Ravnai (article preview)

Bava Metzia 2

Here is a preview (full for paid subscribers) of this coming week’s article, dealing with Ravnai and whether it is is a transposition error for Ravina. Ravnai does seem to be real, despite Ravina appearing in the primary sugya. I also discuss content, and whether Ravnai’s elucidation of וּמְצָאתָ֑הּ means the same thing in the primary sugya as it does here.

I previously somewhat incorrectly discussed this possibility of Ravina / Ravnai transposition errors and Guterberg’s printing press with moveable type here.

Anyway, the article follows.

---

Regarding marriage, my father once suggested a novel interpretation of the opening Mishnah of Bava Metzia (2a). שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית – two people are “holding” by the tallis, standing under the chuppah. זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ – he says “I’m the metziah, the real find”, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ – and she says “I’m the metziah”. זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי – He says “it’s all about me”, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי – and she says “It’s all about me.” Such a shidduch cannot sustain, so what happens? זֶה יִשָּׁבַע – he starts to swear, “@#$%&!”, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע – she starts to swear, וְיַחְלוֹקוּ – and they split up.

The opening gemara of the masechet is mostly Aramaic and anonymous, thus perhaps Savoraic. It analyzes the Mishnah’s language. Why did the Mishnah’s author not only teach אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, and I’d understand the claim was “it’s all mine”? The gemara answers that otherwise, we’d think that he’d acquire it through mere sight. The extra language teaches this additional point, that he not only saw it, but also acted to acquire it, and this is his claim.

How could one get this false impression from אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ? After all, Ravnai (רבנאי) said in a different context¹ that וּמְצָאתָ֑הּ implies it physically came to his hand. The gemara answers that we might have distinguished between Biblical and colloquial language.

Different Context

Rashi (ad loc.) points us to that different context, namely Bava Kamma 113b. This feels like a different tractate, but as discussed in Bava Kamma 102a, we might consider all of Nezikin to be a single tractate. Thus, Bava Kamma, Metzia, and Batra as the First, Middle, and Last Gates to Nezikin. The Talmudic Narrator is free to make connections throughout the Talmud, but this is actually something fairly close in scope.

How does Ravnai’s statement operate there? Well, Devarim 22 describes someone encountering a lost item, and how he’s obligated to return it, which might involve a lot of care and effort. In certain cases, the obligation doesn’t apply, and he can either keep it (if it’s in his possession) or alternatively ignore it and walk on. Perhaps that’s only if he hasn’t picked it up and assumed some responsibility? Ravina says that וּמְצָאתָהּ has the implication that it has come into his hand. Thus, the point isn’t about how one acquires a lost item, but that the derasha about not needing to return operates (even) on a Biblical case where it’s already under his control.

In context, we might wonder whether דַּאֲתַי לִידֵיהּ, that it came into his hand,