Which Amoraim are not Reed Cutters?
In my Jewish Link article the other day, about Erring in Weighing Opinion, we began by discussing erring in a dvar Mishnah, a clear-cut basic knowledge error. In discussing that, we listed three Amoraic pairs who, like Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, had statements which were deemed such basic knowledge:
Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiyya (transitional Tannaim / Amoraim who created corpora of Tannaitic texts)
Rav and Shmuel (first-generation Amoraim who founded major academies and whose statements often begin the analysis in a sugya)
Ravina II and his teacher Rav Ashi (sixth, seventh-generation Amoraim who redacted the Talmud in its oral standardized form).
Ravina II had asked Rav Ashi about (1) and (2), then asked regarding (3), “what about us”, and Rav Ashi replied, “are we mere reed-cutters?” This idiom of a teacher being a mere reed-cutter is also found in Shabbat 95a, as an insult, when Rav Nachman bar Gurya replied to Nehardeans that, e.g. the Shabbat violation for making cheese (megaben) was megaben.
As I noted in a footnote, regarding this Amoraic last pair, it’s actually a bit more complicated, because maybe it was not Ravina and Rav Ashi. It might be Rav Sheshet and Rav Hamnuna.
I was reading a volume, in English, or Rabbi Dr. Binyamin Lau’s book series on “The Sages”, over Shabbat, in particular the chapter on Rav Sheshet. I have my thoughts, generally in favor but with one or two reservations — perhaps in another post, where he runs with the alternative version, in which is it Rav Hamnuna and Rav Sheshet conversing, not Ravina and Rav Ashi:
This forms a short portion (about 2 pages worth) of his discussion about Rav Sheshet’s nature, so it is would be important that it is really Rav Sheshet. A few thoughts.
(1) Writing “Rav Sheshet then asks Rav Hamnuna a question about this distinction” is presumably a typographical error on the part of the translator. It would be Rav Hamnuna who asks Rav Sheshet the question.
(2) The contents of footnote 18: “I have followed the version that appears in many of the manuscript variants, but in the printed edition, the names of other sages appear here.” He could have noted that it was Ravina and Rav Ashi, but I suppose that, given the thrust of this section, their particular identity does not really matter.
I am not sure what the many manuscript variants are — namely, if he is referring to something outside the manuscripts I’ve seen. Let us review the evidence in favor of Rav Hamnuna / Rav Sheshet, and then the evidence for a different identification. This includes manuscripts, Rishonim quoting the gemara, and internal sugya logic.
There are two clear manuscript I know of with Rav Hamnuna / Rav Sheshet. This would be Yad HaRav Herzog, from 16th century and with errors that may match printed texts but copied from the earliest text:
and there is also Florence 9, Ashkenazic and before 13th century, apparently filled with many errors because the scribe didn’t know what he was doing. (I am quoting from yesterday’s post summarizing the nature of these manuscripts.)
Meanwhile, the three printings — Vilna, Venice, and Barko, all have Ravina and Rav Ashi:
There are two more manuscripts, which split the difference.
First is the Karlsruhe manuscript (Reuchlin 2), also 13th century and full of errors. There are plenty of cross-outs and missteps, but the scribe has Rabbi Oshaya (!) speaking to Rav Ashi.
This is not a one-off, because we also have a weightier manuscript, the only complete manuscript of Talmud, Munich 95, from 1342, but also apparently full of errors, including names not being written precisely.
This also has Rav Hamnuna to Rav Ashi, which seems obviously wrong, since they did not cooccur. There were many Rav Hamnunas, but I think the latest was a teacher of Rav Pappa, so this doesn’t work.
However, Munich 95 has one other piece of evidence, namely a mnemonic, of סנשא.
We don’t know which letter maps to who definitively, but it we had to guess, it would be:
Samech = Rav Yosef
Nun = Rav Nachman
Shin = Rav Sheshet
Aleph = Rav Ashi
We could perhaps suggest that the aleph should be Rav Asi, who Rav Sheshet quoted to say the same distinction about to’eh bidvar Mishna / shikkil hada’at. But it makes a little more sense that it refers to Rav Ashi, and that is the mnemonic that Munich 95’s scribe is following. We might also argue that this aleph should be a chet, and it should be a mnemonic for Rav Chisda, such that these are the four answers to the contradiction between the local Mishnah and the Mishnah in Bechorot.
We can support the Rav Hamnuna / Rav Sheshet identification because Rif and Rosh quote the gemara this way as well. They learned the gemara from their own manuscripts. So too Rav Yosef Karo in Beit Yosef, who makes it Rav Huna to Rav Sheshet, presumably a corruption of Rav Hamnuna to Rav Sheshet.
Personally, I am biased towards it being Ravina and Rav Ashi, because I constructed my own theory about “dvar Mishnah” being a defined corpus of statements, as above. Rav Sheshet and Rav Hamnuna don’t play nearly as close a central status. So here is how I would argue in favor of it.
The mnemonic shows that Rav Ashi is present in this portion of the gemara. That Rav Hamnuna, רב המנונא, is his interlocutor is an obvious error. It is dittography from below, because in the next paragraph, Rav Hamnuna is going to attack. Further, רבינא and רב המנונא begin and end with the same two letters, so it could be easy to misread / miscopy. Similarly, as a second step, someone would correct the Rav Ashi to be a Rav Sheshet because who else would be talking, plus רב ששת and רב אשי also share the רב and the ש. Imagine an abbreviated form (with a mark above the shin) and we can see how one can move to the other. (But to take the opposite position, the same movement from Sheshet to Ashi can be argued for…)
Then, there’s the logical question — why would Rav Hamnuna, who attacks the distinction and strongly disagrees that erring in dvar Mishnah is chozer, first try to clarify the extent of dvar Mishnah and even include himself in that group — “even you and I?”
Here is the overall structure of the sugya, if it were Rav Hamnuna and Rav Sheshet, and if it were Ravina and Rav Ashi.
First, Rav Hamnuna and Rav Sheshet.
Contradiction between our Mishnah and one in Bechorot
Rav Yosef’s distinction
Rav Nachman’s distinction
Rav Sheshet’s distinction of toeh bidvar Mishnah vs. shikul hadaat, based on Rav Sheshet quoting Rav Asi of Hutzal.
Regarding bidvar Mishnah:
Rav Hamnuna asking about Amoraim A
Rav Sheshet: Yes
Rav Hamnuna asking about Amoraim B
Rav Sheshet: Yes
Rav Hamnuna asking about Amoraim C, themselves:
Rav Sheshet: Sure, are we mere reed-cutters?
Regarding shikul hadaat:
Rav Pappa: gives explanation of two Tannaim / Amoraim arguing without definitive decision, and the sugya de’alma goes according to one — see my idea on that subject in the article.
Rav Hamnuna attacks the idea.
The gemara on his behalf, or Rav Sheshet himself, defends.
Other Amoraim, Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, talk about the validity of the attack.
Rav Chisda’s distinction
and so on.
Now, the same but with Ravina and Rav Ashi:
Contradiction between our Mishnah and one in Bechorot
Rav Yosef’s distinction
Rav Nachman’s distinction
Rav Sheshet’s distinction of toeh bidvar Mishnah vs. shikul hadaat, based on Rav Sheshet quoting Rav Asi of Hutzal.
Regarding bidvar Mishnah:
Ravina II asking about Amoraim A
Rav Ashi: Yes
Ravina II asking about Amoraim B
Rav Ashi: Yes
Ravina II asking about Amoraim C, themselves:
Rav Ashi: Sure, are we mere reed-cutters?
Regarding shikul hadaat:
Rav Pappa: gives explanation of two Tannaim / Amoraim arguing without definitive decision, and the sugya de’alma goes according to one — see my idea on that subject in the article.
Rav Hamnuna attacks the idea.
The gemara on his behalf, or Rav Sheshet himself, defends.
Other Amoraim, Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, talk about the validity of the attack.
Rav Chisda’s distinction
To me, 4a and 4b seem like a digression. Once we have invoked dvar Mishna and shikul hada’at, we absolutely should digress to give them a definition. And that digression is fine to happen out of chronological order, first defining A and then defining B, despite Rav Pappa being the teacher of Rav Ashi. So too, I don’t care about Rav Pappa and Rav Ashi being later than Rav Sheshet and Rav Hamnuna. It is a mere digression. It would be clearer if the gemara were indented, but we just have the plain flowing text.
Now, I would NOT have expected the same Amoraim engaged in the debate, Rav Sheshet and Rav Hamnuna, to perform portions of this digression. Ravina and Rav Ashi, perhaps trying to put this into practice, and Rav Pappa, or really any other random later Amora makes sense. Where Rav Sheshet and Rav Hamnuna would come in, to my mind, is if some scribe didn’t understand the correct flow of the gemara, and so would try to preserve the same speakers in the אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. That is too perfect, for a superficial reason. I’ll invoke lectio difficilior, that the seemingly more difficult reading with a change in person and generation, is stronger, and would be erroneously changed to the easier, smoother, same participants. But, a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the conversation makes me prefer Rav Ashi. And once we have Rav Ashi, Ravina as well.
Anyway, that’s all for now. Maybe more later.