Three Talmudic Versions on Sanhedrin 24b
In case you missed it, there were three versions of a certain statement on Sanhedrin 24b, right before a Mishnah — thus ending the previous sugya. Not that they had specific points where a Mishnah begins and ends together with interspersed gemara, but certainly the discussion relevant to the preceding segment finished, if our printings / piskaot would indicate the next relevant portion of the Mishnah.
These three versions are:
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב: יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, לִפְנֵי גְּמַר דִּין מַחְלוֹקֶת אוֹ לְאַחַר גְּמַר דִּין מַחְלוֹקֶת? וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי מִי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: לְאַחַר גְּמַר דִּין מַחְלוֹקֶת, וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, sent the following question to Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov: Our teacher, instruct us: Does the dispute concern whether or not one can retract his acceptance before the verdict is issued, or does the dispute concern whether or not one can retract his acceptance after the verdict is issued? And furthermore, in accordance with whose statement is the halakha? Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov sent to him in response: The dispute concerns whether one can retract his acceptance after the verdict is issued, and the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.
In the Sheiltot, it is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak who sends to Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, but that doesn’t really matter, except perhaps that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak has a clearer Pumbeditan angle. Regardless, say that Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda is approximately a fourth-generation Amora, sending to a third-generation Amora. And this is the plain text of the question.
The gemara continues:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָכִי שְׁלַח לֵיהּ, בְּ״אֶתֵּן לָךְ״ מַחְלוֹקֶת, אוֹ בְּ״מָחוּל לָךְ״ מַחְלוֹקֶת? וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי מִי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: בְּ״אֶתֵּן לָךְ״ מַחְלוֹקֶת, וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
Rav Ashi says a different version of the question and answer: This is the question that Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, sent to Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov: Is the dispute with regard to a case where the defendant says: I will give you, or is the dispute with regard to a case where the claimant says: The money I claim you owe me is forgiven you? And furthermore, in accordance with whose statement is the halakha? Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov sent this response to him: The dispute is with regard to a case where the defendant says: I will give you, and the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.
So Rav Ashi, a sixth-generation Amora, has a different version of the question and answer, but keeps the same people talking.
The gemara continues:
בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי. בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי,…
In Sura they teach that previous version of the question and the answer. In Pumbedita they teach this following version: …
This makes some sense. Rav Ashi presided over the academy of Mata Mechasia, which scholars discuss as either being close to Sura or the same as Sura academy. So, this version is what they taught in Sura, with Rav Ashi’s version.
Meanwhile, in Pumbedita, they taught a different version of the question and answer speaks to me as being perhaps Mar Zutra, a sixth-generation contemporary of Rav Ashi, who presided over Pumbedita academy. We sometimes encounter Mar Zutra matni a different version than the standard gemara text which preceded it.
What I’m not entirely sure about is whether version 1 and 2 are both within the Suran Talmud, and version 3 (soon to be discussed) is in the Pumbeditan Talmud; or if version 1 was in a separate redaction of the Talmud, with the three then fused together. I’m leaning towards the former, but am still wavering between these two options.
For the sake of completeness, let us see the Pumbeditan version:
. בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי, אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָה: שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ מִבֵּי רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: לִפְנֵי גְּמַר דִּין וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, מַאי? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: אֵין לְאַחַר קִנְיָין כְּלוּם.
In Pumbedita they teach this following version: Rav Ḥanina bar Shelemya says that they sent the following question from Rav’s study hall to Shmuel: Our teacher, instruct us: In a case where one litigant wishes to retract his acceptance of the judges before the verdict is issued, and the other litigant had performed a formal act of acquisition with him giving legal power to the acceptance, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent them in response: Nothing can be retracted after an act of acquisition was performed.
So here, we have different people, and a different question — but it is still a clear variant of the first question about lifnei gmar din, just with an extra twist of a kinyan.
This calls to mind an old stupid joke. Bill is walking down the street, and he meets an old friend. “Bob, it’s good to see you! But you’ve changed so much! You’ve considerably aged. And you’ve put on weight. And you’re going bald.” The other person replies, “I think you’ve confused me for someone else. My name is Sam.” Bill exclaims, “Wow, you’ve even changed your name!”
Similarly, it seems strange that different people and different questions are assumed to be variants. But, the answer is that both story 2 and story 3 are pivots of story 1. Story 2 involves the same actors as 1 but with a different question; and story 3 involves a very related question but with different actors as story 1.
Also, to flesh out a further connection between story 1 and 3, aside from a similar question…
The one who sent the question was Rav Chanina bar Shelemaya, who is a second-generation Amora, and a student of Rav, associated with Sura academy. If he’s relating that they sent a halachic question to Shmuel, this means that this occurred in the approximate decade after Rav’s death, while Shmuel was still alive and residing in Nehardea. Rav wasn’t available so they turned to Shmuel for guidance.
So, while the actors are certainly different in story 1 and story 3, there is a commonality in the roles the people play. Shmuel presides over Nehardea, and in the next generation or two, Rav Nachman presides over Nehardea. And someone from another academy sends him this related halachic question.
I’ve mentioned in the past how Dr. Elman wrote about different types of confusion in transmission, one of which was memory based in an oral tradition, of one person who is associated with another (e.g. was it Rabba or Rav Yosef who said this, or was it Rabba or Abaye who said this, or was it Rabbi Yochanan or Reish Lakish who said this). This may be what’s happening between story 1 and story 2 as well.
It is interesting that story 3 is a tradition about something sent from Sura (Rav’s academy) but it is part of the Pumbeditan Talmudic tradition.