Ravavahu (R' Abahu II)

In yesterday’s daf (Bava Kamma 117) we encounter R’ Abahu twice. Once here:

הָהוּא דְּאַחְוִי אַמְּטַכְסָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. יְתֵיב רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי אִילְעָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ.

§ The Gemara relates another incident pertaining to one who informed gentiles of the whereabouts of another Jew’s property. There was a certain individual who showed Rabbi Abba’s silk [ametakesa] to gentiles, who later seized it. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa sat together to determine whether Rabbi Abba was entitled to compensation from the informer, and Rabbi Ile’a sat next to them.

and once here:

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לוֹ אַנָּס ״הוֹשֵׁיט לִי פְּקִיעַ עָמִיר זֶה, אוֹ אֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים זֶה״, וְהוֹשִׁיט לוֹ – חַיָּיב! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בִּתְרֵי עֶבְרֵי נַהֲרָא.

Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi from a baraita: In a case where a ruffian said to a Jew: Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and the Jew passed it to him, the Jew is liable to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this baraita that one who hands over another’s property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Jew and the ruffian were standing on two different sides of a river, so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.

The first one should make sense to you, since Rabbi Abahu is a third-generation Amora in the land of Israel, and that is who he’s interacting with.

The second one might confound you, since Rav Ashi is a sixth-generation Amora of Bavel! That is way too late!

The answer is that there is a second R’ Abahu, namely Rav Abahu, often written in manuscripts as a single word, Rabbabahu, רבבהו. He is a seventh-generation Amora, and amora leading into the generation of Savoraim. Our texts expand the ר honorific to רבי, which is confusing.

See how Hamburg 165 and Munich 95 have רבבהו. Other manuscripts, including Vatican 116 (not pictured), have R’ Abahu, which can expand correctly to Rav Abahu.

By the way, here are two recent instances of something coming before R’ Avahu:

Bava Kamma 112 involved R’ Yirmeyah’s father in law. It came before Rabbi Avin. But they asked, haven’t you heard what Rav Yosef bar Chama (who, by the way, is Rava’s father) said in R’ Oshaya’s name? I am pretty sure we are talking third generation Eretz Yisrael, so Rabbi Abahu, the third-generation Amora, makes sense.

However, Bava Kamma 115 involves Ravina’s father-in-law, and the case coming before Ravina. Rav Kohen objects, and the matter comes before R’ Abahu. Here, the earlier Amora makes no sense. However, Rabbahu makes plenty of sense. Mansucripts have R’ Abahu, which doesn’t spell out the title, and is consistent. But Escorial have Rava and Hamburg has Rabba, presumably grappling with this problem.