When Came Rav Chagai from the South

A few days back, on Bava Kamma 42a, we encountered a Rav Chagai.

וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב חַגַּי מִדָּרוֹמָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה.

And similarly, when Rav Ḥaggai came from the South, he came and brought a baraita in his hand that interprets the verse in accordance with the explanation of Rav Adda bar Ahava.

Someone in the daf yomi chabura discussed the identity of Rav Chagai, frequent in the Yerushalmi. But we then discussed an inherent ambiguity in this framing. Was it a person named Rav Chagai from the South, who came from Eretz Yisrael (and would therefore be someone different from plain Rav Chagai)? Or was it that plain Rav Chagai came, and he came from the South?

The manuscripts are no help in solving this question. They just help us correct that it is either Rav Chaga with an aleph, or Rav Chana with a nun.

To bolster our understanding of the question, consider that there is a frequent person who comes from Eretz Yisrael — for that is what ki ata regularly means. His name is Rav Dimi. Separate from this Rav Dimi, we have another individual called Rav Dimi miNehardea, where the place name helps us distinguish him. What if we saw ki ata Rav Dimi miNehardea? Would this mean that Rav Dimi of Nehardea came, or that he came from Nehardea?

We don’t have that, but in Shabbat 145b, we have

חַלּוֹת דְּבַשׁ. כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁרִיסְּקָן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וְיָצְאוּ מֵעַצְמָן — אֲסוּרִין. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּירִין.

We learned in the mishna that according to Rabbi Eliezer, honey that flows on its own from honeycombs is permitted on Shabbat. When Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a baraita with him: With regard to olives and grapes that one crushed before Shabbat and their juices seeped out on their own on Shabbat, the juices are prohibited for use on Shabbat; and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit using them.

We only have כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא in two other places, and no Rav Hoshaya miNehardea mentioned elsewhere.

Back to Rav Chaga of Darom, Seder HaDorot seems to think of him as a distinct person from Nehardea.

ר' תנחומא חולין (נ"ה ב'). ור' אבא בר כהנא בש"ר אלעזר ירושלמי ר"פ כיצד מברכין. בש"ר הונא ירושלמי יבמות פ"ד ופ"י הלכה ז'. ר' חגא מדרומא בזמנו, בש"ר חונה חלה פ"ק הלכה ד', בש"ר חייא בר מנהמא, בש"ר יהושע בן קרחה ויקרא רבה ע"א, בש"ר נחמן בר' שמואל בר נחמן, בשם ר"ל שבועות פ"ק הלכה ח':

So too, the Rosh on Bava Kamma attached Darom to his name, not from whence he came:

גמ' שור שהיה מתכוין לחבירו. טעמא דנתכוין לחבירו הא נתכוין לאשה גופה חייב לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דר' אדא בר אהבה דאמר שוורים כי נתכוונו לאשה פטורין מדמי ולדות. ומשני ה"ה דאע"ג דנתכוונו לאשה פטור אלא אגב דנקט גבי אדם שהיה מתכוין לחבירו דהכי כתיב קרא נקטיה נמי גבי שור. והלכתא כרב אדא בר אהבה דברייתא דרבי חגא מדרומא כוותיה.

So too Tosafot on Ketubot:

ואומר רבינו יצחק דהיינו רבי חגא מדרומא דאייתי מתניתא בידיה כדאמרינן בפרק שור שנגח ארבעה וחמשה (ב"ק מב. ושם)

Resolving from a Similar Fellow?

Meanwhile, there is another person who is ambiguous, with the miDaroma attachment. This is Rabbi Acha bar Chinena (midaroma), רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חִינָּנָא.

The plain Rabbi Acha bar Chinena was in Lod, and he received traditions from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. And in Berachot 8b he cites Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and on 8a he tries to find the Scripural source for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Rav Hyman, in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim considers the instances of כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חִינָּנָא מִדָּרוֹמָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ to be talking about the same person as plain Rabbi Acha bar Chinana. These instances occur in Yevamot 57a (as well as 58a) and Succah 54a. But, continues Rav Hyman, this isn’t to say that Rav Acha bar Chinena studied directly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, he received from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s students. For in truth he was the student of Rabbi Assi, from whom he received halachot of Rabbi Yochanan — and proceeds to list the places.

One gemara that was omitted that might help us resolve Rav Acha bar Chinena, and from there Rav Chaga, both of Darom. Namely, we have Chullin 132b:

אזל ר' טבלא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל מ"ט עביד מר הכי א"ל דכי אתא ר' אחא בר חנינא מדרומא אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי זקני דרום אמרו כהן טבח שתים ושלש שבתות פטור מן המתנות מכאן ואילך חייב במתנות

Rabbi Tavla came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: What is the reason that the Master has done this and ruled in contradiction to the mishna? Rav Naḥman said to him: I ruled in this manner, as when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina of the south came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and all the elders of the south said: With regard to a priest who becomes a butcher, for the first two or three weeks he is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as he has not yet established himself in the community as a butcher. But from this point forward he is obligated to give the gifts, as he is now known as a butcher.

Here, we have the same ambiguity of coming Rav Acha bar Chinena from the South. But here he doesn’t bring a brayta. He cites the same Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. But he also cites all the elders of the south.

I’m not sure it resolves our ambiguity. On the one hand, he is citing Sages of the South. But he would know this either having an origin in the South, or physically coming from the location which is the South.

There is also the duplication of ata, because the location confused us. Thus, in all instances,

כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חִינָּנָא מִדָּרוֹמָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ

Is this because we are designating a different location than plain Eretz Yisrael? That reads nicely. But we aren’t compelled to that reading. Consider this duplication occurs even where plain Rav Oshaya comes armed with a brayta in Beitza. But that is in the printed text. The manuscripts have miNehardea.

Consider also Bava Kamma 7b:

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִבֵּי רַב, פָּרְשׁוּהָ: כֹּל מִילֵּי – מֵיטַב הוּא, דְּאִי לָא מִזְדַּבַּן הָכָא – מִזְדַּבַּן בְּמָתָא אַחֲרִיתִי; לְבַר מֵאַרְעָא – דְּלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ מִמֵּיטַב, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִקְפּוֹץ עֲלַהּ זָבוֹנָא.

Rather, when Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from Rav’s academy, they explained it as follows: With regard to payment, all items are classified as property of the best quality, as, if an item cannot be sold here, it can be sold in another city. Since movable items are easily liquidated, they are always considered an acceptable form of payment. This is with the exception of land, which is not always easily sold. Therefore, the halakha is that the one liable for the damage must give the injured party payment from his best-quality land, which is easier to sell. This is in order to ensure the possibility that a buyer will jump at the opportunity to purchase it, thereby providing the injured party with the possibility of liquidating it. This resolves the contradiction. The phrase “of the best of his field” indicates that if payment is made with land it must be with superior-quality land, and the term “he shall recompense” indicates that if payment is made from movable property, anything worth money may be used.

Here, they are coming from a location, Rav’s academy.

Consider also Bava Batra 152b-153a:

בְּסוּרָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי; בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ מִבֵּי רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, מַהוּ? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: אֵין אַחַר קִנְיָן כְּלוּם.

In Sura they taught the statements of Rav and Shmuel that way, as stated above. In Pumbedita they taught their statements like this: Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: After the death of Rav, the following question was sent from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting all of his property to others, and they performed an act of acquisition, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in reply: After an act of acquisition is performed, nothing can effect a retraction of the gift.

סְבוּר מִינֵּיהּ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְאַחֵר, אֲבָל לְעַצְמוֹ – לֹא; אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב חִסְדָּא: כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוּנָא מִכּוּפְרִי, פָּירְשַׁהּ: בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ בֵּין לַאֲחֵרִים.

Rav’s disciples understood from this that this statement applies only when the person on his deathbed wishes to retract his gift and transfer it to another. But if he recovers and wishes to retract the gift and retain it for himself, Shmuel’s statement does not apply. Rav Ḥisda said to them: When Rav Huna came from Kufrei, he explained that Shmuel’s statement applies both to retaining the property for himself and to transferring it to others.

Kufri was Rav Chisda’s locale, while Sura was Rav Huna’s. Was Rav Huna coming from Kufri? It certainly seems so, not that there was a separate Rav Huna of Kufri. But I don’t know.

For some reason, I lean towards miDaroma as modifying the person, not where he is coming from.

This post was more scattered than usual, for which I apologize. I’m writing under a various other time pressures.