Rav Zevid II's variant, and Hai Gaon's analysis
In yesterday’s daf, Rav Zevid appeared in strange fashion:
וְתַרְנְגוֹל לָבָן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״תַּרְנְגוֹל לְמִי״ — מוּתָּר לִמְכּוֹר לוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל לָבָן, ״תַּרְנְגוֹל לָבָן לְמִי״ — אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר לוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל לָבָן.
§ The mishna teaches: And it is prohibited to sell a white rooster to a gentile. Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Zevid says the following ruling; and there are those who teach merely that Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says it. If a gentile says: Who has a rooster, without specifying any particular type, it is permitted to sell him a white rooster. But if he says: Who has a white rooster, it is prohibited to sell him a white rooster.
As the maggid shiur at the daf chaburah mentioned, what is happening here? Rav Zevid is kind of late to be quoted by Rabbi Zeira in this fashion. To expand, Rav Zevid I was a third-generation student of Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. Rav Zevid II was a fifth-generation student of Rava.
While we could try to make this work, with a fourth-generation Rabbi Zeira II, we should not jump to this. After all, this is just the printed version. The manuscripts say something very different.
I find Paris 1337 most convincing. It reads:
That is, one version is Rabbi Yona quotes Rabbi Zeira. And, separately, Rav Zevid matni / taught an alternate version, where it was just Rabbi Zeira said. The text of ikka de’amrei is not present, since it is Rav Zevid who introduces the variant.
From elsewhere and often, we know that Rav Zevid II was often matni an alternative text of the gemara. This resolves the problem, since no one is quoting the late Amora Rav Zevid II.
Munich 95 is messier. It has, at the end of one line:
and at the start of the next line:
So, it is R’ Yona and Rav Zevid who teach / matni. And alternative, ikka de’amrei, it is R’ Yona and R’ Zeira.
This seems like a strange placement and usage of the word matni. I think the scribe of Munich 95 misinterpreted a text like Paris 1337, and thought that the alternation was between Rabbi Zeira with a zayin and Rav Zevid with a zayin. But, this ignores Rav Zevid’s constant role of matni in offering alternative texts. Paris 1337 just makes sense, while this does not and looks like a corruption.
Finally, we have the JTS 15 manuscript, with something fascinating. It reads:
So it seems to only have the first version, not the Rav Zevid version. Yet, this scribe, or some scribe on the page, is fully aware of the Rav Zevid version. Zooming in to that second underlined line, take a gander at this:
That is, right about the end of the words Rabbi Zeira, over the line, is the text with the alternate girsa. That text is apparently, according to Hachi Garsinan transcribers who have eyes like hawks, [[ורב זביד מתני אמ' ר' יונה אמ' |¦ר'¦| זירא]]
In another marginal note just off to the side of the underlined Rabbi Yonah, we have the following:
It is again hard to make out this text, and it is complicated because it is in the bottom left corner of the page, where something caught that corner and ripped it. But the folks at Hachi Garsinan transcribed it partially for us. Thus:
[*לרב האיי מצאתי ... נסים אמוראי ... כולהו רבנן גרש'.. הכי אמ' יונה ... זביד מתני אמ'.. זורא ושמעי' ... חד סמיך וק.. ולא קר?י?.. קורא ובה..*]
Dr. Uziel Fuchs, on academia.org, quotes Dr. Abrahamson’s filling in of the gaps:
He adds:
ההשלמות על פי קריאותיו של אברסמון, בהערותיו לכתב היד עמ' עז ובעיקר בתיקוניו בעמוד 248 . על מקורם של דברי רב האיי ב"כתיבת רב נסים" ודיון בשאלה מיהו רב נסים זה, ראה אברמסון, עבודה זרה, מבוא עמ' 26 . הקשרה של התשובה אינו ברור, נראה שנכתבה כתשובה (כדברי אברמסון, שם), אבל אפשר שנכתבה כחלק מפירושו של רה"ג למסכת.
Regardless, Rav Hai Gaon channels this text, which he ascribes to all the Sages*, in which [R’] Yona amar R’ Zora appears both in the primary variant and in Rav Zevid’s variant; and the distinction between the two internal variants is whether it is Rabbi Yonah, with semicha, and plain Yonah, who lacks semicha.
(* which he ascribes to all the Sages* — wild guess, but could אמוראי ... כולהו רבנן גרש mean that all the Oral Speakers of the Sages, when the relate the Gemara aloud, are gores as follows?)
This version and explanation, in which the only difference is the semicha of Yonah, seems somewhat unlikely to me. I would observe that אמ׳ abbreviated appears in multiple texts, including JTS 15. And, looking at Paris 1337, but this time zooming in a bit:
This word, appearing repeatedly, is NOT אמר, said. Rather, it is an abbreviated אמ׳ adjoined to an ר׳. The difference, and error, seems entirely orthographic, not oral. As such, while these two girsaot could indeed arise, it would not be the girsa variant put forth by Rav Zevid II, an Amora. Rather, the length of the tradition chain, with or without Rabbi Yonah, would be a fine variant.