The Talmudic Narrator Gets A Name

On the daf for Shabbos, Bava Kamma 9a-b, the Talmudic Narrator — Stamma De-Gemara, explains Rav Huna’s statement, but also notes that the Yerushalmi has a contrary explanation, about expending 1/3 of one’s money for a mitzvah. Also, Rav Ashi asks about the parameters of Rav Huna’s statement, which means he may be aware of the Stamma. Thus:

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּמִצְוָה – עַד שְׁלִישׁ.

§ Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Huna says: For the purchase of an object with which to fulfill a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third.

מַאי שְׁלִישׁ?

The Gemara asks: To what does this one-third refer?

אִילֵּימָא שְׁלִישׁ בֵּיתוֹ, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אִי אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא מִצְוָתָא – לִיתֵּיב לְכוּלֵּיהּ בֵּיתֵיהּ?!

If we say it means that one should spend up to one-third of his estate to perform a mitzva, but if that is so, and if it happened to him that he became obligated in three mitzvot at the same time, should he give his entire estate away in order to fulfill those mitzvot? One is certainly not required to do so.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: בְּהִידּוּר מִצְוָה – עַד שְׁלִישׁ בְּמִצְוָה.

Rather, what Rabbi Zeira said is that for the embellishment of the performance of a mitzva, e.g., to purchase a more beautiful item used in the performance of a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third more than the cost of the standard item used to perform the mitzva.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּגָיו, אוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּבַר? תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: How is this one-third calculated? Is it one-third from within, i.e., he calculates the cost of a standard item, adds one-third of that value, and spends the total on purchasing a more beautiful item; or is it one-third from without, i.e., one-third of the sum he ultimately spends should be the additional sum added in order to purchase a more beautiful item? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא: עַד שְׁלִישׁ – מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – מִשֶּׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Of the money one spends on purchasing a more beautiful item to perform a mitzva, up to one-third more than the cost of a standard item comes from his own finances, but from this point forward, any additional sum spent on purchasing a more beautiful item comes from the largesse of the Holy One, Blessed be He, i.e., God will reimburse him for spending that additional sum.

What is amazing is that the parallel Yerushalmi gives its explanation, as well as the Bavli explanation, and even gives us the name of the Babylonian Amora reporting this Babylonian explanation. Thus, in Yerushalmi Peah 1:1:

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר לְמִצְוֹת עַד שְׁלִישׁ. מַהוּ לְכָל־הַמִּצְוֹת עַד שְׁלִישׁ אוֹ לְמִצְוָה אַחַת. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר לְכָל־הַמִּצְוֹת עַד שְׁלִישׁ. רִבִּי אָבוּן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ לְמִצְוָה אַחַת. רַב חָבִיבָא בְשֵׁם רִבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן מַהוּ שְׁלִישׁ לְדָמִים. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא לָקַח אָדָם מִצְוָה וְרָאָה אֲחֶרֶת נָאָה הִמֶּנָּה עַד כַּמָּה מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו עַד שְׁלִישׁ.

Rav Huna said, for religious purposes up to a third. What does he mean, for all religious purposes or just for one purpose? They thought that this means, for all religious purposes up to one third. Rebbi Abun said, even for one purpose only. Rav Ḥabiba in the name of the rabbis from there: What means “up to a third?” For its cost! How is that done? A man buys a religious article and sees another one which is more beautiful, until when does one bother him? Up to one third.

Now, Rav Chaviva was a redactor, who is a contemporary of Rav Ashi, or Ravina. I wrote an entire article about him (reposted to Scribal Error yesterday).

If so, the Stamma of the Yerushalmi is referring to a sixth or seventh-generation Amora, known to have been involved in redacting the Bavli, and the analysis he cites in the rabbis from there, רַב חָבִיבָא בְשֵׁם רִבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן, accords with the Stamma deGemara of our Bavli.

If this is so, two amazing facts would emerge:

• we can perhaps chronologically place this Babylonian Stamma, and maybe even give this Babylonian Stamma a name — Rav Chaviva, and his generation. As opposed to, e.g., something late Savoraic, or Geonic, or something earlier in Rava or Rav Pappa’s time.

• this particular Yerushalmi Stamma would have to be rather late. The common assumption is that Rabbi Yochanan’s students finalized and redacted the Yerushalmi, so effectively third generation. But, Rav Chaviva is much later then that, so this comment must have been added much later.

However, there is a note in the Yerushalmi Peah translated I quoted, from Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, that rejects this out of hand. It states:

He must have been a Babylonian Amora of the third generation, a student of Rav Huna. The Rav Ḥabiba mentioned in the Babli belongs to the sixth generation, after the compilation of the Jerusalem Talmud and, therefore, he cannot be identical with the Rav Ḥabiba mentioned here.

No. We should not invent a brand new Amora, and place him earlier. A sixth (or seventh) generation Amora, working with Rav Ashi, is exactly where we expect the Babylonian Stamma to be. It all works too perfectly with the Stammaic content. Rather, we should question the assumption that the Yerushalmi was entirely closed in the third generation.