote Shmuel, but he is really a primary student of Rav, and later teaches many of Rav’s students! Why should he put forth a Shmuel-oriented position, more than, say, Rav Nachman or Rav Yehuda? Also, based on experience if not explicit words out of Rav’s mouth, he believes this is also Rav’s position, so he should say so up front, instead of only presenting it as Shmuel’s position. Neither problem is catastrophic, but it does seem slightly off.

An examination of some manuscripts resolves these difficulties. One manuscript (Oxford 369) doesn’t have Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba present Shmuel’s position in the first debate, substituting Rav Nachman. While this makes more sense, it’s a likely mistaken copy from a bit later in the sugya, where Rav Nachman speaks. Instead, the likely correct text is as appears in Florence 8-9, Hamburg 165, Munich 95, Paris 1337, Escorial, Vatican 115b, and the CUL: T-S AS 75.170 fragment in slight variation, namely איתמר רב הונא אמר רב הלכה כדברי חכמים ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי עקיבא. We might interpret this as Rav Huna only citing Rav, and Shmuel’s statement as a standalone. However, as I’ve suggested works in dozens of other sugyot, this a double citation. Rav Huna first cites Rav, and then cites Shmuel. It is to this (in the aforementioned manuscripts) that Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba objects to his contemporary Rav Huna, that he thought Rav also holds the Shmuel position.

Vatican 115b manuscript

Aside from the satisfaction that comes from scholastic interactions making more sense, and in having the correct Talmudic text, there’s a possible pragmatic halachic ramification. As we’ll see in a bit, Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba’s version of the Mishnah reverses the Tanna and attributed position from what we have: (Rabbi Akiva, need purchase) and (Sages, implicitly withheld), so that Rabbi Akiva holds its implicitly withheld. If Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba were the one who tells us that Shmuel rules like Rabbi Akiva, Shmuel now rules the reverse of what we thought!

Reversed Attributions

The sugya continues