"See there" in Masoret HaShas
Indicating a variance
A short while back, in Rav Herschel Schachter’s Gittin shiur, he mentioned something interesting about Masoret HaShas. In Gittin Shiur #30, about Taama dikra, Arkaot, and Shibud Nechasim, at the 34 to 36 minute mark, he makes an interesting digressive remark.
Rav Shachter is discussing Gittin 11a, where the gemara cites a specific version of a dispute, which differs from the version discussed earlier in same Tosefta. The gemara reads:
תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי כָּךְ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לַחֲכָמִים בְּצַיְדָּן לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲכָמִים עַל כׇּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִין בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶן גּוֹיִם כְּשֵׁרִים וַאֲפִילּוּ גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִים חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in the city of Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, these documents are valid, even in the case of bills of divorce and bills of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, outside a court, as Rabbi Akiva deems a document of this kind valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹתְמִין אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹתְמִין לָא
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, bills of divorce and manumission, are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. In other words, the halakha that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. However, in a place where Jews sign, no, these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.
When Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Yossi (and the one he cites) says that Rabbi Akiva and the Sages didn’t disagree about X, but about Y, it is a reaction to the Tanna Kamma who asserts that they did indeed argue about X.
You can see what the Tanna Kamma of the Tosefta says there.
כל שטרות העולים בערכאות [של עובדי כוכבים] אע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים ר"ע מכשיר בכולן וחכמים פוסלין בגיטי נשים ובשחרורי עבדים אמר ר"א בר' יוסי כך אמר [להם ר"ש בן גמליאל לזקנים] בצידן [לא נחלקו ר"ע וחכמים] על [שטרות] העולים בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים [שאף] ע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים [שהם] כשרים [על מה נחלקו על] שנעשו בהדיוט שר' עקיבה מכשיר [בכולן] וחכמים פוסלין [בגיטי נשים ובשחרורי] עבדים רשב"ג אומר אף [גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים] כשרים במקום שאין ישראל חותם.
Rav Schachter notes that if you look at the Masoret Hashas, he points us to the Tosefta and writes עיין שם.
Ayein Sham, “see there”, means that there a different girsa, is some change in the cited source. Sometimes, says Rav Schachter, these changes are minor, and not the type that he pays attention to, such as Ravina vs. Rav Ashi made the statement. That doesn’t register for him, who’s the maan de’amar. But sometimes it is a major change, where the din is different, like prohibited vs. permitted. And this instance is one of a major difference. Even though the cited text is identical enough, the fact that there is a dispute there about what the dispute is is enough to trigger an עיין שם.
Rav Schachter first stated “we” don’t pay attention to minor changes in attribution, but caught himself and qualified that it is something that doesn’t register for him. Naturally, with my focus on Talmudic biography, changes in attribution do register for me. I also believe they can often have significant impact on the halacha.
Counterexample
To take an example from the next days’s shiur. See Gittin Shiur #31, “Zachin Lekatan, Shaliach Ledavar Aveira, Peah”, at around the 68 minute mark and going on for a few minutes.
On Gittin 11b going into Gittin 12a, Rav Chisda had said that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus) and the Sages hinged upon whether we say zachin (acquire and benefit for a person without their express direction) if it would negatively impact a third party (chav la`achaeirim). Rabbi Eliezer would say that zachin applies while the Sages would say it does not apply. Meanwhile, Rav Pappa, and some say Ameimar, אָמַר אַמֵּימָר וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא, that perhaps it isn’t the basis of the dispute, and in two prongs: either even Rabbi Eliezer would say zachin wouldn’t apply if not for X (beyado to potentially take for himself); or even the Sages would say zachin would apply if not for Y (a gezeirat hakatuv making it an exception to the rule).
But Tosafot there chime in immediately saying that it isn’t so.
דילמא לא היא - דחויא בעלמא היא דרב פפא אית ליה בהדיא תופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה (כתובות דף פד:):
That is, the second prong, regarding the Sages’ postition, is a mere push-off, since we see Rav Pappa explicitly hold elsewhere (Ketubot 84b) that one grabbing on behalf of a creditor when it negatively impacts others (namely, other creditors) doesn’t acquire.
(The case there is a fascinating one. A man died, leaving a boat. A creditor, Yeimar bar Chashu, instructed an agent to seize the boat, and the agent seized it. Then, the two colleagues, Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, encountered the agent and told him that it wouldn’t work, because of what Rabbi Yochanan said, תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה. As Tosafot note there, this is strange because zachin is typically, and perhaps specifically, where one did not appoint the actor as his agent. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua were creditors themselves, and each tried to acquire the boat, one be steering with an oar and the other by pulling with a rope. And the case goes on from there, eventually landing before Rava. I’d also note that Rav Pappa is, ahem, famously aggressive in asserting his legal rights in monetary disputes, with rabbis / biographers Hyman and Halevy arguing in favor or against.)
Regarding אָמַר אַמֵּימָר וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא, Rav Shachter notes that the gemara was written down later, in the days of the Geonim, and they had two traditions who said it, either Amemar or Rav Pappa; they weren’t sure. Then, in discussing Tosafot and Rav Pappa’s position elsewhere (at around the 73 minute mark), he says something like “This is Rav Pappa speaking. אַמֵּימָר וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא. Either Ameimar or Rav Pappa, one of the two said it. He suggested it as a possibility, but he really holds that it is not correct.”
I’d point out that Tosafot’s point works well if it is Rav Pappa, but not so well if it is Ameimar. And if it is Ameimar, we might need to consider the possibility that the Sages hold זכין לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים in general.
Admittedly, this isn’t a case of Masoret HaShas pointing us at another source. It is, rather, a case of וְאִיתֵּימָא, two variants in the gemara itself. Regardless, my point is that here is a place where identification of the author of statement might impact halacha.
And Some Say. Who?
The text here is אָמַר אַמֵּימָר וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא. I’ve discussed וְאִיתֵּימָא in the past in my Jewish Link column, “That’s What They Say”:
These וְאִיתֵּימָא divergences in attribution might be due to oral error (due to e.g. phonological similarity), written error (due to e.g. orthographic similarity), or mental error (due to associating different persons, who are related to one another as teacher / student or colleagues in the same academy. Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Elman made a good case for the oral and mental errors, thus suggesting they arose during an era of oral transmission, but I made a counterargument.
What could cause the uncertainty in Gittin as to Rav Pappa vs. Ameimar? From a purely textual standpoint, אמר אמימר involves repetition, so a scribe could construct Ameimar from a partial / repeated Amar, or could omit it. Similarly, looking at the distribution of Rav Pappa across the masechet, there is a chain of statements by him, e.g. on Gittin 10b, 11a, then our instance in 11b, then twice on 13a and twice on 13b. When looking to fill a gap, Rav Pappa is an obvious choice.
Also, consider Vatican 127 showing אמ אמימר underlined.
Similarly, on the next line, notice how the scribe omitted רב from Rav Pappa! Note how פפא with its two initial letters followed by aleph, looks kind of, sort of, similar to ממאי with its two closed letters followed by an aleph. Meanwhile, אמימר could be misinterpreted as אמר ר preceding Pappa. AMYMR MMAY → AMR R PPA. The word ממאי, having transformed into פפא, disappears, and so while we do see it is in Vatican 127 and Leningrad-Firkovitz 187, we don’t see it in printed texts or in some manuscripts, such as Munich 95 and Vatican 130. I would heavily lean towards Ameimar being original and (Rav) Pappa being secondarily introduced.
Mental substitution is another possibility, as they are each late-ish Amorai. Rav Pappa is a fifth-generation Amora, student of Rava, who established his academy in Naresh. Ameimar is a fifth and sixth-generation Amora, who learned from Rava, but also from (earlier) Rav Yosef and (later) Abaye and Rava’s students, including from Rav Pappa. He reestablished the academy in Nehardea. Both Rav Pappa and Ameimar relate to Rav Ashi, as teacher or teacher / colleague. So, they travel in similar circles. Perhaps one could mentally substitute one for the other. I’d prefer the orthographic / gap-filling theory.
How would Rav Pappa and Ameimar each relate to Rav Chisda, whose idea is under attack? We would have the teacher — student chain of Rav Chisda → Rava → Rav Pappa. Alternatively, we would note that Ameimar’s maternal grandfather was Rami bar Chama, who besides being Rav Chisda’s student, married Rav Chisda’s daughter. So Ameimar would be arguing on his maternal great-grandfather.
If Gittin 11b is indeed Ameimar and not Rav Pappa, then perhaps, and contra Tosafot, he means his objection seriously, and he’d argue that the (majority) Sages might generally say zachin even where it is negatively impacts a third party. And despite Rav Pappa holding otherwise elsewhere, local to this sugya, we have the earlier Rav Chisda and the much later Ameimar, with hilcheta kebatrai, a decisive principle in favor of the later authority.