Was Rava the Student of Rabba?

Betteridge’s Law of Headlines applies here, in that I think the answer is no.

Here is my upcoming article:

On Bava Kamma 20a, Rabba and Rava argue about the level of compensation one must pay if an animal ate expensive produce in the public square. The preceding Mishnah had specified that the cow’s owner need not pay the full price. Rather, מְשַׁלֶּמֶת מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנֵית, he pays for the benefit it derives. Rabba (b. Nachmani) explains that this is דְּמֵי עָמִיר, the value of stalks of hay or straw. Rava (b. Yosef b. Chama) explains that this is דְּמֵי שְׂעוֹרִים בְּזוֹל, the value of barley, based on the cheapest price on the market.

I don’t raise livestock, but one doesn’t feed cattle only hay or only barley. Barley is an energy-rich grain, while hay provides roughage. Depending on the purpose, such as breeding, or producing beef or milk, you might have a different mix to meet different nutritional targets. Rabba’s benefit is cheaper, and for some cows, perhaps the energy needs have already been met so all that’s needed is roughage or food volume. Rava’s benefit is dearer, for the costly food does provide energy and nutrients.

Rabba appears first in the gemara, because he’s a third-generation Amora, while Rava is a fourth-generation Amora. Amoraim typically appear in chronological order. The Vatican 116 manuscript reverses their identities, both in the initial statements and in the ensuing discussion, I’d guess influenced by halachic decisive concerns – we rule X, so A and not B must be the one who expresses idea X. (It also accidentally omitted the first Rabba and had to add him in the margins.) On the other hand, Munich 95 also initially had this Rabba / Rava reversal, then fixed the text to place them in chronological order.

Vatican 116 manuscript, Bava Kamma 20a

Who Should Win?

The Rif (ad loc.) notes that some rule like Rabba, since he is Rava’s teacher. (We see this play out, for instance, in Rabbi Yochanan arguing with his student Reish Lakish. An appropriate melitza would be Kiddushin 42a, דִּבְרֵי הָרַב וְדִבְרֵי תַּלְמִיד – דִּבְרֵי מִי שׁוֹמְעִים? There it is listening to God vs. listening to a human being who sends you in agency to perform a sinful action.) The Rif continues that some rule like Rava, since he is a later authority (batra).

The Rosh (2:5) quotes the Rif. He also quotes the Ra’avad, that Rava’s support brayta reflects the majority, so we rule like him. That is, there’s a brayta supporting both Rabba and Rava. The one supporting Rabba quotes an individual Tanna – Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai – and uses Rava’s exact language. The one supporting Rava is anonymous, and we can assume it then reflects the majority position. It describes it as דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָגִיל, which might be understood to match Rava’s more expensive barley. It is an interesting approach to look at the majority and minority within earlier sources, rather than later generations, to determine how to rule. I’d have assumed that Rabba and Rava were aware of these precedents, and selected their positions despite any minority position.

Rosh elsewhere discusses the Rabba / Rava relationship. For instance,