Rava's Academy as Early Stamma

Last Friday’s daf, Nazir 11b, should trouble those (like myself) who typically assume that the Stamma, the Talmudic Narrator, is late, as in Savoraic or later. Or at least, those who assume that the instances of אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ are anonymous and therefore Stammaic, and therefore late.

After all, right after the Mishnah, and prompted by the case and language of the Mishnah, we have an anonymous אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, a dilemma was raised before them. Take the Mishnah’s case of “behold I’m a nazir and it is incumbent upon me to shave [provide korbanot for the shaving of] a nazir”, where someone heard and added two aspects, “And I [to be a nazir] and upon me to shave a nazir”. Adjust the language and now the second fellow simply says “and I”. What is the import of his statement.

The Stamma begins with an anonymous Ta Shema, and via analysis comes to a conclusion, that “And I” only refers to one half of his statement, and specifically the first half.

Now, the surprising part. Fifth generation Amora, Rav Huna brei deRav Yehoshua, Rava’s student, objects to this analysis, to Rava. And we see his argument. Rava responds to Rav Rav Huna brei deRav Yehoshua, rejecting the argument. Surely this demonstrates that the “Stamma” here is actually recording a conversation in Pumpedita or Mechoza!

And if this is the case here, where there is evidence to resolve it, we could extrapolate and suggest it is the case elsewhere, even where there is no such evidence in the sugya? Suspicion and assuming that it is late is perhaps no less scientific and scholarly as suspicion and assuming that it is earlier. Though some difficulties in certain sugyot resolve quite nicely once we assume a later stratum. And some Stammaitic comments occur upon conversations of later Amoraim.

There are a few approaches here. One is to endorse this idea, at least in some instances. Some scholars argue that there are multiple layers of Stamma, and that the conservative approach is to say that each Stammaic layer can only be known to be equal to or later than the Amoraim who appear in the sugya. I’d add that the הֲוָיוֹת דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא are considered the great matter (Bava Batra 134a) and perhaps we can extend this past direct disputes and discussions between Abaye and Rava but also to the ibayot, dilemmas, that occurred in their beit midrash. And this Stammaic layer set the pattern for other later Stammaic discusssions.

Another approach is to say that all the anonymous content was added later. Here, the sugya may have been reworked to help frame the question that was otherwise implicit or so short that it was cryptic.

Another approach would be to say that Rava is actually really late. Some scholars have suggested that there was a Rava II, who was a Savora. This was based on sugyot where the style of Rava’s comments were purportedly late, or where he appears to respond to ideas later generation Amoraim. About a year ago, on Chagiga 17b, I discussed this theory in my Jewish Link article, Just One Rava.

In this instance, we have some interesting evidence, because this Rava who responds to Stammaic material is clearly Rava I. After all, he is explicitly responding to Rava I’s student, Rav Huna brei deRav Yehoshua!