The Pappaitic Approach
and pseudepigraphic attributions
Still on Sotah 40a, let us discuss the Pappaitic approach, and what it has to do with pseudepigraphic statements in the Talmud.
Sotah 40a puts together our modern Modim deRabbanan. Various Amoraim weigh in as to what people should recite privately as the Chazan recites Modim:
בִּזְמַן שֶׁשְּׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר אוֹמֵר מוֹדִים, הָעָם מָה הֵם אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַב: ״מוֹדִים אֲנַחְנוּ לָךְ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַל שֶׁאָנוּ מוֹדִים לָךְ״. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״אֱלֹהֵי כׇּל בָּשָׂר, עַל שֶׁאָנוּ מוֹדִים לָךְ״. רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: ״יוֹצְרֵנוּ יוֹצֵר בְּרֵאשִׁית עַל שֶׁאָנוּ מוֹדִים לָךְ״. נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי: ״בְּרָכוֹת וְהוֹדָאוֹת לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל עַל שֶׁהֶחֱיִיתָנוּ וְקִיַּימְתָּנוּ, עַל שֶׁאָנוּ מוֹדִים לָךְ״. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ הָכִי: ״כֵּן תְּחַיֵּינוּ וּתְחׇנֵּנוּ, וּתְקַבְּצֵנוּ, וְתֶאֱסוֹף גָּלִיּוֹתֵינוּ לְחַצְרוֹת קׇדְשֶׁךָ, לִשְׁמוֹר חוּקֶּיךָ וְלַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹנְךָ בְּלֵבָב שָׁלֵם, עַל שֶׁאָנוּ מוֹדִים לָךְ״.
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the response of the congregants to certain parts of the prayer service. While the prayer leader is reciting the blessing of: We give thanks, what do the people say? Rav says that they say: We give thanks to You, Lord our God, for the merit of giving thanks to You. And Shmuel says that one should say: God of all living flesh, for the merit of giving thanks to You. Rabbi Simai says that one should say: Our Creator, Who created everything in the beginning, for the merit of giving thanks to You. The Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Simai that one should say: We offer blessings and praises to Your great name, for You have given us life and sustained us, for giving thanks to You. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would finish the blessing as follows: So may You give us life, and show us favor, and collect us, and gather our exiles into Your sacred courtyards, in order to observe Your laws and to fulfill Your will wholeheartedly, for giving thanks to You.
Rav and Shmuel are first-generation Amoraim and frequent disputants, so we could take their respective suggestions as an argument. Rabbi Simai is a last-generation Tanna (contemporary with Rabbi) and transitional Tanna / Amora. The Sages of Nehardea had a different version of Rabbi Simai’s statement. And Rav Acha bar Yaakov is a third-generation Amora, who led Papunia, a student of Rav Huna.
Given these different opinions, we might think to select one of them, or any of them. Or to select one, e.g. of Rav in Sura, and follow up with Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s conclusion. Collecting all of them into a lengthy recitation would be a transformative act, changing the very nature of the recitation. Instead of mostly listening to the Chazan but also voicing agreement, one ends up focused on one’s own recitation.
Nevertheless, we have Rav Pappa.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִילְכָּךְ נֵימְרִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ.
Rav Pappa said: These Sages each added a different element to the prayer. Therefore, we should combine them together and recite all of them.
As I’ve discussed on parshablog a while ago, this statement is extremely characteristic of Rav Pappa. He often harmonizes different practices by suggesting reciting both.
Thus, Berachot 59a, for the blessing on a rainbow:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לֹא נִבְרְאוּ רְעָמִים אֶלָּא לִפְשׁוֹט עַקְמוּמִית שֶׁבַּלֵּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָאֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה שֶׁיִּרְאוּ מִלְּפָנָיו״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַקֶּשֶׁת בֶּעָנָן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּפּוֹל עַל פָּנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כְּמַרְאֵה הַקֶּשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בֶעָנָן וְגוֹ׳ וָאֶרְאֶה וָאֶפֹּל עַל פָּנַי״. לָיְיטִי עֲלַהּ בְּמַעְרְבָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִחֲזֵי כְּמַאן דְּסָגֵיד לְקַשְׁתָּא. אֲבָל בָּרוֹכֵי וַדַּאי מְבָרֵךְ. מַאי מְבָרֵךְ? — ״בָּרוּךְ … זוֹכֵר הַבְּרִית״. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: ״נֶאֱמָן בִּבְרִיתוֹ וְקַיָּים בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ נֵימְרִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ: ״בָּרוּךְ … זוֹכֵר הַבְּרִית, וְנֶאֱמָן בִּבְרִיתוֹ וְקַיָּים בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ״.
Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Thunder was created only to impose fear and straighten the crookedness of the heart, as it is stated: “And God has so made it, that men should fear before Him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). And Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who sees a rainbow in a cloud must fall upon his face, as it is stated: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face” (Ezekiel 1:28). The colors of the rainbow symbolize the glory of God and one may not stare at them. Yet, in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would curse one who fell upon his face when seeing a rainbow because it appears as one who is bowing to the rainbow. As far as blessing is concerned, however, all agree that one certainly recites a blessing. What blessing does one recite? Blessed…Who remembers the covenant with Noah. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says that the blessing is: Blessed…Who is faithful to His covenant and fulfills His word. Rav Pappa said: Therefore we will say them both combined: Blessed…Who remembers the covenant and is faithful to His covenant and fulfills His word.
Also Berachot 59b, the blessing on rain:
מַאי מְבָרְכִין? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״מוֹדִים אֲנַחְנוּ לָךְ עַל כׇּל טִפָּה וְטִפָּה שֶׁהוֹרַדְתָּ לָנוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ הָכִי: ״אִילּוּ פִּינוּ מָלֵא שִׁירָה כַּיָּם וְכוּ׳ אֵין אֲנַחְנוּ מַסְפִּיקִין לְהוֹדוֹת לְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ״, עַד ״תִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה״. ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ רוֹב הַהוֹדָאוֹת״.
The Gemara asks: What blessing does one recite? Rav Yehuda said: The formula of the blessing is: We thank You for each and every drop that You have made fall for us. And Rav Yoḥanan concludes the blessing as follows: If our mouths were as full of song as the sea…we could not sufficiently praise You O Lord our God, and he continues with the formula of nishmat that is recited on Shabbat morning, until: Shall bow before You. Blessed are You, O Lord, to Whom abundant thanksgivings are offered.
״רוֹב הַהוֹדָאוֹת״ וְלָא כׇּל הַהוֹדָאוֹת? אָמַר רָבָא: אֵימָא — ״הָאֵל הַהוֹדָאוֹת״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ נֵימְרִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ, ״רוֹב הַהוֹדָאוֹת״ וְ״הָאֵל הַהוֹדָאוֹת״.
The Gemara asks: Does the blessing say: Abundant thanksgivings, and not: All thanksgivings? Certainly all thanksgivings are due to God. Rava said: Emend the formula of the blessing and say: The God of thanksgivings. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, we will recite them both: Abundant thanksgivings, and: The God of thanksgivings.
Also, Berachot 60b, the blessing recited after leaving the bathroom:
מַאי חָתֵים? אָמַר רַב: ״רוֹפֵא חוֹלִים״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קָא שַׁוִּינְהוּ אַבָּא לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא קְצִירֵי. אֶלָּא: ״רוֹפֵא כׇל בָּשָׂר״. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: ״מַפְלִיא לַעֲשׂוֹת״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ נֵמְרִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ — ״רוֹפֵא כׇל בָּשָׂר וּמַפְלִיא לַעֲשׂוֹת״.
The Gemara asks: With what should one conclude this blessing? Rav said: One should conclude: Blessed…Healer of the sick. Shmuel said: Abba, Rav, has rendered everyone sick. Rather, one should say: Healer of all flesh. Rav Sheshet said: One should conclude: Who performs wondrous deeds. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, let us say them both: Healer of all flesh, Who performs wondrous deeds.
So too, Megillah 21b, the blessing after reading the Megillah:
לְאַחֲרֶיהָ מַאי מְבָרֵךְ? בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם (הָאֵל) הָרָב אֶת רִיבֵנוּ וְהַדָּן אֶת דִּינֵנוּ וְהַנּוֹקֵם אֶת נִקְמָתֵנוּ וְהַנִּפְרָע לָנוּ מִצָּרֵינוּ וְהַמְשַׁלֵּם גְּמוּל לְכׇל אוֹיְבֵי נַפְשֵׁנוּ, בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ הַנִּפְרָע לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִכׇּל צָרֵיהֶם. רָבָא אָמַר: הָאֵל הַמּוֹשִׁיעַ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ — נֵימְרִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ: בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ הַנִּפְרָע לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִכׇּל צָרֵיהֶם הָאֵל הַמּוֹשִׁיעַ.
The Gemara asks: What blessing is recited after the reading of the Megilla in places where it is customary to recite such a blessing? The Gemara answers that the following blessing is recited: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, the God Who pleads our cause, and Who judges our claim, and Who avenges our vengeance, and Who punishes our foes, and Who brings retribution to our enemies. Blessed are You, Lord, Who, on behalf of Israel, exacts punishment from all of their foes. Rava said: The conclusion of the blessing is as follows: Blessed are you, Lord, the God who brings salvation. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, since there are two opinions on the matter, we should say both of them: Blessed are you, Lord, Who, on behalf of Israel, exacts punishment from all their foes; the God Who brings salvation.
Regardless, Rav Pappa is a fifth-generation Amora who can build up a liturgy based on all the Amoraim who preceded him. And he’s a student primarily of Rava, so the times he follows Rava’s statement makes sense.
There is an anonymous quotation of the phrase, in Berachot 11b:
מַאי מְבָרֵךְ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לַעֲסוֹק בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה״.
The Gemara clarifies: What formula of blessings does he recite? There is a dispute over the formula of the blessings as well. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The formula of this blessing is like the standard formula for blessings recited over other mitzvot: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with his mitzvot and commanded us to engage in matters of Torah.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ הָכִי ״הַעֲרֵב נָא ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֶת דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָתְךָ בְּפִינוּ וּבְפִיפִיּוֹת עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִהְיֶה אֲנַחְנוּ וְצֶאֱצָאֵינוּ וְצֶאֱצָאֵי עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כֻּלָּנוּ יוֹדְעֵי שְׁמֶךָ וְעוֹסְקֵי תוֹרָתֶךָ בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ הַמְלַמֵּד תּוֹרָה לְעַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan concludes the blessing by adding the following: Lord our God, make the words of Your Torah sweet in our mouths and in the mouths of Your people, the house of Israel, so that we and our descendants and the descendants of Your people, the house of Israel, may be those who know Your name and engage in Your Torah. Blessed are You, Lord, Who teaches Torah to His people Israel.
וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר בָּנוּ מִכׇּל הָעַמִּים וְנָתַן לָנוּ אֶת תּוֹרָתוֹ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ נוֹתֵן הַתּוֹרָה״. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: זוֹ הִיא מְעוּלָּה שֶׁבַּבְּרָכוֹת.
And Rav Hamnuna said an additional formula: Who has chosen us from all the peoples and given us His Torah. Blessed are You, Lord, Giver of the Torah. With regard to this formula, Rav Hamnuna said: This concise blessing is the most outstanding of all the blessings over the Torah, as it combines thanks to God for giving us the Torah as well as acclaim for the Torah and for Israel.
הִלְכָּךְ לֵימְרִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ.
Since several formulas for the blessing over Torah were suggested, each with its own distinct advantage, the Gemara concludes: Therefore, let us recite them all as blessings over the Torah.
where Rif and Rosh attribute to Rav Pappa. And indeed, while our printed texts lack it, the manuscripts (Firenz 7, Munich 95, Oxford 366, JTS: ENA 2068/9–11) have Rav Pappa saying it. A sample from Firenz 7:
In the past, I’ve discussed the assertion (put forth in various forms, by scholars such as Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner and Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs) that a great many Talmudic statement are pseudepigraphic.
I generally disagree and think I have good counterarguments. But, one claim I feel may have some merit is in the question of statements such as this by Rav Pappa, which appear multiple times in multiple sugyot. Jacobs suggests that we might not agree that the named Sage said it in all cases. Rather, he said it once, and the Talmudic Narrator then cited the statement, with its attribution, in a new context.
Thus, in Structure and Form in the Babylonian Talmud, in chapter 1, titles “How much of the Babylonian Talmud is pseudepigraphic?”, Jacobs writes as his last example:
The application of an original saying
Another phenomenon for our investigation is that of the same scholar being quoted in a number of passages as saying this or that and quoted moreover in the identical words even though the contexts are different.36 For instance, in three different passages37 R. Jeremiah is quoted as asking whether a to-and-fro movement is to be counted as one or as two, and in a number of different contexts R. Pappa38 is quoted as saying, Therefore we should say both of them.' Surely the best way of understanding this phenomenon is that R. Jeremiah and R. Pappa only said it once, in a particular context, it is the editors who supplied it to all other instances where it was suitable.39 If this is correct, in all but the original instance the meaning is not that R. Jeremiah or R. Pappa actually said it where he is said to have said it, but rather that from the original saying it can be concluded that he would 'say' it here too and by 'saying' it there he, in fact, 'says' it here as well.40
The footnotes:
We won’t go through each of these in this one post, especially as I am running into deadlines. But let us get into footnote 39. Here is Dorot HaRishonim, vol 5, pg 510, by Isaac Halevy .
The argument he makes is: how can we say on Berachot 39 that Rav Pappa says “therefore we should say both, namely בָּרוּךְ … זוֹכֵר הַבְּרִית and נֶאֱמָן בִּבְרִיתוֹ וְקַיָּים בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ? The former was stated anonymously, by the Talmudic Narrator or as an existing custom, while the latter is a brayta citing Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka. We surely cannot say that Rav Pappa responded to the setama.
“Therefore, the words of Rav Pappa are to establish their [Stamma] custom in their hands, albeit to add upon it also the [blessing’s] conclusion in of the brayta.
And it is not possible for it have been in any other way.”
Having steel-manned the argument, I’ll now explain how I differ.
First, dealing with the last argument first, from Berachot 59 and Rav Pappa adding on to a Stammaitic version of the blessing…
The Stamma in any one sugya might be of different strata, and a conservative approach is to date it based on the Amoraim it discusses, or the Amoraim who discuss it. So it is possible that this was a Stamma stratum from Rava’s time.
Halevi cited the printed text (matched by Munich 95 and Firenz 7), but two manuscripts have this as a named statement, by Rav Yehuda. (Whoops! But he didn’t have as easy access to the manuscript we have.) This is making a huge leap, and saying this is the only understanding, based on a faulty text.
Thus, Oxford 366 and Paris 671 have Rav Yehuda:
Earlier, I said that the claim “may have some merit” regarding the multiple occurrences of a single attributed statement, such as that of Rav Pappa. Let me expand upon that idea a bit.
I definitely do NOT subscribe to the idea that the Talmudic Narrator will deliberately (maliciously?) fabricate a discussion, by stitching together ideas from Amoraim based on what they said elsewhere, in order to pretend that Rav Pappa said it here. In fact, the Talmudic Narrator is exceptionally careful to avoid this, and often wastes many words avoiding this. He will say instead, “as Rav Sheshet said (elsewhere), as Rav Sheshet said”. Do a search for “כדאמר רב” with the quotes and browse the examples, to see this.
At the same time, there is a frequent phenomenon observed by Talmudic academic scholars called ha’avara, the transfer of a sugya. If something is relevant, they may cut and paste a relevant discourse and juxtapose it with another discourse. This is sometimes evident when the chronological order is violated, or the statement actually means something somewhat different when taken in its original context. But ha’avara is not an instance of the Narrator saying “I would like to advance this idea, so let us have Rav Pappa say it.” There is a more accidental or by-the-way aspect to it.
Meanwhile, contrary to Jacobs, I don’t agree that “Surely the best way of understanding this phenomenon is that R. Jeremiah and R. Pappa only said it once, in a particular context, it is the editors who supplied it to all other instances where it was suitable.”
Says who that this is the best way of understanding this phenomenon? It certainly is one way of understanding it, but simply taking a jaded view and casting aspersions as to the authenticity of a report, without supporting evidence, is not necessarily the more credible option.
If we take the text not just as literature, but as a worked transcript of actual discourse, why should it be surprising that the same person, with his set of ideas about the halachic world, and his unique approach to analyzing texts and ideas, couldn’t and wouldn’t express the same idea in multiple contexts. For Rav Pappa, it is harmonization of liturgy. You can contrast the approach of Aruch Hashulchan, who often finds one most credible path and says this is the halacha, with the approach of Mishnah Berurah, who tries to satisfy all opinions. The approach, and related language, will appear in multiple contexts, even though it is from the same author or set of authors.
Similarly, I attended Rav Herschel Shachter’s shiur in person for five years, and listened on YU Torah for several other years. Five years means that we covered quite a number of different masechtot. And, he applies his own analysis, with identical language, to various different sugyot. For instance, if he were to talk about something not needing halachic intent for the action, he would compare it to the actions of a monkey (the technical term maaseh kof.) And when he wants to talk about maaseh kof when applied to speech, he uses the analogy of a parrot saying it. If Reuven were to take shiur notes for each of those sugyot, or were to quote him in various contexts based on what he said, Shimon could try to claim that Rav Schachter only used the analogy once, and the person(s) writing the shiur notes must have copied from one instance to the other. For surely that is the “best way of understanding the phenomenon!” No. People act and talk in analogous ways in different but related contexts, because they are the same person and their mind works consistently in this manner!
Now back to our sugya in Sotah 40a. All the sugyot have a shared feature, that Rav Pappa said “therefore let us say both of them”. However, in our sugya in Sotah, he says something slightly different, namely “therefore let us say all of them.”
Furthermore, it might not actually be Rav Pappa here. While the printed texts (Vilna and Venice) have Rav Pappa, the manuscripts (Munich 95, Vatican 110, and Bologna) all have the third-generation Amora, Rav Sheshet.
Here is Vatican 110. It has Rav Sheshet make the statement, but also replaces the subsequent speaker (Rabbi Yitzchak) with Rav Sheshet.
And here is Munich 95, which has Rav Sheshet instead of Rav Pappa, but preserves Rabbi Yizchak as the next speaker.
I find Rav Sheshet to be a credible reading here. What I suspect happened is another, more common form of pseudepigraphic statements — that the scribe, rather than the original Talmudic Narrator, accidentally replaces the speaker. We don’t expect Rav Sheshet here, but would expect Rav Pappa, since he is famous for his Pappaitic approach, and some scribe made the replacement, which made it into our printed texts.