Rava / Rabba in Order, on Bava Metzia 14-15

Part 1.

The other day, on Bava Metzia 14-15, we had a difficulty between a brayta and a position laid out by Shmuel:

תָּא שְׁמַע: לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת כֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹבֶה – גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, וּפֵירוֹת גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita that elaborates on the mishna and poses a difficulty to the opinion of Shmuel: What is the case in which one appropriates property for consuming produce? It is the case of one who robbed another of a field, and it is appropriated from his possession. When he collects payment, he collects the principal from liened property and he collects the produce from unsold property.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, גַּזְלָן מִמַּאן גָּבֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו: כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וּמְכָרָהּ לְאַחֵר וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ!

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that the case is as it is taught in the baraita, which indicates that it is the robber who collects, from whom does the robber collect? Rather, is it not referring to a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to yet another person, and that third person enhanced it?

We then have three resolutions, first posed by fourth-generation Pumbeditan Amora, Rava, then by third-generation Rabba bar Rav Huna, of Sura, and finally sixth-generation Rav Ashi (Sura) who says litzdadin, disjunctively, incorporating elements of Rava and Rabba bar Rav Huna, depending on whether one comes to collect produce or principal.

This order is a bit strange. Usually Amoraim are listing in chronological order. Rav Ashi makes sense at the end, since he’s incorporating the two preceding. But why should Rava precede? Isn’t he the later Amora?

All manuscripts on Hachi Garsinan have Rava, except Florence 8-9 which has Rabba, when discussing reactions to Rav Ashi’s statement.

So too it was Rava (exclusively) there when the position is first introduced, but Florence isn’t entirely consistent, and strays into Rava once. Thus, first Rabba, then Rava:

There’s also a lengthy marginal gloss on the side of amar Rabba, in which the entire earlier section, which is present in other texts, was missing in the main body here, so that this is effectively an insertion:

Also, looking at the surrounding context, before and after, Rava is all over it, so it makes some sense that scribes accidentally continued with a Rava instead of a Rabba. Rabba makes more sense, chronologically, despite not having so much manuscript evidence for it.

This was part 1. If we get to part 2, we will explore the next sugya, in close proximity, where Rabba might make more sense than the Rava we have.