Reish Lakish is Verbose
On Nazir 20b, Reish Lakish discusses a chain of nezirim, each saying “And I”. He requires that each nazir say “and I” within an utterance-span. And someone (either Reish Lakish or the Stamma) defines an utterance-span. To this, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia says, “you’ve left no room for the talmid!” Thus:
גְּמָ׳ יָתֵיב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְפִּיסוּ כּוּלָּן בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר. וְכַמָּה תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר — כְּדֵי שְׁאֵלַת שָׁלוֹם, וְכַמָּה כְּדֵי שְׁאֵלַת שָׁלוֹם — כְּדֵי שֶׁאוֹמֵר שָׁלוֹם תַּלְמִיד לָרַב.
GEMARA: Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, and he sat and said in explanation of the mishna: And this halakha, that they are all nazirites, applies only when they all took a vow by associating themselves with the previous vow within the time required for speaking a short phrase. The Gemara asks: And how much time is included in the measure of: Within the time required for speaking a short phrase? The Gemara answers: It is the time necessary for greeting someone. The Gemara asks: And how much is the time necessary for greeting someone? The Gemara answers that it is the time necessary for a student to say: Peace upon you, my teacher, to his rabbi.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תּוּב לָא שָׁבְקַתְּ רַוְוחָא לְתַלְמִידָא!
Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Reish Lakish: Once again you have provided no advantage to a student who wishes to associate himself with the naziriteship of another. If the student’s rabbi was passing by at the precise moment that his colleague was vowing to be a nazirite, he would have to greet his rabbi first, and therefore he would not be able to respond to his colleague’s vow in time.
That exchange was the basis of my article in the Jewish Link this past week.
In short:
I think Reish Lakish said it all, including the extensive definition
and he meant an utterance-span of the immediately prior person, not the initial person, just like Rava did in Makkot 6a
and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia was talking specifically about Reish Lakish’s lengthy exposition, not allowing space for students / the process of Talmud study to expand on brief statements. Not that a particular student wouldn’t be able to become a nazir.
I relate the last to Rav HaLivny’s idea of apodictic statements, especially within the first three generations of Amoraim. Though from what I’m told, he felt that even these Amoraim spoke at length, just that others recorded shorter versions of their statements for the sake of preserving and transmitting. Here, I’m suggesting that they themselves would speak (additionally?) in short manner for the same purpose, and Reish Lakish is the exception to the rule.
Finally, both the Venice printing, and the Vatican 110 manuscript, have letalmuda, for study, rather than letalmida. This fits in well with my theory, though my weird theory works even without this emendation. Oh, and the Aruch also records letalmuda for this Talmudic citation, in a way that isn’t an error, for he puts it in the entry on Talmud rather than the entry on Talmid.
Also, a footnote that somehow didn’t make it into the completed Link article:
After writing this, I checked out the parallel Yerushalmi Nazir. The Stamma there counts syllables of Ani vs. VaAni (Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yehuda), in terms of what would fit in an utterance-span, and also distinguishes between the utterance-span of the Mishnah, as measured from the first nazir, and the brayta, as measured from the preceding nazir. This perhaps undermines my creative interpretation.