Rav Yosef's Coin (full article)

Here is an article from December 2022, about Rav Yosef’s Coin. I wrote it for Nedarim, but the coin comes up in today’s daf, Bava Metzia 29. The primary sugya is actually Bava Kamma 56b. Note that I’ve already made a summary post on Substack on this article, available here:

Also related to today’s daf, this is a dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef. And there is a Tosafot on today’s daf, quoting Rav Tzemach Gaon. And part of the discussion is who we rule like. There seems to be a klal hora’ah, decisive principle, of ruling like Rabba over Rav Yosef except in a small closed set of cases. Or maybe this is just a mnemonic. Maybe this is restricted to tractate Bava Batra, or maybe not. What about here, which isn’t one of the cases.

I wrote two articles, and have already summarized them on Substack, so here they are:

and

After this long introduction, the actual body of the article follows, in full:

---

Rav Yosef's Coin

Shimon was walking down Grayson Place last week, and saw a gold watch. It was engraved with the initials SM, a good siman. He took it home and announced the find on TeaneckShuls. However, that night, someone broke into his home and stole many items, including the gold watch. Must Shimon compensate the owner? After all, he was a watchman.

There are four types of watchmen: unpaid, paid / renter, and a borrower. Each level, corresponding to the degree of benefit, carries an appropriate degree of responsibility. An unpaid watchman is liable for negligence but exempt if it’s stolen or lost. A paid watchman is liable even if it’s stolen or lost, but not if it is taken by an armed robber. A borrower receives even greater benefit and responsibility. That’s how Chazal interpret spans of Shemot 22. Verses 6-8, discussing watching money or vessels, is taken to refer to unpaid watchmen; verses 9-12, discussing watching animals, is taken as paid / renter; verses 13-14, about borrowing said animals, refers to a borrower.

Shimon did the fellow a favor by picking up that watch, and isn’t receiving monetary compensation. Well, maybe. A Mishnah in our sugya (Nedarim 33a) discusses people who vow away benefit from one another, who can still return the other person’s lost article. And, in a place where the practice is to take payment for doing so, מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר, that benefit goes to the Temple treasury. But assume he doesn’t take compensation. Is Shimon like a paid or unpaid watchman?

Pumbeditan Dispute

This was a dispute among third-generation Pumpeditan Amoraim in Bava Kamma 56b. Rabba said he’s an unpaid watchman while Rav Yosef said he’s a paid watchman. The Talmudic Narrator explains Rabba’s reasoning, that he receives no benefit. For Rav Yosef, it’s because, while engaged in caring for the lost item, he’s exempt from giving bread to a pauper. As Rashi explains, העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה. Alternatively, continues the Narrator, some (people or texts¹) explain Rav Yosef otherwise, that since the All-Merciful obligated him against his will, he’s like a paid watchman. Despite ambiguous wording, I’d posit these explanations aren’t direct quotations from Rabba and Rav Yosef. (Another framing could be: does Heavenly reward for performing an obligatory mitzvah turn him into a paid watchman, or is it simply a good deed as an unpaid watchman regularly performs?)

Oxford: Heb. b. 10/27–28 fragment, Bava Kamma 56b

Rabba and Rav Yosef challenge each other with proofs from braytot, and each offers answers. Then fourth-generation Abaye, who studied both from Rabba (his uncle) and Rav Yosef, challenges Rabba from a statement by (Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba citing) Rabbi Yochanan (second-generation Amora, Israel) that הטוען טענת גנב באבידה, one who falsely claims a lost item he was watching was stolen pays double, thus showing such a claim exempts the watchman. Rav Yosef replies that the גנב claim was armed robbery. There’s pushback, but Rav Yosef successfully defends himself.

I’m not entirely persuaded by this reinterpretation of Rabbi Yochanan. Besides being a stretch from the plain import of ganav and taanat ganav, we don’t see any such reinterpretation in Yerushalmi Shevuot 6:5 and (primarily) 8:3, when Rabbi Yochanan makes the statement. And it appears in a corpus of Rabbi Yochanan’s statements about such taanat ganav oaths, including where one (an unpaid watchman) first claimed / swore it was lost, and then claimed / swore it was stolen. Given this context, it’s awkward to give ganav claims divergent meanings. Finally, in Bava Kamma 106b, where Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba’s citation of Rabbi Yochanan primarily appears (paralleled by Yerushalmi Shevuot 8:3), the Biblical source text is the swearing, על כל אבדה, where alongside the plain meaning of monetary loss, it’s taken as watching a lost article. That oath is in the first, unpaid watchman verse span, something also evident from the ensuing exchange with Rabbi Abba bar Mamal.

Applied to Nedarim

In our sugya (Nedarim 33b), Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi argue about whether the Mishnah dealt with the finder vowing he won’t benefit from the loser, or vice versa. (The parallel Yerushalmi has the loser and finder mutually vowing off benefit.) What motivates each Amora? Aside from the gemara’s analysis, the Mishnah wouldn’t need to say the finder can return the item if there weren’t a hava amina that he couldn’t, because the loser benefits by getting his item back. And the Mishnah wouldn’t discuss the finder’s reward having to go to the Temple Treasury, if the finder were able to benefit from the loser. One could say the Mishnah is considering each case in turn; or is only talking about the reward aspect, so that the fellow will return the item but not collect the reward.

The Talmudic Narrator explains Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi’s dispute as hinging on פְּרוּטָה דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, the slight benefit the finder has by avoiding giving charity. (“Bread” has become “coin”, perhaps to emphasize the monetary aspect; but note that ריפתא and פרוטה are sound-permutations of one another.) This sugya from the Talmudic Narrator is later than Bava Kamma 56b, not only because it’s anonymous rather than words of named Amoraim, but because it depends on ideas / conclusions from Bava Kamma 56b, and indeed only the first of the Talmudic Narrator’s explanations of one disputant, Rav Yosef.

Knowing Rav Yosef?

Would Rabbi Ammi or Rabbi Assi know about פְּרוּטָה דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, which seems like a radical innovation? Both were third-generation Amoraim born in Bavel and moved to Israel, where they eventually studied under Rabbi Yochanan in Teveria. Rabbi Ammi lived in Bavel in his youth and studied under (first-generation) Rav, in Sura, then traveled to Israel where he studied from Rabbi Chanina and then Rabbi Yochanan. He often cites Rav but never Shmuel. Meanwhile, Rabbi Assi studied under Shmuel in Bavel (Yerushalmi Eruvin 6:8) but his primary teacher was Rabbi Yochanan in Israel. While everyone’s third-generation, Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi seems on the early side, having interacted with Rav and Shmuel when in Bavel, and those might not be exposed to Rav Yosef’s idea if they’re already operating in another country.

This is a general question, when saying X and Y were arguing on an idea elaborated upon by A and B of a later generation. The assumption is that the idea was known, but not enunciated until later. Also, Rav Hyman has evidence of direct interaction of Rav Nachman bar Yaakov and Rabbi Ammi (Berachot 47b; in countering Tosafot who suggest based on differing titles that these were distinct people). Hyman suggests that, like others of his generation, Rabbi Ammi occasionally visited Bavel after making aliyah.

Regardless, I’d expect Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi to reflect the position of their teacher, Rabbi Yochanan. This gets back to the question of whether Rabbi Yochanan’s statement should indeed be reinterpreted to accord with Rav Yosef. Another question is if Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi conceptually pair up with Rabba and Rav Yosef, or if (as per Ran) they argue within Rav Yosef, that despite his status as a paid watchman, Rav Yosef’s coin may be sufficiently infrequent that it wouldn’t qualify as a benefit for vows. 

1. Tangentially, I say איכא דמפרשי הכי refers to some texts rather than people because I can find one manuscript which entirely omits the first explanation for Rav Yosef, jumping directly into the second explanation.