Discover more from Scribal Error
Two Rabbi Yirmeyahs
Yesterday’s daf, Kiddushin 46, has lots of material, so we might stay on it for a few posts.
(1) We can begin with the top Tosafot. The gemara stated, 45b - 46a:
נִתְקַדְּשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ, וְנִיסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת, וְאָבִיהָ כָּאן, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת, רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. אָמַר עוּלָּא: הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא ״כַּחֹמֶץ לַשִּׁנַּיִם וְכֶעָשָׁן לָעֵינָיִם״. הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה הָתָם דְּקִידּוּשֵׁי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָמְרַתְּ לָא אָכְלָה, הָכָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
The Gemara cites another case: If a minor became betrothed without the consent of her father, and married without his consent, and her father is here, Rav Huna said: She may partake of teruma. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may not partake of teruma. Ulla said: This opinion of Rav Huna, that in this case she may partake of teruma, is irritating “as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes” (Proverbs 10:26), as it contradicts his earlier ruling. Now consider: And what about there, i.e., in a case where her betrothal was with her father’s consent, when there is at least betrothal by Torah law, you said she may not partake of teruma in case he did not consent to the marriage. Is it not all the more so the case that here, i.e., where even the betrothal was performed without her father’s consent, she should not be permitted to partake of teruma?
נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי תַלְמִיד. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב הוּנָא – הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה יְתוֹמָה בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב.
Rather, the statement of the student seems reasonable. Although Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was like a student compared with Rav Huna, his opinion makes more sense. Rava said: What is the reason of Rav Huna? Since an action was done with her that renders her like an orphan in the lifetime of her father, she is considered married and may partake of teruma. The fact that her father ignored both her betrothal and her marriage indicates that he has waived his rights to control whom she marries. She is therefore considered like an orphan, whose marriage is valid with her own consent.
Note the “like a student” in the English Steinsaltz. I’m not sure what they are dancing around, but they are translating Rav Steinsaltz’s words:
אלא נראין דברי התלמיד, שדברי ר' ירמיה בר אבא, אף שהוא כתלמיד לגבי רב הונא נראים יותר.
Tosafot address the difficulty:
נראין דברי תלמיד - משמע הכא דרב ירמיה תלמידיה דרב הונא הוה וקשה דבפרק תפלת השחר (ברכות דף כז:). משמע דתלמיד חבר דרב הוה דקאמר התם רב צלי של שבת בע"ש א"ל רב ירמיה בר אבא מי בדלת א"ל אין בדילנא ומדלא קאמר ליה רב ירמיה מי בדיל מר שמע מינה שהיה לו תלמיד חבר ונראה דתרי רב ירמיה הוו:
That is, it seems from Ulla’s words that Rav Yirmiyah bar Abba is a student of Rav Huna. The difficulty is that in Berachot 27b, we see this:
שָׁאנֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא דְּתַלְמִיד חָבֵר הֲוָה. וְהַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא לְרַב: מִי בְּדַלְתְּ? אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, בְּדֵילְנָא, וְלָא אֲמַר ״מִי בְּדֵיל מָר״?
With regard to Rabbi Yirmeya’s conduct, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba is different, as he was not a mere student of Rav. Rather, he was a disciple-colleague and was, therefore, permitted to act that way. And that is why on one occasion, when Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer early, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba asked him: Did you distance yourself from labor and accept the sanctity of Shabbat? Rav said to him: Yes, I distanced myself. And Rabbi Yirmeya did not say to him: Did the Master distance himself, as would have been appropriate had he merely been Rav’s student.
So he is a talmid-chaver, a student-colleague of Rav, who is in turn the teacher of Rav Huna.
From this, Tosafot deduce that there were two distinct Rav Yirmeya (bar Abba)s.
In Rav Hyman’s Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, there are indeed two Rav Yirmeyah bar Abbas listed (one, two). The former is the talmid chaver of Rav. So, he is second-generation. The other is third-generation student of Rav Huna. I won’t repeat the entire multi-page content, but read it all!
(2) The gemara continues with this, an argument between Rav and Rav Asi:
אִיתְּמַר: קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ, אָמַר רַב: בֵּין הִיא וּבֵין אָבִיהָ יְכוֹלִין לְעַכֵּב. וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אָבִיהָ וְלֹא הִיא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב לְרַב אַסִּי: ״אִם מָאֵן יְמָאֵן אָבִיהָ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אָבִיהָ, הִיא עַצְמָהּ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם מָאֵן יְמָאֵן״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
§ It was stated that amora’im disputed the following issue: In the case of a minor girl who became betrothed without her father’s consent, Rav says: Either she or her father is able to prevent the betrothal from taking effect. And Rav Asi says: Her father can prevent it but not she, since she initially agreed. Rav Huna raised an objection to Rav Asi, and some say it was Ḥiyya bar Rav who raised an objection to Rav Asi: The baraita states in the case of a seduced woman: “If her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Exodus 22:16). The Sages expounded: I have derived only the halakha that her father can refuse to give her to the seducer in marriage; from where do I derive that she herself can also refuse? The verse states: “If he refuses [ma’en yema’en].” The repetition of the verb indicates that the right of refusal exists in any case. Despite the fact that she was seduced, she can change her mind and say that she does not want to marry him.
Interesting that either Rav’s son or Rav’s student tries to stand up for his rebbe in the argument. I would say that Rav and Rav Asi seem on equal standing here.
Cue yesterday’s discussion about what their relationship was:
As part of that, we also discuss R’ Ami and R’ Asi, how they are students of Rav and Shmuel, and may be distinct from the Rav Asi of Hutzal.
(3) Still later on the daf, Rav and Shmuel take one position, while Rabbi Ami takes a different position.
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לְעוֹלָם אַרֵישָׁא, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא מַנַּחַת, דְּאִי אִיכָּא שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא. אֲבָל אוֹכֶלֶת, הוֹאִיל וּמִיקָּרְבָא הֲנָיָיתַהּ, אֵימָא גָּמְרָה וּמַקְנְיָא נַפְשַׁהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rav and Shmuel both said: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where one betrothed the woman with each date separately, and it is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. The mishna stated, for stylistic reasons, a halakha that it did not need to state, and should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to state the halakha in the case of a woman who placed the dates down, that if one of them is worth one peruta, yes, she is betrothed, and if not, she is not betrothed. But in a case where she was eating them, one might think that since her benefit is immediate, say that she has decided to transfer herself to him by means of that date, although it is worth less than one peruta. The mishna therefore teaches us that she is nevertheless not betrothed.
רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אַסֵּיפָא, וּמַאי ״עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.
Rabbi Ami said a different explanation: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where he betrothed her by giving her all of the dates. And what is the meaning of: Unless one of them is worth one peruta? It means: Unless the last of them is worth one peruta. But if one of the other dates is worth one peruta she is not betrothed, since they are considered a loan until all the dates have been given.
אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי תְּלָת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה, דַּעְתַּהּ אַפְּרוּטָה,
Rava says: Conclude three conclusions from this statement of Rabbi Ami: Conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since she is not betrothed with a date that she has already eaten. And conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta although the debt is far larger, and she will be betrothed. In the latter case, although the value of the dates she ate was more than the value of the last date, which was merely worth one peruta, she is nevertheless betrothed.
Here we finally get a clear Rabbi Ami! Firstly, “Rabbi” as title, and secondly, Ami vs. Asi. Interesting that this is a third-generation Amora arguing with two first generation Amoraim, Rav and Shmuel.
I would just point out regarding this that the manuscript evidence is not so clear.
First, some have R’ Ami, instead of spelling it out. Second, Munich 95 has Ravasi (as a single word) and later R’ Asi:
While this is just a single manuscript, I would grant it some credence. After all, Asi and Ami often switch off, because of the Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi who often go together. Second, because this is now Rav Asi of Hutzal, the first generation Amora. He makes a lot more sense as the disputant of Rav and Shmuel. And it continues the pattern of the previous segments, arguing with Rav.
Scribal Error is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.