Suran and Pumbeditan Academies

A few thoughts about people in yesterday’s daf, Bava Batra 152.

(1) What is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s relationship to Rava?

יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְיָתֵיב רָבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן קָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ – מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁמָּא לֹא גָּמַר לְהַקְנוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, וְאֵין שְׁטָר לְאַחַר מִיתָה? וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ – עָמַד, חוֹזֵר;

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was sitting behind Rava, and Rava was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and Rava asked Rav Naḥman: Did Shmuel actually say that perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that the person on his deathbed resolved to transfer ownership of the gift only with the deed, and therefore the gift is invalid, as a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, even though they performed an act of acquisition, if he recovers he can retract his gift?

בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה קִנְיָן אֶלָּא מֵחֲמַת הַמִּיתָה. וְאַחְוִי לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתִּיק.

The reason for Shmuel’s ruling is that it is known that an act of acquisition was performed only due to his expectation of imminent death. This ruling indicates that if the giver does not recover, the recipient acquires the gift, and the performance of an act of acquisition does not indicate that the giver intended to transfer the property only after his death. Rav Naḥman indicated the answer to Rava with a gesture of his hand, and Rava was silent.

כִּי קָם, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: מַאי אַחְוִי לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּמְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ.

When Rav Naḥman arose from his place, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What did he indicate to you with that gesture? Rava said to him: He indicated that the statement of Rav Yehuda is referring to a case where the giver was clearly enhancing the legal power of the recipient by requiring an act of acquisition to be performed in addition to bestowing the gift.

(Tangentially, maybe Rav Nachman was silent, and merely gestured, and that is what וְאַחְוִי לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ וְאִשְׁתִּיק means.)

See another incident in Eruvin 43b, where Rav Chisda says to Rav Nachman “see your student Nechemya is in distress”, and again, it is:

יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְיָתֵיב רָבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: מַאי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרַב חִסְדָּא?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak sat behind Rava, and Rava sat in the first row before Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What precisely was Rav Ḥisda’s dilemma that he addressed to Rav Naḥman with regard to Neḥemya’s distress?

According to Rav Aharon Hyman in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim has Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak as the colleague of Rava. Points in favor of this include that he never cites Rava (amar X amar Y), but do see him interact in other ways, asking questions and disagreeing; doesn’t call him “Mar”; plus this story where he is essentially sitting in the second row. Where Rava was the rosh yeshiva, he was the rosh kallah. Yet, we also find him as colleague of Rava’s students, Rav Pappa and Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua. So, he was a long-lived Amora, of the fourth and fifth scholastic generations.

I don’t know. I’d have him as a student nonetheless. We don’t see him standing up to directly address Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman. His understanding of them seems to be through Rava, in the first row. So maybe he is long-lived, but even there, he is kafuf to Rava, and Rava is the filter through which he obtains knowledge. I’d have to have the patience to sift through many interactions of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Rava to form a better opinion.

Like, is this a teacher / student relationship, or that of colleagues? In Berachot 35b:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: אִי קָבַע עִלָּוֵיהּ סְעוֹדְתֵּיהּ מַאי? אָמַר לֵיהּ: לִכְשֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר אִי הָוֵי קְבִיעוּתָא. הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: If one based his meal on it, what is the ruling? Must he recite the Grace after Meals as he does after bread? He replied: When Elijah comes and says whether or not it can serve as the basis for a meal, this will be resolved. Nevertheless, now, until then, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men and he is not required to recite the complete Grace after Meals.

How about this, where Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak stands up to Rava? Ketubot 63b:

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבּוֹתֵינוּ. אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי בּוּרְכָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי בּוּרְכָתֵיהּ? אֲנָא אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, וּמִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, וּמַנּוּ, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught with regard to this: The halakha is in accordance with the decision of our Sages. Rava said: This is an absurdity [burkha]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: What is absurd about this? I said this to him, and I said it to him in the name of a great man. And who is the great man who ruled this way? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

I also wrote something up a while back about the “nontroversy” of whether plain Rav Nachman is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak or bar Yaakov, based on Gittin 31.

See this post:

(2) Then, at the bottom of 152, on to the next daf, we have:

בְּסוּרָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי; בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ מִבֵּי רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, מַהוּ? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: אֵין אַחַר קִנְיָן כְּלוּם.

In Sura they taught the statements of Rav and Shmuel that way, as stated above. In Pumbedita they taught their statements like this: Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: After the death of Rav, the following question was sent from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting all of his property to others, and they performed an act of acquisition, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in reply: After an act of acquisition is performed, nothing can effect a retraction of the gift.

The words בְּסוּרָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי refer to the preceding section, but I am not sure how far back this extends. Is it just one passage, about כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה, כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה – רַב אָמַר: רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֵׁנִי קָנָה? If so, it is about zika, handing over the will, and not necessarily a kinyan. It could also go two back, אִיתְּמַר: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ קִנְיָן – בֵּי רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי: אַרְכְּבֵיהּ אַתְּרֵי רִיכְשֵׁי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי אֵדוּן בַּהּ. With the contrast with the missive sent from Israel as part of that, or a Stamma grappling with a third report. If it goes two back inclusive, then it has to do with a kinyan being performed by witnesses. The Pumbeditan sugya that follows deals with performing a kinyan, though Artscroll also reads into it that implicitly they also gave the will to the beneficiary. This may all play into how far the “Suran” sugya goes.

When we say Sura vs. Pumbeditan sugya, from what generation. These academies have early folks, like Bei Rav, which is Sura. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is later, but is at the same time as the earlier. But other sugyot where this “In Surah they taught X; in Pumbedita Y” may indicate later. So after Rav Ashi reestablished Sura academy, maybe they had one version of the gemara. But Pumbedita academy still persisted, and they had a different version. And this is all being assembled / redacted into the Gemara we all know and love.

It is also interesting to see the participants. Are these outside of Sura / Pumbedita, and looking at others? Rav and Shmuel are early and can interact in Sura, and Bei Rav is Sura. But what about the others? Where is Rav Nachman / Rava / Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak when this occurs, in the Suran sugya (assuming it goes two back)? I would associate them more with Pumbedita.

Meanwhile, in the Pumbeditan sugya, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba is Rav’s student, but operating famously in the early days of Pumbedita. But see what he relates. The academy of Rav sent a question to Shmuel. This would be in a span of about 10 years, after Rav’s death and before Shmuel’s death. But then, who interprets Shmuel’s response? We have Rav Chisda and Rav Huna, who are clearly Sura-associated individuals.

I would almost want to flip the attributions, and say the first is Pumbedita and the second is Sura. But maybe these are academies looking at each other in some way and reporting.