Reish Lakish Drinks Again (with article summary)
About a week back, I wrote an article, “Rabbi Yitzchak as Reish Lakish’s Student”. See below, where I’ll give the outlined article summary.
While nominally on at earlier daf, Shevuot 40, the article covers three instances in which Reish Lakish either waited or was drinking while Rabbi Yochanan spoke, which was interpreted as agreement.
And, the second such instance is in today’s daf, Shevuot 45b, so we can first drill down a bit into it:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ בְּעֵדִים, אֲבָל שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים – מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״לֹא שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ מֵעוֹלָם״, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ, וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָרְךָ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִצְחָק: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: The Sages taught that a worker takes an oath and receives his wages only when the employer hired him in the presence of witnesses. But if he hired him not in the presence of witnesses, then since he could have made a more advantageous claim [miggo] and said to him: I never hired you, he can instead say to him: I hired you but already gave you your wages, and that claim is accepted by the court. There is a principle in halakha that one is deemed credible when he makes a less advantageous claim than he could have made. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rav Naḥman: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yoḥanan.
מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי מִישְׁתָּא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי לֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי מִישְׁהָא הֲוָה שָׁהֵי לֵיהּ וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Can one infer from the fact that Rabbi Yitzḥak said that it was specifically Rabbi Yoḥanan who says this, that Reish Lakish, who often engaged in disputes with Rabbi Yoḥanan, disagrees with him, even though Rabbi Yitzḥak did not report that he does? Some say that Reish Lakish was drinking at the time that Rabbi Yoḥanan made his statement and therefore was silent, and some say that he was waiting for him to complete his statement and therefore was silent. It remains unclear whether he disagreed.
Different Amoraim coming from the Land of Israel (Ravin, Rav Dimi, Rabbi Yitzchak) may have different levels of accuracy in reporting Rabbi Yochanan’s statements. Here, in the parallel Yerushalmi, Rabbi Yochanan actually disagrees! But his disputant, Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat, says what Rabbi Yochanan is reported to say in Bavli. Reish Lakish makes no appearance.
That is, here is the parallel Yerushalmi Shevuot 7:1:
פְּשִׁיטָא. מֵת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַשָּׂכִיר נִשְׁבָּע לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. וַאֲפִילוּ מֵת הַשָּׂכִיר יוֹרְשָׁיו נִשְׁבָּעִין לְיוֹרְשֵׁי בַעַל הַבַּיִת. כְּלוּם תִּיקְנוּ אֶלָּא בְשָׂכִיר. שֶׁמָּא בְיוֹרְשָׁיו. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. בְּשֶׁתְּבָעוֹ בְעֵדִים. [אֲבָל אִם תְּבָעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָעֵידִים.] יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָֽרְךָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין אוֹמְרִים בְּמָמוֹן. מֵאַחַר. מְאַחַר דִּיכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ. יְכִיל מֵימַר לֵיהּ. שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָֽרְךָ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּשֶׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר. נָתַתִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. לֹא נָטַלְתִּי. נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׂכָֽרְךָ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא נָטַלְתִּי. שָׂכַרְתָּנִי. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָֽרְאָייָה. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. אִם בָּאוֹמֵר. בָּעֵדִים שָׂכַרְתָּנִי. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר. לֹא שָׂכַרְתִּיךָ.
It is obvious: If the householder dies, the journeyman swears to his heirs. Even if the journeyman dies, do his heirs swear to the householder’s heirs? They made this ordinance only for the journeyman. Maybe for his heirs? Rebbi Eleazar said, if he claimed before witnesses. [But if he claimed without witnesses, he can tell him,] I paid your wages. Rebbi Joḥanan said, does one not in money matters argue “because?” Because he can say to him, I did not hire you, he can tell him, I hired you and paid your wages. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “When was this said? If he said, I gave, but the other said, I did not take; I gave you your wages, but he says, I did not take. You hired me, but he says, I did not hire you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.” It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if he hired him before witnesses, how can this one say, I did not hire you?
Pnei Moshe makes Rabbi Yochanan’s statement into a rhetorical question, perhaps to make Bavli align with Yerushalmi. But this Yerushalmi - Bavli alignment is a general theme in Pnei Moshe. Sometimes the two Talmuds indeed contradict.
Anyway, here is the article (on Substack, Jewish Link HTML and flipdocs). Under the image, an outline summary:
While claiming wheat and admitting barley does not trigger a modeh bemiktzat oath, since the admission isn’t from the type of the claim (Mishnah), in Shevuot 40, Rav Nachman quotes Shmuel as saying that if the claim is wheat and barley with an admission of wheat or barley, he’s liable to a modeh bemiktzat oath.
This analysis is widely made. We read in the ensuing gemara that Rav said the same. And Rabbi Yitzchak said “Good work! And Rabbi Yochanan said the same!” The gemara (probably, rather than Rav Nachman) asks whether this means Reish Lakish concurs.
The answer is subject to girsological issues, משהי or משתי, both given as alternatives in the gemara. Either Reish Lakish waited until Rabbi Yochanan finished before giving his response, so Rabbi Yitzchak did not know it or perhaps of it, or else Reish Lakish was drinking (water; I wonder if wine) at the time, so didn’t speak up, so we do not know.
What about Rabbi Yitzchak’s formulation makes us wonder about Reish Lakish? Maybe it is indeed something about the formulation, but maybe it is biography. We identify which plain Rabbi Yitzchak this is, in the realm of halacha rather than aggadah, and he often cites not only Rabbi Yochanan but also Reish Lakish, so he may be deemed a student.
This pattern of Amora says X; another Amora says “Shkoyach, and Rabbi Yochanan says the same”; a question whether this implies Reish Lakish agreed; and two version of an answer in which Reish Lakish was either silently waiting or drinking… That pattern appears in two other places, namely Shevuot 45b and Chullin 75b.
Elaboration of the two other instances. The one in Shevuot 45b, about the principle of migo, involves all the same players, namely Rav Nachman quoting Shmuel, Rabbi Yitzchak mentioning Rabbi Yochanan, and then Reish Lakish. The one in Chullin, about shechita of a ben pekua’, that rather than two simanim, it has four, its own plus its slaughtered mother. That was Rav Chisda, with the idea carried to the Land of Israel by Rabbi Zeira. (Where perhaps this was Rabbi Zeira II). Rabbi Assi was the one who said Shkoyach. Then they ask the question and get the same answer.
How can it recur? If it was indeed Reish Lakish’s respectful practice to wait, this makes sense. Drinking, less so, but possible, if he regularly drank in the study hall. Alternatively, this could be a transference of the Q & A from other sugyot. If so, Chullin seems like the primary sugya.
Looking at the Yerushalmi to see if indeed, Reish Lakish of another disputant argued. We don’t have Yerushalmi Chullin. In terms of the other cases, Rabbi Yochanan actually says the opposite. But there is a disputant, and that person says what is attributed to Rabbi Yochanan in our Bavli.
Thank you.