Rava and King Shapur II
In my old Jewish Link article I posted earlier today, I argued that in s specific gemara, the King Shapur in play was King Shapur II, and it was Rava speaking. That is, in Bava Batra 115, we read:
קָרָא עָלָיו אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״אֵלֶּה בְנֵי שֵׂעִיר הַחֹרִי יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ: לוֹטָן וְשׁוֹבָל וְצִבְעוֹן וַעֲנָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי צִבְעוֹן, וְאַיָּה וַעֲנָה״! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּא צִבְעוֹן עַל אִמּוֹ, וְהוֹלִיד עֲנָה.
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai recited this verse about him: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah” (Genesis 36:20), and it is written: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah, so that he was both Anah’s father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir’s sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees’ assertion.
וְדִלְמָא תְּרֵי עֲנָה הֲווֹ! אָמַר רַבָּה: אָמֵינָא מִלְּתָא דְּלָא אַמְרַהּ שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא; וּמַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אָמֵינָא מִלְּתָא דְּלָא אַמְרַהּ שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא; וּמַנּוּ? רַבָּה. אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא עֲנָה״ – הוּא עֲנָה דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא.
The Gemara interrupts the recounting of the baraita and questions Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s inference: But perhaps there were two people named Anah, so that one Anah was Zibeon’s son, and the other his brother? Rabba said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be a moniker for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some state a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? He is Rabba. The verse goes on to state: “This is Anah” (Genesis 36:24), indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially, earlier in the verse. Accordingly, there was only one Anah, who was both Zibeon’s brother and Zibeon’s son.
This also appears in Pesachim 54a:
דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת, הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: עֲנָה פָּסוּל הָיָה, לְפִיכָךְ הֵבִיא פְּסוּל לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵלֶּה בְנֵי שֵׂעִיר הַחֹרִי״, וּכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה בְנֵי צִבְעוֹן וְאַיָּה וַעֲנָה״! אֶלָּא, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּא צִבְעוֹן עַל אִמּוֹ וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה עֲנָה.
The interpreters of Torah symbolism [ḥamurot] would say: Anah was the product of an incestuous relationship, and as a result he was spiritually unfit to produce offspring. Therefore, he brought an example of unfitness, i.e., an animal physically unfit to produce offspring, into the world, as it is stated: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, and Shoval, and Zibeon, and Anah” (Genesis 36:20). And it is also stated: “And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). One verse describes both Anah and Zibeon as sons of Seir, meaning that they are brothers, while the other verse describes Anah as Zibeon’s son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon cohabited with his mother, the wife of Seir, and fathered Anah from her. He is called Seir’s son although in fact he was the offspring of Seir’s son and Seir’s wife.
וְדִילְמָא תְּרֵי עֲנָה הֲווֹ?! אָמַר רָבָא: אָמֵינָא מִילְּתָא דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא לָא אַמְרַהּ, וּמַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אָמֵינָא מִילְּתָא דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא לָא אַמְרַהּ, וּמַנּוּ? רָבָא; אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא עֲנָה״ — הוּא עֲנָה דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא.
The Gemara asks: And perhaps there were two people named Anah, one the son of Zibeon and the other the son of Seir? Rava said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be an epithet for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some say a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is he that Rav Pappa is referring to by the epithet King Shapur? He is Rava. The verse said: “This is Anah who found the mules,” indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially in the earlier verse.
Only one of these sugyot is the primary sugya in which Rava or Rabba (or, of course, Rav Pappa) spoke, and I think that Pesachim is primary. The point was to show that Tzivon was illegitimate and produced something illegitimate, namely the “mules” he “found” in the wilderness.
What did I write in that article about King Shapur?
Well, it was primarily about King Shapur I, but in our sugya, I argued that it should be King Shapur II. To quote myself in the relevant portion…
Specifically, in Pesachim 54a, there is a Biblical interpretation
by Rabban Yochanan b. Zakkai[Edit: this was an error, since that only appears in Bava Batra] that, in the genealogical account in Bereishit 36, Anah of verse 20 is the same Anah as in verse 24, even though the first verse has Anah as Tzivon’s brother and the latter as his son. The implication is that incest was at play. As support for this folding of Biblical personalities, we see a derasha from an Amora:וְדִילְמָא תְּרֵי עֲנָה הֲווֹ?! אָמַר רָבָא: אָמֵינָא מִילְּתָא דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא לָא אַמְרַהּ, וּמַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אָמֵינָא מִילְּתָא דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא לָא אַמְרַהּ, וּמַנּוּ? רָבָא; אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא עֲנָה״ — הוּא עֲנָה דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא.
Thus, “he is Anah” in the latter verse implies that he is the same Anah as before. In the first version of this statement, it is Rava who says it, introducing the derasha with, “I will tell you something that even King Shapur hasn’t said. The gemara interjects that King Shapur obviously isn’t the Persian king, but refers to Shmuel. Presumably this is because King Shapur was not Jewish, and didn’t interpret Biblical texts. In the second version of the statement, it is Rav Pappa who makes the statement, and by King Shapur, he means his primary teacher, Rava. (In the parallel sugya in Bava Batra 115b, Rabba is substituted for Rava in both the first and second versions, but Rava makes more sense. See the interactions between Rava and Shapur II / his household in Taanit 24b and Chagiga 5b.)
Rashi explains that Rava called Shmuel this name because Shmuel was an expert in financial law (dinim) and the halacha is like him in such laws, like the laws which are established when uttered by the king. He adds that Shapur of the Persian kings was in Rava’s days.
It seems odd that Rava, a fourth-generation Amora who was close to King Shapur II, would refer to Shmuel, a first generation Amora who was close to King Shapur I, by the name “King Shapur”. As a sign of respect (as per Rashi), it makes more sense than if it were a joking reference to their friendliness. Still, would Rava, who had to worry about (Taanit) execution by and (Chagiga) bribing of King Shapur II, risk referring to another Amora by this name and title, at the same time that Shmuel knew Shapur I and he knew Shapur II? Also, Shmuel’s expertise in financial law has no bearing on interpreting genealogical verses. There is nothing to connect Shmuel to the content of the derasha.
I would suggest that Rava indeed intended King Shapur II, who waged two wars against the Romans and persecuted Christians under his rule after Constantine declared Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. Chazal equated Edom with Rome and eventually Christianity. Rava is saying that even King Shapur, who hates Rome, didn’t say this derasha which impugns their lineage.
A rather nice peshat, if I say so myself.
Let us expand a bit on how Rava makes more sense than Rabba in saying this.
It is Rava who is chummy with Shapur II, so who should logically be nicknamed Shapur or to talk about the actual King Shapur
Rava appears in our printed text in Pesachim, which I believe is the primary sugya
The alternative to Rava / Rabba saying it is Rav Pappa saying it, in an internal girsological variant. We would expect Rav Pappa to talk about his own teacher, rather than a semi-random Pumbeditan Amora two generations back. Indeed, see this article I wrote, channeling Tosafot on a different gemara, that it there is confusion between Rav Pappa and some Amora, that Amora should be Rava rather than Rabba.
Let us look at the girsological variants in our own sugya in Bava Batra!
In the printed versions, it is Rabba:
But moving on to manuscripts, at least those on Hachi Garsinan, it is exclusively Rava.
The one slightly weird one is Vatican 115b, which has רבא but with a heh written above the line, as some process afterwards trying to correct Rava to Rabba.
