Switching Abaye and Rava
Thoughts on Nazir 38b
We got derailed for a bit because of Purim, and because I generally only publish once daily max. So this is for last week.
A curious phenomenon on Nazir 38b, in which Abaye and Rava swap places. That is, our text reads:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָכַל חַרְצָן — לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אָכַל זָג — לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אָכַל חַרְצָן וְזָג — לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ. רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת, שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אַלָּאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.
§ Abaye says: A nazirite who ate a grape seed is flogged twice, i.e., two sets of thirty-nine lashes, one set for the specific prohibition stated with regard to grape seeds, and the other for the general prohibition “anything that is made of the grapevine” (Numbers 6:4). Likewise, if he ate a grape skin he is flogged twice. If he ate a grape seed and a grape skin he is flogged three times, for the seed, for the skin, and for the prohibition “anything that is made of the grapevine.” Rava says: He is flogged only once if he ate a seed or a skin. He is not flogged for “anything that is made of the grapevine,” because one is not flogged for violating a general prohibition. One is not liable to receive lashes for violation of a single prohibition that includes many items or cases.
The sugya continues with an objection by Rava’s student, Rav Pappa (to Abaye, though implicitly, rather than explicitly לאביי). And the discourse continues for a while with other later Amoraim weighing in.
When we look at variant texts at Hachi Garsinan, we see the following:
So while the Vilna printing and Munich manuscript lead with Abaye stating the first statement, and have Rava respond, the Venice printing and Vatican 110 manuscript lead with Rava and have Abaye respond. Venice is “interesting” in that leads with אמר ליה רבא as if Rava is responding to someone, even though he is the first statement. And here is Vatican 110-111:
We can look to local meforshim to see how they cite the sugya. For instance, the Mefaresh (Pseudo-Rashi) has אמר אביי followed by רבא אמר.
Shita Mekubetzet takes note of the girsological divergence:
הכי גרסינן אמר רבא אכל חרצן לוקה שתים. וכך היא בפרק כל המנחות ופרק המקבל. אבל בכל שעה איתא איפכא אמר אביי במקום רבא.
changing it to have Rava lead and noting that this matches our text in perek Kol HaMenachot (Menachot 58b).
[However, looking there, it doesn’t mention אכל חרצן לוקה שתים but a parallel dispute, and with Abaye appearing second and stating the line about lav shebechlalot.
איתמר המעלה משאור ומדבש על גבי המזבח אמר רבא לוקה משום שאור ולוקה משום דבש לוקה משום עירובי שאור ומשום עירובי דבש
§ The Gemara discusses another dispute between Abaye and Rava on this topic: It was stated: With regard to one who offers up a mixture made of leaven and of honey on the altar, Rava says: He is flogged with four sets of lashes for this act, as the verse: “As any leaven and any honey, you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11), includes four separate prohibitions. He is flogged one set due to the prohibition against sacrificing leaven, and he is flogged a second set due to the prohibition against sacrificing honey, and he is flogged a third set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of leaven, and he is flogged a fourth set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of honey.
אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות
Abaye says: One is not flogged for a general prohibition, i.e., a single mitzva in the Torah that includes many different prohibited acts. Since all these actions are covered by the prohibition: “You shall not burn,” it is considered a general prohibition, for which one is not flogged.
] Yet, continues Shitta Mekubetzet, in Kol Sha’a (Pesachim 41b) it is the opposite, with “Abaye said” instead of Rava.
Looking at our own printed Pesachim, we do have Rava replace Abaye. Yet it seems the reverse of the Shita Mekubetzet. Thus:
רָבָא אָמַר: אָכַל זָג — לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. חַרְצָן — לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. זָג וְחַרְצָן — לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ.
The Gemara cites a parallel dispute with regard to a different halakha. Rava said: If a nazirite ate a grape skin he receives two sets of lashes, as the verse states: “All the days that he is a nazirite he shall eat nothing that is made of the grapevine; from pressed grapes to a grape pit he shall not eat” (Numbers 6:4). He receives two sets of lashes, one for eating food that grew on a grapevine and one for consuming the skin of a grape. Likewise, if he ate a grape pit he receives two sets of lashes, one for eating a grape pit and the other for eating a grape product. If he ate a grape skin and a grape pit he receives three sets of lashes, one for eating the grape skin, one for eating the grape pit, and the third for eating a grape product.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: תַּרְתֵּי הוּא דְּלָא לָקֵי, חֲדָא מִיהַת לָקֵי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: חֲדָא נָמֵי לָא לָקֵי, דְּלָא מְיַיחַד לָאוֵיהּ כְּלָאו דַּחֲסִימָה.
Abaye said: As with regard to the Paschal lamb, one does not receive lashes for a prohibition stated in general terms. Some say that according to Abaye, it is two sets of lashes that he does not receive; however, at any rate one set of lashes he does receive. And some say: One does not receive even one set of lashes for transgressing this prohibition, as the prohibition he transgressed is not specific to one matter, like the prohibition against muzzling.
Right above this in the gemara, there is another Rava / Abaye discussion, again with Abaye saying אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת. So these two segments should travel together with their Abaye / Rava pair.
Again, there are variant girsaot which flip these in Pesachim 41b:
Tosafot on the gemara in Pesachim write:
אמר רבא אכל זג לוקה שתים - הא פלוגתא דאביי ורבא איתמר איפכא בפ' שלשה מינין (נזיר דף לח:) וכהנה רבות בגמרא:
Thus they have Rava lead (like our printed text) but note that in Nazir 38b it’s flipped with Abaye leading (like our printed text), and that there are many such instances of flipping in the gemara.
We should also consider Temurah 7b:
איתמר המעלה אברי בעלי מומין לגבי מזבח אמר רבא עובר משום בל תקטירו כולו ומשום בל תקטירו מקצתו (אמר אביי) אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות
§ A baraita above (6b) stated that one who sacrifices a blemished animal on the altar transgresses the prohibition “You may not burn all of it,” and if he sacrificed part of it, he transgresses the prohibition “You may not burn part of it.” With regard to this it was stated: In the case of one who brings up the limbs of blemished animals onto the altar, Rava says that he violates both the prohibition of “You may not burn all of it;” and the prohibition of “You may not burn part of it,” and he receives two sets of lashes. Abaye says: One is not flogged twice for violating a general prohibition. Since one verse serves as the source for both prohibitions, one is not flogged twice for its violation.
With a Rava / Abaye, and Abaye speaking of לאו שבכללות.
There’s also Bava Metzia 115b:
דאמר רבא אכל נא לוקה שתים משום נא ומשום (שמות יב, ט) כי אם צלי אש מבושל לוקה שתים משום מבושל ומשום כי אם צלי אש נא ומבושל לוקה שלש משום נא ומשום מבושל ומשום לא תאכלנו כי אם צלי אש
As Rava says: If he ate an olive-bulk of it raw, he is flogged with two sets of lashes. One set of lashes is due to the prohibition: “Do not eat of it raw,” and the other is due to the prohibition: “But roasted with fire.” If he ate an olive-bulk of a Paschal offering that had been cooked, he also is flogged with two sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being cooked in water, and the second is due to the injunction: “But roasted with fire.” If he ate an olive-bulk of both raw meat and cooked meat, he is flogged with three sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being raw, and the second is due to the prohibition against it being cooked, and the third is due to the prohibition: “Do not eat of it…but roasted with fire.”
אביי אמר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות לימא אביי דאמר כרב יהודה ורבא דאמר כרב הונא
Conversely, Abaye says: The prohibition “Do not eat of it…but roasted with fire” is not referring exclusively to this issue, but includes many cases, and one is not flogged for violating a general prohibition. In this case, Abaye and Rava apparently disagree over the same matter as do Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda. Shall we say that Abaye states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and Rava states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna?
There are other gemarot involving lav shebechlalot, but I’m not going to continue the survey. Let’s just now consider the phenomenon, why it’s important, and what could spark it.
We famously regularly rule like Rava over Abaye except in a small set of cases (ya’l kegam). Though there are exceptions, and those may include where other Amoraim also weigh in to the discussion. So, it may be that flipping the girsa would flip the halacha.
We should expect consistency in the sugyot in which an Amora takes the position regarding לאו שבכללות. If in the immediately preceding sugya in Pesachim 41b about the paschal lamb, Abaye asserted אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת, then in the following sugya in Pesachim 41b, Abaye should again assert that אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת.
Unless both Abaye and Rava agree to the principle, but argue as to its application.Similarly, we should expect consistency across masechtot within the same manuscript. We should ideally confirm that this is the case, for those manuscripts that span all these tractates.
Finally, there is an idea spelled out by the Rosh on Bava Metzia 52a, where there was a dispute between Rava and Abaye. He writes:
גמ' מ"ש בסלע דפליגי ומאי שנא בטלית דלא פליגי. אמר רבא מאן תנא טלית רבי שמעון היא. אביי אמר טלית עד שתות מחיל איניש כדאמרי אינשי עשיק לגביך ושוי לכריסיך. סלע כיון דלא סגי ליה לא מחיל. והלכה כרבא. הלכך הלכתא כר' שמעון בסלע דסתם לן תנא כוותיה בטלית וכבר פסק רבא בטלית כוותיה מדאמר רבא הלכתא פחות משתות נקנה מקח. ע"כ דברי רב אלפס ז"ל. אמנם יראה דרבה גרסי' הכא ולא רבא שלא מצינו בכל הגמ' שקבע רב אשי דברי רבא קודם אביי. כי אביי מלך קודם רבא והיה פותח תחלה בבית המדרש הלכך נקבעו דבריו תחלה. וכיון דגרס רבה א"כ הלכה כאביי דבתראה הוא:
That is, in a gemara in which Rava was featured first in the dispute with Abaye, Rosh notes that Rav Ashi, that is, the Talmudic Redactor, regularly lists Abaye first in a dispute. This is because Abaye led the yeshiva in Pumpedita first, and Rava only after Abaye’s death. In arguments, Amoraim are listed in relatively chronological order. Therefore, he changes the girsa to third-generation Rabba vs. his student, fourth-generation Abaye. And this girsological change has halachic repercussions, since hilecheta kebatraa, we rule like the later-generation Sage (Abaye). Had it been Rava vs. Abaye, Rava would have won because of the general principle / description of Rava winning over Abaye.
I’m not sure I agree with the Rosh here. While that is the general way that the Talmudic Redactor frames their disputes, there in Bava Metzia 52a, there are other reasons for putting the disputants in that order. Rava’s statement is shorter — attributing the Mishnah to Rabbi Shimon, while Abaye’s is more elaborate, explaining the distinction and appealing to a popular aphorism. Indeed, Abaye is well framed as a response to / rejection of Rava. So the order just works better.
Similarly in Nazir 38a. (Note that the Venice printing even led with amar leih Rava, as if there is a response, despite it being the leading term). There might be very good reasons for Rava to lead over Abaye. Namely, whoever spoke last, saying אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת, said it as a rejection to / simplification of the first proposal.What I am speculating is that the same impetus motivating the Rosh to rework Rava into Rabba could have motivated some scribe to reorder them and place Abaye first. If so, under the principle of lectio difficilior potior — the apparently (but only on-the-surface) more difficult reading is stronger — we may say that Rava should precede Abaye here. And then a troubled scribe fixed the text to put them in the “correct” order.