"They Sent from There"

Still stuck on Bava Batra 124, Sunday’s daf, though the phrase under discussion continues onto the next daf. There are four occurrences.

שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה, אֲבָל לֹא בָּרִבִּית.

The Gemara relates: They sent the following ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: If the father lent money to a gentile, the firstborn takes a double portion of the value of the loan itself, but not of the interest, as the interest is considered property due to the father.

Understandably, an Artscroll footnote points us to that pivotal identification sugya, Sanhedrin 17b, which maps appellations to names. Therefore, “they sent from there” means Rabbi Eleazar (ben Pedat), a second generation Amora born in Babylonia but who moved to the Land of Israel. From there == From Israel. Artscroll directly quotes the gemara, rather than a commentator who suggests the mapping here.

I have two possible issues with this mapping. First, even there, it is not solid. In fact, they begin by making an different mapping, then challenge it, and finally land on Rabbi Eleazar. Thus:

נהרבלאי מתנו רמי בר ברבי אמרי בי רב רב הונא והאמר רב הונא אמרי בי רב אלא רב המנונא אמרי במערבא רבי ירמיה שלחו מתם ר' יוסי בר חנינא מחכו עלה במערבא ר' אלעזר

If it says: The Sages of Neharbela taught, this is referring to Rami bar Berabi, and the statement: They say in the school of Rav, is a reference to Rav Huna. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Huna sometimes say with regard to a given halakha: They say in the school of Rav? From this, it is apparent that a statement introduced by that formula cannot be made by Rav Huna himself, as Rav Huna quotes someone else with that introduction. The Gemara responds: Rather, the expression: They say in the school of Rav, must be referring to Rav Hamnuna. The formula: They say in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Yirmeya; the expression: They sent a message from there, meaning from Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina; and the statement: They laughed at it in the West, means that Rabbi Elazar did not accept a particular opinion.

והא שלחו מתם לדברי רבי יוסי בר חנינא אלא איפוך שלחו מתם ר' אלעזר מחכו עלה במערבא רבי יוסי בר חנינא:

The Gemara asks: But in one instance it is reported that: They sent a message from there that began: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. This indicates that the expression: They sent from there, is not itself a reference to a statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. The Gemara answers: Rather, reverse the statements. The phrase: They sent from there, is a reference to Rabbi Elazar, and: They laughed at it in the West, means that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina did not accept a particular opinion.

So “they sent from there” == Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina, while “they laughed at it” refers to Rabbi Eleazar. The Stamma objects to this earlier stratum based on contrary evidence, so they reverse the identification. But Tosafot ad loc. point out a problem, where they also laugh at Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina. So maybe this remapping is not so solid.

The second issue is that, after one of the “they sent from there”, it is Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat himself who expands upon the idea. Thus, one of the “sent” is this one, on 125b right after a dispute between second-generation Rav Huna (who is Rav’s student) and Rav Anan (who is Shmuel’s student):

שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב עָנָן, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ. הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב עָנָן – דְּבַעַל לָא יָרֵית, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ; דְּאִילּוּ רַב עָנָן סָבַר: אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרָא לִבְרַתֵּיהּ, לָא יָרֵית; וְלָא הִיא, דְּאִילּוּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרָא לִבְרַתֵּיהּ, וַדַּאי יָרֵית; וּבַעַל הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּלָא יָרֵית – מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ רָאוּי, וְאֵין הַבַּעַל נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.

The Gemara relates: They sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan, but not due to his reasoning. The Gemara explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan that the husband does not inherit the property. But not due to his reasoning, as Rav Anan holds that even if his daughter had a son to inherit from her, he would not inherit the property, as her father bequeathed it only to his heirs, not to the heirs of his heirs. And that is not so, as if his daughter had a son, he would certainly inherit; and this is the reason the husband does not inherit: Because the inheritance is considered property due to the daughter, as she did not own it during her lifetime, and a husband does not take in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed.

On this, the gemara asks a question and Rabbi Eleazar explains:

מִכְּלָל דְּרַב הוּנָא סָבַר: בַּעַל נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק?!

The Gemara asks: By inference, does Rav Huna, who ruled that the husband is entitled to the inheritance, hold that a husband takes in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed?

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דָּבָר זֶה נִפְתַּח בִּגְדוֹלִים וְנִסְתַּיֵּים בִּקְטַנִּים, כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר: ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״, כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי.

Rabbi Elazar says: This matter was introduced by great Sages, namely Rav Huna, and concluded by lesser Sages, i.e., by me. Rabbi Elazar, humbly referring to himself as a lesser Sage, will now explain Rav Huna’s statement. Anyone who says to another upon granting him an inheritance or a gift: After you die it is given to so-and-so, is considered like one who says: It is given to so-and-so from now. The first recipient merely has the right to use the property during his lifetime but did not actually become the owner. Accordingly, the inheritance was owned by the daughter in her lifetime, and the great-grandmother merely had usage rights. Therefore, it is inherited by the husband.

You could say that the very reason Rabbi Eleazar answers is that he was the “They Sent From There”. But more likely, he is a separate party.

I wrote an article in the past about The Laugher. I can’t recall if I similarly followed up about Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat.

a

a

a