Rethinking Rav Acha and Ravina (suppressed article)
This intended Jewish Link article was in my drafts folder, and for various reasons, I didn’t put it forth at the time, suppressing it. It is part of what should really be a series exploring this issue, as you can see from remarks I make therein. Now, I’d like to refer to some of the ideas I discuss in the article, so I am posting it here. Full article follows:
A frequent pair of disputing Amoraim is Rav Acha and Ravina. They are fairly late, assumed to be Rav Ashi’s generation. When they argue, it is hard to tell which Amora said what, because it is phrased as chad amar X and chad amar Y. The general decisive principle is to rule like the more lenient of the pair. Thus, in Sunday’s daf Yomi, Bava Metzia 95a, where the ox’s owner worked for the borrower but the damage was due to negligence rather than mishap, these Amoraim argue, and Rishonim rule leniently, that the borrower is exempt.
In this article, I consider the evidence that Rav Acha is the same as sixth-generation Rav Acha bar Rava1, and therefore that Ravina would be his contemporary Ravina I. Revisiting the evidence may undermine that “bar Rava” identification, and in turn impact the Ravina identification.
Correct identification matters for a few reasons. Thus, if Rav Acha and Ravina are post-Rav Ashi, then they may form more of a “last word”. Also, proper understanding of Rav Acha and Ravina’s positions require comparisons with their positions elsewhere. If plain Rav Acha isn’t Rav Acha bar Rava, then we shouldn’t try aligning their statements. Additionally, we might want to know what statements other Amoraim are aware of. Finally, it might impact our understanding of the statement that Ravina and Rav Ashi are sof hora’a and which Ravina it is.
Rav Aharon Hyman lays out a good argument for plain Rav Acha being Rav Acha bar Rava, who is Rav Ashi’s contemporary, rather than the seventh-generation Rav Acha bar Rav. (1) He surveys interactions between Rav Acha bar Rava and Rav Ashi, and concludes that Rav Acha bar Rava is a colleague, not a student. (2) He surveys far fewer interactions between plain Rav Acha and Rav Ashi, and determines that these interactions are of similar nature. (3) If Rav Acha bar Rava is sixth-generation, then his disputant Ravina would be Ravina I.
Rav Acha b. Rava Interactions
In Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, Rav Aharon Hyman characterizes interactions between Rav Acha bar Rava as one of colleagues, “arguing back and forth to clarify matters and to bring the law out to its truth.” We cannot discuss them all2, but we really should, to understand Rav Hyman’s assessment. A small sampling: In Shabbat 27b, Rav Acha bar Rava asks Rav Ashi: the Tanna of Rabbi Yishmael’s academy says ritual impurity applies to garments made of fabrics other than wool and linen because of a derasha on ״אוֹ בֶגֶד״, which is inclusive. Why not then make a similar inclusion of other fabrics for tzitzit, from the words ״אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״? There’s then an apparent back and forth. The first response is “that verse is necessary for law X,” but without any explicit attribution of amar leih. Rav Steinsaltz, in his commentary, labels the first as Rav Ashi’s response, but the extended discussion becomes the Gemara itself asking and responding. I think Rav Hyman would understand all that unattributed material, the Stamma Digmara / Talmudic Narrator to be a back-and-forth between these two redaction-era Amoraim.
Similarly, in Chullin 2a, where the Mishnah said הכל שוחטין ושחיטתן כשרה, the gemara’s stated asumption is that hakol is lechatchila while kesheira is bedieved. Rav Acha bar Rava challenges Rav Ashi on this. There’s an extended back and forth, without attribution. Rav Hyman believes this to be their protracted discussion, but it might be a separate and later Talmudic Narrator.
Not all interactions are like that. In Megillah 28b, it is a mere inquiry – if you need to summon someone in shul, how should you do so without treating the synagogue lightly? Rav Ashi responds with suggestions – if he’s a Torah scholar, let him say a halacha; if he knows Tannaitic material, let him say that, and so on. Sometimes it is the challenge without response and back and forth. Thus, in Gittin 10a, the anonymous scholars wonder (אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ) about the halacha if a man says “behold, the get is pottery”. Ravina says to Rav Acha b. Rava, or alternatively, Rav Acha bar Rava says to Rav Ashi, “how is this any different from him saying ‘behold it is consecrated’, or ‘ownerless’”.
I think that we might challenge the above assumption. First, some students (Abaye as exemplar) will engage in such back-and-forth with their teacher (Rabba / Rav Yosef), so Rav Acha bar Rava might be later. Does Rav Ashi initiate the question to Rav Acha bar Rava. Certainly, there are inquiry interactions as well. Second, we should be careful assigning anonymous attacks and retorts to named Amoraim, even if they are late. Still, Rav Sherira Gaon mentions that Rav Acha bar Rava died in 417 CE while Rav Ashi died in 426 CE, so they seem to be contemporaries.
Plain Rav Acha Interactions
Meanwhile, there are far fewer interactions involving plain Rav Ashi. Rav Aharon Hyman lists Yevamot 94b, Nedarim 8a, and Sanhedrin 42b, which have the same character. However, it turns out that each is a mirage!
In Yevamot 94b, Rav Mordechai says to Rav Ashi, or alternatively, ואמרי לה, Rav Acha says to Rav Ashi, come and hear a proof. The Talmudic Narrator (perhaps again Rav Ashi) rejects the proof. However, note that even the Talmudic text itself isn’t certain it is Rav Acha – maybe it is Rav Mordechai. Further, it’s only Rav Acha in printings. Munich 141 has Rav Chanan or Rav Chuni; Munich 95 has Avimi or Rav Chuni, Oxford 367 has Rav Chanina or Rav Huni; and Vatican 114 has Rav Ahini or Rav Chanai. There’s a Rav Acha bar Minyumi who appears immediately above, which probably confused the scribes. This then tells us nothing about plain Rav Acha!
In Nedarim 8a, after Ravina inquires from Rav Ashi, Rav Acha inquires from Rav Ashi: what if someone vowed in his dream, and the vow was dissolved in his dream. Rav Ashi replies that just as there’s no grain without straw, so is there no dream without nonsense. Maybe the vow has substance but not the absolution. This would suggest that Ravina and this Rav Acha were secondary to Rav Ashi, not necessarily colleagues. However, more substantially, it is only plain Rav Acha in printings. Munich 95, Vatican 110, and Vat. ebr. 487 all have Rav Acha bereih deRava!
In Sanhedrin 42b, Rav Acha says to Rav Ashi that in Israel, the blessing on the moon is ברוך מחדש חדשים. Rav Ashi replies: our women also recite that blessing. Once again, plain Rav Acha only appears in printings. In manuscripts (Florence 8, Yad Harav Herzog, Reuchlin 2, and Munich 95) it is Rav Abba or R’ Abba! This is surrounded by statements by Rav Acha miDifti or bar Rav Chanina, which accounts for the scribal error to Rav Acha.
Thus, we don’t seem to have any plain Rav Acha interactions with Rav Ashi – each of the three is a mirage. His disputant may then be Ravina II. Rav Hyman didn’t like seventh-generation Rav Acha bar Rav as a candidate for plain Rav Acha, but we should revisit his concerns in a separate article.
where “Rava” is not the famous fourth-generation Amora
But his list includes Berachot 6a, 50a; Shabbat 27b, 38b, 67a, 93b, 120b, 146a; Eruvin 42b, 77b, 78a, 81a, 81b, 104a; Pesachim 48a (where he speaks to Abaye but this should read “to Rav Ashi”), 113b; Yoma 25b; Megillah 28b; Ketubot 7a, 34b, 75a; Gittin 32b; Kiddushin 21a; Bava Kamma 47a, 62a; Bava Metzia 22b, 64a; Bava Batra 6a, 100b; Sanhedrin 10a; Avoda Zara 33a; Shavuot 27b, 41a; Makkot 5b, 21a; Zevachim 11b, 66a; Mechanot 3b, 34a; Chullin 2a, 40a, 41a, 47b, 57b, 80a, 86b, 101b, 105a, 137a; Bechorot 6a; Temura 6a; and Niddah 14b.