Rav Yosef's Pattern of Support
Continuing on Kiddushin 46a,
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב: לָא תֵּיזְלוּ בָּתַר אִיפְּכָא. יָכֵול לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי לְכוּ: כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיתָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִישׁוּת. פִּיתָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִישׁוּת קְרָא בָּעֵי? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לוֹמַר שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם קְנָס כִּמְפוּתָּה.
Rav said to those who tried to offer support for his opinion: Do not go after the opposite, i.e., do not cite a proof from a source that could be understood in the opposite manner. Rav Asi can answer your argument by claiming that the baraita is referring to a case where he initially seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Their initial act of intercourse was not performed in order to effect betrothal, so they are not betrothed. The Gemara questions this: In the case of a seduction that is not for the sake of marriage, is a verse required to teach that she can refuse to marry him? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It serves to say that if she refuses to marry him despite her father’s consent to the match, the seducer nevertheless pays the fine like a standard case of a seduced woman. The obligation to pay the fine is not only for a case where her father refuses to let her marry the seducer.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is much later than Rav and Rav Asi in the first generation, or even Rav’s son or student who went to defend Rav. That is, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is a student of Rava, so is fifth-generation.
How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak relate to the above? There are comments by Tosafot. Note that even though Tosafot talk about girsaot with “Rav Nachman”, who we might think is stam Rav Nachman, who is third-generation Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, I am fairly confident that that is just shorthand. We find a manuscript supporting what Tosafot describe (with ela), but it also has Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.
Anyway, here is what Tosafot say:
אמר רב יוסף אי הכי - בניחותא וסייעתא היא וכן היה רב יוסף רגיל לומר כדאמרינן בפרק במה מדליקין (שבת דף כח.) א"ה היינו דמתרגמינן ססגונא א"ל אביי צריכה קידושין כו' ולא תסייעיה מהא וי"מ דר"נ בא ליישב לעולם אימא לך שפיתה לשם אישות וגרסי' אלא אמר ר"נ ולא תימא דתיקשי לרב אסי דאמר אביה ולא היא דהא דקאמר הכא דיכולה למאן אינו ר"ל דלא תהא אשתו כיון דרוצה אביה אינה יכולה לעכב אלא ר"ל שמשלם קנס כמפותה כלומר כדין שאר מפותות שהאב ממאן כדפי' בקונטרס ופריך רב יוסף בתמיה אי הכי כו':
Some say that Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) comes to answer that really, I’ll tell you that he did seduce her for the sake of matrimony, and they are gores as follows: Ela amar Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak).
The manuscript with ela amar Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is Oxford 367. Alas, we don’t have images of it, just the text.
What might impact how we understand Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak intends to do is how Rav Yosef responds to him, within the larger discourse structure. For indeed, that is the dibur hamatchil in Tosafot, and how the gemara continues:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דִּתְנֵינָא: ״מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״ – שֶׁצְּרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְאִם פִּיתָּהּ לְשׁוּם אִישׁוּת, קִידּוּשִׁין לְמָה לִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: צְרִיכָה קִידּוּשִׁין לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ.
Rav Yosef said to him: If so, if the baraita is discussing a case where intercourse was not performed to effect betrothal, this is what we learned in a baraita with regard to a seduced woman: “He shall pay a dowry for her to be his wife” (Exodus 22:15). This teaches that she requires betrothal from him. And if the verse is speaking of one who seduced her for the sake of marriage, why do I need betrothal? The act of intercourse can serve as the betrothal. Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where he seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Abaye said to him: Even if he seduced her for the sake of marriage, she requires an additional betrothal with her father’s consent, since she is a minor and became betrothed without it.
The words iy hachi, if so, usually conveys an attack. Yet iy hachi, haynu de-taneina is best understood as a support. Tosafot explain (above) בניחותא וסייעתא, not as an attack, and as a support. And, וכן היה רב יוסף רגיל לומר, this is Rav Yosef’s general pattern. We see in Bameh Madlikin, Shabbat 28a:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אַבָּא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי מִכְסָאוֹת הָיוּ, אֶחָד שֶׁל עוֹרוֹת אֵילִים מְאָדָּמִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁל עוֹרוֹת תְּחָשִׁים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: מִכְסֶה אֶחָד הָיָה, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִין תְּלָא אִילָן. וְהָא תְּלָא אִילָן טָמֵא הוּא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: כְּמִין תְּלָא אִילָן הוּא, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גְּווֹנִין הַרְבֵּה, וְלֹא תְּלָא אִילָן. דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם טָמֵא, וְהָכָא טָהוֹר. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ דִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן ״סָסְגּוֹנָא״, שֶׁשָּׂשׂ בִּגְווֹנִין הַרְבֵּה.
Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of the hides of teḥashim. Rabbi Neḥemya says: There was only one covering for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams’ hides and half from the hides of teḥashim. And teḥashim were similar to the species of undomesticated animals called tela ilan. The Gemara asks: But isn’t a tela ilan a non-kosher creature? The Gemara emends this statement: This is what Rabbi Neḥemya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals. Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate the word taḥash as sasgona, which means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim].
One other example does not necessarily a pattern make. But here are a bunch of them, for Rav Yosef. (There are others for other Amoraim.)
The Shabbat examples are support. Eruvin is also a support. Kiddushin 46a is our sugya. However, Kiddushin 12a is an attack.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is Rava’s student, thus fifth-generation. What is third-generation Rav Yosef doing supporting him?
In fact, this isn’t a problem. Elsewhere we see that Abaye and Rava had yeshivot in Pumbedita, even in Rav Yosef’s lifetime.