The Lion of the Fellowship
I found this post stuck in my drafts folder, and since it relates to today’s tomorrow’s daf, I decided to run it.
Rabbi Zeira is a Lion of the Fellowship.
I discovered this in the course of researching one of my articles (on Sotah 39). Rabba bar Rav Huna derived an idea from verse X, and Rabbi Zeira cited Rav Chisda who derived the same idea from verse X - 3. And I knew who Rabba bar Rav Huna was — and third-generation Amora, son of Rav Huna. And I know Rav Chisda as well, third-generation student / colleague of Rav Chisda. But who is R’ Zeira1?
I know that there may two of them. Rav Zeira I / Rabbi Zeira I was a third-generation Amora who was Rav Yehuda’s student. Rav Aharon Hyman also discusses a Rabbi Zeira II, a fourth and fifth-generation Amora, who was a student of Rav Yosef (Bava Batra 154b) and others, and is associated with Mechoza academy.
Indications that Rabbi Zeira II indeed exists may be based on other Amoraim which whom this Rabbi Zeira II interacts. Now, Rabbi Zeira is also someone to whom longevity is ascribed2, so maybe this other social network subgraph isn’t such great evidence. However, recall that Rabbi Zeira made aliyah in Rav Yehuda’s lifetime, and was active in Israel as Rabbi Yochanan’s student, in Teveria, so we wouldn’t expect him to be active in fourth and fifth-generations in Bavel.
So who is the one citing Rav Chisda in Sotah 39? Rav Hyman says it is Rabbi Zeira I, but I don’t know. Perhaps it would be Rabbi Zeira II. That was what I was thinking about when encountering the Lion of the Fellowship.
In distinguishing between the two, Rav Hyman made an interesting contrast.
“And so do we find him {Rabbi Zeira II} with Rava {not just Abaye}, such as in Bava Batra 87b {sic. actually, Bava Batra 88a}:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא אֲנִי וַאֲרִי שֶׁבַּחֲבוּרָה תַּרְגֵּימְנוּהָ וּמַנּוּ רַבִּי זֵירָא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּטָלָהּ לָמוֹד בָּהּ לַאֲחֵרִים
Rather, Rava said: I and the lion of the group explained it. And who is this great Sage, referred to as a lion? It is Rabbi Zeira, and the explanation is as follows: Here we are dealing with a case where the storekeeper took the jug from the child in order to measure with it for others, without the knowledge of the father.
Meanwhile, about Rabbi Zeira I, in Menachot 40b, Rava employed different language:
אלא אמר רבא הא מילתא אמרי ואיתמר במערבא משום דרבי זירא כוותי שמא יקרע סדינו בתוך ג' ויתפרנו
Rather, Rava said: This is a statement that I said, and it was stated in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: The reason for the rabbinic decree is lest one’s cloak rip within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the corner of the garment, which is where the ritual fringes are placed, and he sew it with linen string and then use the excess string for ritual fringes.
”
I’m not sure that we can make this distinction between the two. What if, when Rava mentions ari shebachabura, the lion of the group, it was actually third-generation Rabba who said it?
Our Vilna text has Rava saying it. But two other printings, Venice and Pisaro, have Rabba.
While most manuscripts on Hachi Garsinan have Rava, Munich 95 has Rabba.
The reason Rabba may make sense here is that Rabba occurred immediately above and was challenged, so ela amar Rabba could be him revising the statement. The reason Rava may make sense here is that it was Rabba who occurred immediately above and was challenged, so ela amar Rava is a different Amora providing an alternative. One caveat is that Hamburg 165 and Escorial manuscripts actually have Rava in the preceding challenged statement, so it would be Rava challenging his own idea.
There are also several other sugyot, and two other people, who are called “the Lion of the fellowship”.
In our printed version of the Talmud, Rava employs the selfsame expression in Shabbat 111b:
וְהָאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּלָא גַבְרֵי, רַב אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אֲנִי וַאֲרִי שֶׁבַּחֲבוּרָה תַּרְגֵּימְנָא, וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks again: Didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say that Rav said explicitly: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin taught the same tradition without mentioning the names of the men who cited the statements, but cited it directly: Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rather, Rava said: I and the lion of the group explained this. And the Gemara asks: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin. He and Rava explained: The halakha is indeed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but not for his reason.
All manuscripts I’ve seen have Rava, not Rabba.
So too, Sanhedrin 8b:
אמר רבא אני וארי שבחבורה תרגימנא ומנו רב חייא בר אבין הכא במאי עסקינן שהביא הבעל עדים שזינתה והביא האב עדים והזימום לעדי הבעל בא לגבות ממון מבעל בשלשה ובמקום נפשות בעשרים ושלשה
Rava said: I and the lion of the group both explained this. The Gemara asks: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin. He and Rava explained: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the husband brought witnesses to testify that the wife committed adultery, and the wife’s father brought witnesses, and through their testimony that they were with the first witnesses in some other place at the time of the alleged transgression, they classified the husband’s witnesses as conspiring witnesses. In that case, if the father comes to collect monetary restitution from the husband for defamation, the case may be adjudicated by three judges. And in a case of capital punishment, such as the trial of the husband’s witnesses, the case must be judged by twenty-three judges. In this way, Ulla’s interpretation may be reconciled with the Tosefta.
Again, all manuscripts have Rava. However, I would note that the immediately following statement, explaining in another manner, is Abaye. And it is extremely atypical for Rava to precede Abaye in a disagreement. Abaye always leads. This inversion led the Rosh in Bava Metzia to emend a Rava to Rabba, and the Rosh to Bava Batra to maintain Rabba, not Rava.
However, there may be a difference between the typical order when simply stating their positions, and the order when one is rejected for cause, leading us to a particular alternative. Or where one speaks to the other, voicing his objection.
Finally (for this particular triplet), there is Kiddushin 48b.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא אֲנִי וַאֲרִי שֶׁבַּחֲבוּרָה (תַּרְגֵּימְנָא) [תַּרְגֵּימְנוּהָ] וּמַנּוּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמְרָה הִיא לִשְׁלוּחָהּ צֵא וְקַבֵּל לִי קִדּוּשַׁי מִפְּלוֹנִי שֶׁאָמַר לִי הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בְּדִינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְהָלַךְ וְנָתַן לוֹ דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב מָר סָבַר קְפֵידָא וּמָר סָבַר מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הִיא לוֹ וּמַאי נִמְצָא דְּקָא צַיִיר בִּבְלִיתָא
Rather, Rava says: I and the lion of the group explained it, and the Gemara interjects: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: With what are we dealing here? With a case where she said to her agent: Go and accept my betrothal for me from so-and-so, who said to me: Be betrothed to me with a dinar made of silver, and the prospective husband went and gave the agent a dinar made of gold. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that she is particular about becoming betrothed with a silver dinar rather than a gold one. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that she is merely indicating her position to him but does not care what the agent receives from the man. And what is the meaning of: It was found, as it was evident from the outset that it was gold? The mishna is referring to a case where the coin was wrapped in a cloth, and the agent was unaware that he was receiving a different dinar from what she had requested.
All manuscripts / printings I’ve seen have Rava.
The immediately preceding statement was fifth-generation Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who cited something Abaye said, to which the gemara had an objection.
Now, what is interesting about this sugya triplet (Shabbat, Sanhedrin, Kiddushin) is that it is not the ambiguous Rabbi Zeira who is tagged as the Lion of the Fellowship. Rather, it is Rabbi Chiyya bar Avin.
A third-generation Amora associated with Sura, Rabbi Chiyya bar Avina traveled back and forth between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael. He cites first-generation Amoraim, Rav and Shmuel, but was a talmid muvhak of Rav Huna (see Kiddushin 58a and elsewhere).
Rav Hyman writes about him in association with Abaye and Rava, that he was among the nechutei, those who came back down to Bavel, but then was older.
The other possibility is that it somehow (as above) isn’t fourth-generation Rava who calls him the lion of the group, but that it is third-generation Rabba.
And if we suggest it is Rabba for Rabbi Chiyya bar Avin being labeled the lion, could the same thing be true for Rabbi Zeira? And if so, that would likely make him the third-generation Rabbi Zeira I.
There is one more lion of the fellowship which doesn’t come up in a Talmud search, because it appears in the Rif’s quotation of the gemara.
In Gittin 52b, we have:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אֲנָא וְרַב כָּהֲנָא חָתְמִינַן אַשְּׁטָרָא דְּאִימֵּיהּ דִּזְעֵירָא יַתְמָא דִּמְזַבְּנָא אַרְעָא לִכְרָגָא בְּלָא אַכְרַזְתָּא דְּאָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי לִכְרָגָא וְלִמְזוֹנֵי וְלִקְבוּרָה מְזַבְּנִינַן בְּלָא אַכְרַזְתָּא
§ Rav Ashi said: Rav Kahana and I signed a deed of sale for the mother of Ze’eira the orphan, who, as the child’s steward, sold land without first making a public announcement in order to pay the head tax [karga]. It was permitted for her to act in this manner due to what the Sages of Neharde’a said: When an orphan’s property is sold, a public announcement of the sale is first made in order to ensure that the seller will receive the highest price. But when the property is sold to raise money for the payment of the head tax, or to provide for sustenance for orphans, or to pay for burial of the deceased, the money is needed immediately, so the property may be sold even without a public announcement.
However, in the Rif, this becomes:
אמר רב אשי אני וארי שבחבורה ומנו רב כהנא חתמינן בשטרי דאימיה דזעירי יתמי דזבין ארעא לכרגא ולמזוני בלא אכרזתא דאמרי נהרדעי לכרגא ולמזוני ולקבורה מזבנינן בלא אכרזתא.
I don’t find any Talmudic manuscript that has this.
But if this indeed is the case, that sixth-generation Rav Ashi refers to his contemporary like this, then it would suggest that this label, Lion of the Fellowship, is a relative term.
I wrote R’ Zeira because it is unclear whether the title of ר’ זירא should be “Rabbi” or “Rav”. While the Venice printing has the title expanded to Rabbi, the Vilna printing, Munich 95, and Vatican 110 all have a Resh with a stroke, which could capture either Rav or Rabbi. The same figure appears other times on this daf, and each time it is ר’ זירא. Now, the reason that we may care about this is that while Rashi maintains that Rav Zeira and Rabbi Zeira are the same person, simply before and after receiving ordination, Tosafot say they are different, pointing to a gemara where they seem to argue with one another. See Ketubot 43b and Menachot 40b.
(Megillah 27b, but see manuscripts and Taanit 20b, that it is alternatively Rav Ada bar Ahava)