Would Rava judge cases in Abaye's presence?
גְּמָ׳ הָהוּא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִב בַּהּ: ״כַּד הֲוָה קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ״; וְלָא כְּתַב בָּהּ: ״וּמִגּוֹ מַרְעֵיהּ אִיפְּטַר לְבֵית עוֹלָמֵיהּ״.
GEMARA: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift was bestowed when the giver was sick and lying in his bed, but the continuation of the standard formula: And from his sickness he departed to his eternal home, was not written in it. The giver’s heirs claimed that although he was ill when he wrote the deed, he later recovered, and his gift is not valid.
אֲמַר רַבָּה: הֲרֵי מֵת, וַהֲרֵי קִבְרוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה סְפִינָה – שֶׁרוּבָּן לֵאָבֵד, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּמְרֵי חַיִּים וְחוּמְרֵי מֵתִים; חוֹלִין – שֶׁרוֹב חוֹלִין לְחַיִּים, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
Rabba said: He is dead, and his grave proves that he died. It may therefore be assumed that he did not recover from his sickness, and his gift remains valid. Abaye said to him: And now, if in the case of a ship that sank, where the fate of most of the passengers of sunken ships is to perish, the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead are applied to them due to the uncertainty as to whether they are alive or dead, in the case of sick people, where the fate of most sick people is to return to life, all the more so is it not clear that one should assume that he recovered from the illness and his gift is invalid?
Our Vilna text says Rabba. But, in Hagahot HaBach, the Bach notes that this is a matter of dispute.
“It appears to me that this is the girsa in Tosafot and the Rosh, and against the Rif’s girsa, who has Rava. See what (Hagahot) Asheiri writes (on the Rosh).”
Rava actually appears in three different statements through the daf, but we are talking about at the least this first one.
Looking at the variant texts on Hachi Garsinan, the top one seems to be consistently Rava, except for the Vilna Shas. For the second in Vilna, again Rabba, and ultimately, a statement by Rava. Paris and Vatican also have some difference or uncertainly in the second statement, that it may be Rabba.
For reference, here is the Rif:
לא כתב בה שכיב מרע וכו': ההיא [מתנתא] דהוה כתיב בה כדקציר ורמי בערסיה ולא כתיב בה ומיגו מרעיה איתפטר לבית עלמיה (דף קנג:) אמר רבא הרי מת והרי קברו מוכיח עליו א"ל אביי השתא ומה ספינה שרובן לאיבוד נותנים עליהם חומרי חיים וחומרי מתים חולים שרובן לחיים לא כ"ש אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כמאן אזלא הא שמעתא דרבא כרבי נתן דתניא מי מוציא מיד מי הוא מוציא מידן בלא ראיה והן אין מוציאין מידו בלא ראיה דברי ר' יעקב רבי נתן אומר אם בריא הוא עליו להביא ראיה שהיה שכיב מרע ואם ש"מ הוא עליו להביא ראיה שבריא היה ולית הילכתא כרבא דהא אוקימנא להא דרבי נתן כרבי מאיר ודר' יעקב כרבנן דתנן וחכ"א המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה ואמרינן ראיה במאי רב הונא אמר ראיה בעדים ורב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי ראיה בקיום השטר רב הונא אמר ראיה בעדים קא מיפלגי ר"מ ורבנן בפלוגתא
They linked the wrong Rosh on Sefaria to this, but here is the appropriate one. From the end of the Rosh, here is the argument that it is Rabba, not Rava:
מתוך דברי רב אלפס ז"ל דגריס רבא בההוא עובדא דלעיל ואי אפשר דע"כ גרס רבה שהיה רבו של אביי ובא המעשה לפניו והשיב אביי תלמידו על דבריו ואי אפשר לגרוס רבא דאביי מלך תחילה ובימיו לא בא הוראה ומעשה לפני רבא שהיה צריך אביי להשיב עליו אלא לפני אביי היו באין כל ההוראות ורבא היה משיב על דבריו הלכך נראה דרבה חזר בו מההיא דלעיל דסבר כר' נתן דאל"כ הוה אמר ראיה בקיום השטר כי היכי דליתוקים מילתייהו דר"מ ורבנן כר' נתן:
A rough translation of Rosh. Rif clearly has the girsa of Rava in this earlier incident. However, this is not possible, but perforce the correct girsa is Rabba, who was the teacher of Abaye. And the incident (case) came before him, and his student Abaye responded to his words. And it is not possible to be gores Rava, for Abaye presided (מלך) first (in Pumbedita), and in his days, no ruling or case came before Rava, such that Abaye would need to respond to him — but rather, before Abaye would come all cases, and Rava would respond to his words. Therefore, it appears that Rabba retracted from that above, where he [Rabba] held like Rabbi Natan; for if not so, he would say…
It is an interesting argument, but I’m not sure it is entirely true. Yes, for Rabba and Rav Yosef, with Rabba presiding first, we are told that Rav Yosef took care during those 22 years not to take any action that would show any aspect of authority — even not summoning the bloodletter to his house. (See Horayot 14a.)
Are we so certain that the same is true for Rava when Abaye presided? I mean, even during Rav Yosef’s lifetime, we had Abaye and Rava with competing yeshivot in Pumbedita (and one student trying to poach Abaye’s students). And while Abaye presided in Pumbedita, Rava had moved to his own yeshiva in Mechoza. Couldn’t this incident have happened in Mechoza, with Abaye visiting and commenting, or hearing about it and commenting?
I haven’t followed the thread all the way through the sugya, but the impact of a different identification in the halachic realm is possible. First, is Rabba / Rabba going to be consistent, such that we must now say he retracted? Second, as Rosh says in another suyga where he performs a Rava / Rabba emendation, there is a general rule that Abaye vs. Rava, Rava wins (except in ya’l kegam). But if it is Abaye vs. Rabba, Abaye wins.
On a related topic, that second occurrence — I like Rava over Rabba. Let us quote it:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרַבָּה – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא: מִי מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מִי? הוּא מוֹצִיא מִידֵיהֶן בְּלֹא רְאָיָה, וְהֵן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha of Rabba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where one who gave his property to others claims that since he was on his deathbed at the time he can retract the gifts, and the recipients claim that he was healthy and cannot retract it, who removes the property from whose possession? The giver can remove it from the recipients’ possession without proof, as the property was previously established to be in his possession, but the recipients can remove it from the giver’s possession only with proof. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.
What is meant by “that halacha of Rabba”? It is the one just quoted, namely occurrence one. So occurrence 1 and occurrence 2 should refer to the same person.
Technically, fifth-generation Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua could be talking about any earlier Amora, so fourth-generation Rava and third-generation Rabba both work. We can add, though, that Rava is the teacher of Rav Huna bereih deRav Yehoshua, so he seems a better candidate.
A noteworthy Rashbam on the daf. The gemara had Rabbi Eleazar (ben Pedat), a second- and third generation Amora who lived in the Land of Israel. And the gemara had Rava, a fourth-generation Amora in Babylonia. The gemara:
אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, אֲבָל עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.
Rava disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and says: They taught the ruling of the mishna only with regard to a case where the rainy season has not yet passed over the fields after the possibility arose that the fields contained impurity. But if the rainy season has already passed over the fields, it is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Even though the one who passed through the fields came to ask about his status in the summer, when the fields should be considered the public domain, he is nevertheless deemed impure even according to Rabbi Natan, and there is no parallel dispute with regard to uncertain ritual impurity.
and Rashbam:
אמר רבא לא שנו כו' - מילתא באפי נפשה היא והמפרש דמילתיה דר"א אדרבא קאי אינו אלא טועה דרבא בתרא הוא וא"צ לדחוק מילתיה דרבי אלעזר ולהעמידה על פירוש רבא:
This is a new statement, unrelated to the above. And the one who explains that Rabbi Eleazar’s words were going on Rava’s statement is only erring. For Rava was a later Amora, so we don’t need to force Rabbi Eleazar’s words to work in explanation of Rava.