The Mishnah Unit of Four Watchmen

A few points on Bava Metzia 93.

(1) Who is Rav Acha son of Rav Huna?

מֵתִיב רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הַמְשַׁמֵּר אֶת הַפָּרָה – מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מְשַׁמֵּר לָאו כְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי – אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָזִיז בָּהּ אֵבֶר.

Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna raises an objection to this reasoning from a baraita: One who safeguards the red heifer after it has been burned renders his garments impure, in accordance with halakha concerning all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer. The Torah decrees that all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer contract impurity (Numbers, chapter 19). It is therefore necessary to establish which people are considered to have taken part in this ritual. And if you say that one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, why does he render his garments impure? He has not performed any labor. Rabba bar Ulla said: He does not render them impure due to his work as a watchman; rather, this is a rabbinic decree, lest he move a limb of the heifer.

The manuscripts on Hachi Garsinan all have Rav Acha son of Huna. I don’t think the “Rav” title of Rav Huna should be there. We aren’t talking about the son of the famous second-generation Rav Huna, but a different Huna.

Regardless, as Rav Hyman writes in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, he’s a student of third-generation Rav Sheshet, and a contemporary of fourth-generation Rava. That might, or might not, help of figure out which of the many Rav Kahanas raises the next objection in the gemara.

(2) The “four shomrim” is a known unit, rather than a position. That is what emerges from Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, and the exchange between Rava and his teacher Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. Thus, Rav Nachman bar Yaakov cites his teacher Rabba bar Avuah that the one who teaches “four shomerim” is Rabbi Meir. And this is clarified that the formulation in the Mishnah which groups the paid watchman with the renter is Rabbi Meir.

That unit appears in the Mishnah here, on Bava Metzia 93. What follows in our Mishnah is not so related, about encountering a wolf. Eventually it gets there in Mishnah 10, towards the conclusion of the chapter, about an unpaid watchman stipulating, etc., where the prior definitions are kind-of necessary. However, what immediately precedes does have a relation, though a false one. That Mishna began שׁוֹמְרֵי פֵרוֹת אוֹכְלִין מֵהִלְכוֹת מְדִינָה, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה. These are watchmen, but that should really go with the preceding text, about הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֲלִים and what they are entitled to it. It almost feels like a segue or a free association.

It also appears in a Mishnah in Shevuot 49a. There in Shevuot, it stands at the beginning of a chapter (namely, #8). And there in Shevuot, it expands on the idea of the unpaid watchman’s obligations, and moves from there. The sugya analyzing the Mishnah appears both here and there. And in the next perek, starting on Bava Metzia 94, there is a tnan hatam and an analysis. Which hatam, there, were they thinking of?

What I’m pondering is that Shevuot may be the primary sugya and its mention local to Bava Metzia was a result of this free association.

(3) The related question is how to break up the Mishnayot. This is not such an easy question. It used to be that, in early manuscripts, Mishnah was a standalone, even at the beginning of the tractate or chapter, and the gemara simply flowed. Thus the necessity for Geonic piskaot, what we encounter as the two dots. And we have these piskaot, in some manuscripts, even immediately after the Mishnah, where the Mishnah is now accompanying the Talmudic text. In Munich 95, the Mishnah accompanies the Talmud, but in larger font in its own textual segment, so it isn’t entirely clear what is what. Some Mishnah manuscripts will number the Mishnayot, so you can see where one begins and one ends. Also, something to pay attention to is how the Rif and Rosh cite the Mishnah along with the gemara, because their quotations sometimes cut off the Mishnah in different locations than we have in our printed texts.

I say all this because we have a different experience of the Mishnah as it appears in our gemara, vs. how it appears in stand-alone Mishnayot, vs. how it appears in Yerushalmi.

So, in our regular Mishnayot, fruit watchers is a new Mishnah, separated from other eaters, and contains the Four Watchmen.

שׁוֹמְרֵי פֵרוֹת אוֹכְלִין מֵהִלְכוֹת מְדִינָה, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל, וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִים עַל הַשְּׁבוּרָה וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה:

The mishna adds: Watchmen of produce may eat the produce of the field or vineyard by local regulations, i.e., in accordance with the ordinances accepted by the residents of that place, but not by Torah law. There are four types of bailees, to whom different halakhot apply. They are as follows: An unpaid bailee, who receives no compensation for safeguarding the item; and the borrower of an item for his own use; a paid bailee, who is provided with a salary for watching over an item; and a renter, i.e., a bailee who pays a fee for the use of a vessel or animal. If the item was stolen, lost, or broken, or if the animal died in any manner, their halakhot are as follows: An unpaid bailee takes an oath over every outcome; whether the item was lost, stolen, or broken, or if the animal died, the unpaid bailee must take an oath that it happened as he described, and he is then exempt from payment. The borrower does not take an oath, but pays for every outcome, even in a circumstance beyond his control. And the halakhot of a paid bailee and a renter are the same: They take an oath over an injured animal, over a captured animal, and over a dead animal, attesting that the mishaps were caused by circumstances beyond their control, and they are exempt, but they must pay for loss or theft.

Talmud Yerushalmi is the same, separating off the Fruit Watchers to go with the Four Watchmen.

Ktav Yad Kaufmann does similar linkage.

In our gemara, Bava Metzia 93a, the Fruit Watchers is part of the preceding Mishnah, about workers and eating. Then there is gemara, and then later on 93a, there is the Four Watchmen Mishnah.

Of course, for all of these, we would want to see manuscripts. Munich does have shomrei in big letters in the start of the relevant sugya, so maybe that means something.

The manuscripts that group differently are noted in Hachi Garsinan as “change of order”, but you have to look at the actual images to see what this means. E.g. Vatican 117

The arba shomerin does not follow the word ufardeisin. Rather, this is what it looks like:

That is, the Mishnah is indeed joined together like in the Mishna / Yerushalmi.

I’m partial to the way we have it in our printed texts, though, since this grouping seems more logical.