What about "Now"? But When is Now?
Bava Batra 171b seems like a good place to know our Amoraim and their respective scholastic generations. Because, the halacha was established a certain way. But then, “nowadays, practice has changed, which would lead to a potential pitfall given these other givens, so why do we still practice it? Because Y.” This question appears in sequence three times, with different particulars about the same underlying concern.
Look to the sugya for the specifics. For now, I care more about the participants. Are they the same participants each time, in which case it is a give-and-take about the same time, the same וְהָאִידָּנָא? Or, are they different people, and the וְהָאִידָּנָא is progressive.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּכָתְבִינַן שְׁטָרֵי מְאוּחָרֵי וְכָתְבִינַן תְּבָרָא, אַמַּאי קָעָבְדִינַן הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, בָּתַר דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְסָפְרֵיהּ: כִּי כָּתְבִיתוּ שְׁטָרֵ[י] מְאוּחָרֵי, כְּתֻבוּ הָכִי: ״שְׁטָרָא דְּנַן לָא בְּזִמְנֵיהּ כְּתַבְנֵיהּ, אֶלָּא אַחַרְנוֹהִי וּכְתַבְנוֹהִי״.
Rav Yeimar said to Rav Kahana, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya of Difti who said this to Rav Kahana: And today, when we write postdated promissory notes, and we also write a receipt in cases where the creditor loses his promissory note, why do we do this? The combination of allowing postdated promissory notes and allowing the writing of a receipt instead of producing the promissory note would enable double collection of the loan to take place. Rav Kahana said to him: The problem was rectified after Rabbi Abba told his court scribe: When you write postdated promissory notes, write as follows: We did not write this document on its date, i.e., on the date written within the document; rather, we postdated it and wrote it. Since it is clear from the text of the document that it was postdated, double collection of the loan is avoided.
In the first case, we have Rav Yeimar. (Read Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim here.) He is an Amora associated with Mata Mechasia academy (near Sura) who spanned the sixth and seventh scholastic generations. His teacher was fifth-generation Rav Kahana IV from Pum Nahara, who was Rava’s student. And indeed, Rav Aharon Hyman’s entry on Rav Kahana IV tags our sugya as an example of the relationship between these two figures.
(Note: There are about five Rav Kahanas, and it is hard to tease out the biographies of each of them. What I wrote above follows Rav Aharon Hyman; Hebrew Wikipedia has a completely different association of Rav Kahana from Pum Nahara, which I am not even linking to.)
The alternative, which is an internal girsological variant, stemming from the similarity of יימר to ירמיה, involving a transposition of letters. Thus, the other possibility is Rav Yirmeyah of Difti speaking to Rav Kahana. According to some accounts, Rav Yirmeyah of Difti is a fifth-generation Amora, based on him quoting Rava — מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא.
Personally, I would make him a sixth-generation Amora, who was fifth-generation Rav Pappi’s student. See my article here where I do a deep dive:
So I think that regardless of the variant, we are dealing with a sixth-generation younger Amora discussing this idea with his fifth-generation teacher. Looking upwards in the gemara, people talking were Rav Hamnuna (first or second generation), and Abaye (fourth generation).
Rav Kahana replies about something set up by R’ Abba instructing his scribes. If I wanted to tag one, I would tag Rabbi Abba III, a sixth-generation Amora of the Land of Israel who left and went to Babylonia in the time of Rav Ashi. Rav Hyman says that this Amora is “forgotten as if he died”, because people don’t disambiguate to figure out that that is who he is.
Maybe it is an earlier one? We don’t really have to fix him then, but could point to Rabbi (Ab)ba II, a fourth and fifth-generation Amora of the Land of Israel, for instance…
So far so good. But then we have:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא – דְּלָא קָא עָבְדִינַן הָכִי? בָּתַר דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְסָפְרֵיהּ: כִּי כָּתְבִיתוּ הָנֵי תְּבָרֵי; אִי יָדְעִיתוּ זִימְנָא דִשְׁטָרָא – כְּתֻבוּ, אִי לָא – כְּתֻבוּ סְתָמָא, דְּכׇל אֵימַת דְּנָפֵיק – לַרְעֵיהּ.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But what about today, when we do not do this, i.e., we do not follow Rabbi Abba’s instructions? How do we avoid double collection of the loan? Rav Kahana replied: The problem was rectified after Rav Safra said to his court scribe: When you write these receipts for debtors who pay debts without the original promissory note being torn, if you know the date written in the missing promissory note, write it into the receipt. But if you do not know the date written in the promissory note, write the receipt without specification, i.e., do not write any date at all in the receipt, so that whenever the creditor produces the promissory note, the undated receipt can weaken it, i.e., exempt the debtor from payment.
I am assuming that the conversation is continuing with the selfsame Rav Kahana. While there was another Rav Kahana who was Rav Ashi’s colleague, we should stick with the preceding one. But, if we do, what do we mean by “what about today?” At what point did they listen to Rabbi Abba, and at what point did they stop?
Rav Kahana replies according to the translation given above. The transition to answer is assumed implicit. Munich 95 makes it explicit, that Rav Kahana answers.
I would actually prefer that it be Rav Ashi who poses the question and answers it. It is a plain statement. “That was good during our youth, when Rav Kahana of Pum Nahara presided and answered the question, then the practice was like Rabbi Abba III which fixed the problem. But nowadays, in my older years, that we don’t act like Rabbi Abba, that does not fix it. But we do follow like the practice of Rav Safra, what Rav Safra instructed his scribes…”
In other words, that other practice of Rav Safra fixed the problem. I don’t know that everyone practiced like Rav Safra until that point. Plain Rav Safra is a third- and fourth- generation Amora who moved between Babylonia and the Land of Israel. There was a later one, Rav Safra bereih deRav Yeiva, a fifth-generation Amora, and Yeiva is a nice name to read into our sugya. But I would assume we are dealing with plain Rav Safra, from this earlier generation. Adoption of his practice much later fixed the problem.
Next, we have this:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא:
Ravina said to Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Ashi who said to Rav Kahana:
וְהָא הָאִידָּנָא – דְּלָא קָעָבְדִינַן הָכִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבָּנַן תַּקּוֹנֵי תַּקִּינוּ; מַאן דְּעָבֵיד – עָבֵיד, מַאן דְּלָא עָבֵיד – אִיהוּ הוּא דְּאַפְסֵיד אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ.
But today, when we do not do this either when writing receipts, how can we avoid double collection of a loan? Rav Kahana said to him: The Sages instituted taking this precaution. One who does what the Sages instituted does it and protects himself from loss; and as for one who does not do so, he has brought the loss upon himself, and will suffer the consequences if the promissory note is found and presented in the future.
So, if we are dealing with Rav Ashi to Rav Kahana again, I don’t see how this works. We’ve painted ourselves into a corner. Unless what is happening is a single conversation with Rav Kahana, where he proposes things, and they say “no, that is not actually our practice. Nice try though.”
If, however, the text is that it was Ravina to Rav Ashi, then there are two Ravinas. And we would be dealing with Ravina II, the nephew of Ravina I. Ravina II was Rav Ashi’s student, so indeed, it would indicate a third period, where the scribal practices had again changed. I think this works nicely.