Should we rule like Ben Nanas?
I wish everyone a gmar chatima tova. This doesn’t have a Yom Kippur connection, but is what I would have posted yesterday.
The other day, on the turnover from Bava Batra 104b to 105a:
מַתְנִי׳ ״מִדָּה בְּחֶבֶל אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ, הֵן חָסֵר הֵן יָתֵר״ – בִּטֵּל ״הֵן חָסֵר הֵן יָתֵר״ ״מִדָּה בְּחֶבֶל״. ״הֵן חָסֵר הֵן יָתֵר, מִדָּה בְּחֶבֶל״ –
MISHNA: If the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size measured precisely with a rope more or less, thereby attaching to the sale two contradictory stipulations; in this case, the words: More or less, nullify the words: Measured precisely with a rope. Accordingly, if the surplus did not exceed a quarter-kav per se’a, the sale is valid as is. Similarly, if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size more or less measured precisely with a rope,
105a
בִּטֵּל ״מִדָּה בְּחֶבֶל״ ״הֵן חָסֵר הֵן יָתֵר״; דִּבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס.
the words: Measured precisely with a rope, nullify the words: More or less, since the principle is that in all cases, one should attend to the final expression; this is the statement of ben Nanas.
How are we to understand the position of Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas? Should we rule like him? Amoraim and the Stamma discuss, but a few points of my own.
Is it really that we should pay heed to the final expression? I would note differences in the various cases in which we could have a Ben Nanas-like ruling.
Two contradictory statements. Behold this animal is an olah-offering / a shelamim offering. It cannot be both, so maybe the speaker corrected himself. Or precisely X, more or less.
Statements where the second statement can be understood as clarifying the first statement. For instance, 12 dinar to rent for the year — 1 dinar per month. What happens when there is a 13 month leap year?
Within these cases, we might distinguish between round, evenly divided numbers, and those that are not. So it is interesting that the case was 12 dinar for the year. Even without subsequent clarification, ma’t mochichot, the amount is suggestive, that he was thinking of a 12 month year. Was the case formulated like this accidentally, meaning for the convenience of expressing it in easy numbers, or was this deliberate. Meaning, what if is was “100 for a year — (that is) — 8 and 1/3 per month.” That round number for the year suggests the year was the unit, unlike the round dinar for the month suggested the month was the unit.
Similarly, 1 kor for 30 sela, each seah for a selah. Since a kor is precisely 30 seah. Why choose the round 30 which can be divided.Two systems of measurement which clash, where the clarification might mean that he’s willing to accept the lower amount, regardless if expressed first or last.
So, saying 1 meter, that is, 3 feet. Because three feet are in a yard, where a meter is 1.0936 yards. Or 2 kilometers, that is, 1 mile. Or vice versa. Where 2 km = 1.24274 miles.
In the case we saw, it was an “istera, one hundred ma’ah”. An istera is broken down into copper coins numbering 96, while 100 ma’ah is a nice even number. So both are nice even numbers in their own system, either a single coin or a round 100.
So, even if Rav seems repetitive, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן? הָא אַמְרַהּ רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא, he might not actually be repetitive. These cases have different features.
Also, when Shmuel says זוֹ דִּבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַלֵּךְ אַחַר פָּחוֹת שֶׁבַּלְּשׁוֹנוֹת, the gemara tries to figure out if this is an endorsement of Ben Nanas, or the opposite of this. So, when the gemara asks ״זוֹ״ – וְלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ?! וְהָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, or asks וּמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, we should carefully consider the cases and see that they actually line up.
Which brings us to the critical manuscript variant. Does the Mishnah state “divrei Ben Nanas” or “ke-divrei Ben Nanas”. Let’s look:
So Munich 95, Escorial, and Vatican 115b all have that extra kaf. For instance, looking at Vatican 115b:
We occasionally see this in other Mishnayot. For instance, כדברי בית שמאי in the first Mishnah of Rosh Hashanah:
אַרְבָּעָה רָאשֵׁי שָׁנִים הֵם. בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים וְלָרְגָלִים. בְּאֶחָד בֶּאֱלוּל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי. בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַשָּׁנִים וְלַשְּׁמִטִּין וְלַיּוֹבְלוֹת, לַנְּטִיעָה וְלַיְרָקוֹת. בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לָאִילָן, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ:
On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree; the fruit of a tree that was formed prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and cannot be tithed together with fruit that was formed after that date; this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel say: The New Year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat.
I think this differs from the typical divrei X in two ways.
It is a different person speaking, perhaps Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or his teacher Rabbi Meir (who authored an earlier stratum). Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas is a third-generation Tanna. So this different person is putting forth the statement, and saying that this accords with Ben Nanas.
Therefore, it is also an endorsement of the opinion. We say X, like Ben Nanas. (Or we say Y, like Beit Shammai. And by the way, Beit Hillel say something else.)
It is almost like a stam Mishnah, as opposed to a daat yachid attributed statement.
What flows from these two aspects are two other important ideas.
If the Mishnah itself is endorsing Ben Nanas, we might understand why Rav or Shmuel might agree with Ben Nanas here.
If it isn’t actually Ben Nanas speaking, but a Tanna aliba deVen Nanas, a later Tanna tapping into the Ben Nanas idea, then it might not be consistent with Ben Nanas’ true position or positions we find elsewhere. See 1 and 2a and b up top, for different cases and underlying principles.