(1) In today’s daf, there is a bit of censorship you may have missed. The Steinsaltz gemara has it correct. Bava Batra 8a:
רַבִּי פָּתַח אוֹצָרוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת, אָמַר: יִכָּנְסוּ בַּעֲלֵי מִקְרָא, בַּעֲלֵי מִשְׁנָה, בַּעֲלֵי תַלְמוּד, בַּעֲלֵי הֲלָכָה, בַּעֲלֵי הַגָּדָה; אֲבָל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ אַל יִכָּנְסוּ. דָּחַק רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עַמְרָם וְנִכְנַס. אָמַר לוֹ: ״רַבִּי, פַּרְנְסֵנִי!״ אָמַר לוֹ: ״בְּנִי, קָרִיתָ?״ אָמַר לוֹ: ״לָאו״. ״שָׁנִיתָ?״ אָמַר לוֹ: ״לָאו״. ״אִם כֵּן, בַּמָּה אֲפַרְנְסֶךָ?״ [אָמַר לוֹ:] ״פַּרְנְסֵנִי כְּכֶלֶב וּכְעוֹרֵב״. פַּרְנְסֵיהּ.
It is related that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once opened his storehouses to distribute food during years of drought. He said: Masters of Bible, masters of Mishna, masters of Talmud, masters of halakha, masters of aggada may enter and receive food from me, but ignoramuses should not enter. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram, whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not know, pushed his way in, and entered, and said to him: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, sustain me. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My son, have you read the Bible? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him, out of modesty: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: Have you studied Mishna? Once again, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then asked him: If so, by what merit should I sustain you? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: Sustain me like a dog and like a raven, who are given food even though they have not learned anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was moved by his words and fed him.
In Artscroll, following the Vilna Shas, it is “Gemara” rather than Talmud. But all other printings, and manuscripts, have “Talmud”.
Here is an example, from Vatican 115b:
This transition to “Gemara” is the work of the censor, because the “Talmud” got a bad rap and was banned. This is the case all over Shas. But, “Gemara” is another term which exists and is used legitimately. We should take care not to conflate the two terms, even as the text before us often conflates them.
(2) Another point on the daf is Rabbi Yochanan’s statement, and a possible linguistic shift indicating dual authorship. Still on 8a:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל לְפַסֵּי הָעִיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִיַּתְמֵי; אֲבָל רַבָּנַן – לָא, דְּרַבָּנַן לָא צְרִיכִי נְטִירוּתָא. אֲמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְשׁוּרָא וּלְפָרָשָׁאה וּלְטֻרְזִינָא – אֲפִילּוּ מִיַּתְמֵי; אֲבָל רַבָּנַן – לָא צְרִיכִי נְטִירוּתָא. כְּלָלָא דְמִילְּתָא: כׇּל מִילְּתָא דְּאִית לְהוּ הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ מִיַּתְמֵי.
And Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All are required to contribute to the columns of the city, and money is collected for that purpose even from orphans. But the Sages are not required to contribute, since the Sages do not need protection. Rav Pappa said: Money is collected even from orphans for the city wall, for the city horseman, and for the guard [uletarzina] of the city armory, but the Sages do not require protection. The principle of the matter is: Money is collected even from orphans for anything from which they derive benefit.
ha-kol and ha-ir is the Hebrew definite article. Yatmei is Aramaic, but we might imagine a reworking from min hayetomim. Or, as the simple implication of hakol. What about aval rabanan, la, de-rabbanan la tzrichei netiruta, which is clearly Aramaic? This echoes ideas earlier on the daf, so could be a Stammaic insertion into Rabbi Yochanan’s statement. That isn’t to say that Rabbi Yochanan wouldn’t necessarily agree to it - both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan above expounded this idea. But what is the purpose of this column?
Looking at printings, they have it. At manuscript, many have it. Thus:
Munich 95 skips it, but also skips the entire statement and much above it. Escorial, though, skips over the rabbanan portion, going directly to Rav Pappa’s statement, matching my speculation.
(3) At the top of yesterday’s daf, 7b, Mar Kashisha and Mar Yenuka:
מָר יָנוֹקָא וּמָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: נְהַרְדָּעֵי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ – אֵין לָהֶן לֹא דֶּרֶךְ זֶה עַל זֶה,
i.e., Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: The Sages of Neharde’a follow their usual line of reasoning, as Rav Ḥama, who was from Neharde’a, issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who was also from that city. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In the case of brothers who divided their father’s estate, they do not have a right-of-way against each other. Although the father would traverse the outer field from the inner field to access the public domain, the brother who received the inner field as an inheritance does not have the right to traverse his brother’s outer field.
with the famous Tosafot that reverses Mar Kashisha (“the Elder”) to mean the younger of the two brothers, born in Rav Chisda’s old age, and Mar Yenuka(“the Younger) to mean the older brother, born in Rav Chisda’s youth.
I wrote an article about this, which you can read here:
