Yehuda ben Nekosa and the P-R-SH Root
The other day we met Yehuda ben Nekosa, in Bava Batra 71b.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא מֶכֶר וּמַאי שְׁנָא מַתָּנָה? פֵּירֵשׁ יְהוּדָה בֶּן נְקוֹסָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי: זֶה פֵּירֵשׁ וְזֶה לֹא פֵּירֵשׁ.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In what way is a sale different from a gift, and in what way is a gift different from a sale? Why does the mishna distinguish between the two with regard to what is retained by the prior owner? Yehuda ben Nekosa explained before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The difference between the cases is that this one, the seller, specified that certain items were not included in the sale, and that one, the donor, did not specify.
He seems to be a Tanna, if he is explaining before sixth-generation (that is, effectively last-generation) Tanna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Maybe more like a transitional Tanna, or even a first generation Amora, since the transitional generation Rabbi Chiyya describes him as his student. Thus, Bava Kamma 81b:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שֶׁמָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן (קְנוֹסָא) [נְקוֹסָא] תַּלְמִידִי הוּא, וְכׇל מַעֲשָׂיו לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. כִּי מְטוֹ לְגַבֵּיהּ, חַזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו יְהוּדָה בֶּן (קְנוֹסָא) [נְקוֹסָא] אַתְּ, גְּזַרְתִּינְהוּ לְשָׁקָךְ בְּגִיזְרָא דְפַרְזְלָא.
Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps it is my student Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosa. And if so, all of his actions are undertaken for the sake of Heaven; he is not acting out of haughtiness. When they reached him and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw him, he said to him: If you were not Yehuda ben Kanosa I would have cut off your legs with iron shears, i.e., I would have excommunicated you for your impudence.
He quotes Sumchos, who is Rabbi Meir’s student. He appears in the Tosefta, but we also find Rav in the Tosefta under the name Rabbi Abba.
I find it interesting that the speech verb used here is “explained before”, פֵּירֵשׁ … לִפְנֵי. I don’t find such unique language as an entire phrase employed elsewhere in Talmud. Also, פֵּירֵשׁ is used as the speech act and what he says is about זֶה פֵּירֵשׁ וְזֶה לֹא פֵּירֵשׁ. This meaning is a similar word-sense, to specify as opposed to explain. I think that this is word play, lashon nofel al lashon, such that one influenced the other.
The gemara itself is unhappy with this straightforward meaning of פירש and his statement in general, and so revises it.
הַאי ״זֶה פֵּירֵשׁ וְזֶה לֹא פֵּירֵשׁ״?! זֶה לֹא פֵּירֵשׁ וְזֶה לֹא פֵּירֵשׁ הוּא! אֶלָּא זֶה הָיָה לוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ, וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ.
The Gemara asks: How can it be suggested that this one specified and that one did not specify, when in fact this one did not specify, and that one did not specify, as in neither case did the prior owner specify what items he was reserving for himself? Rather, the difference is that this one, the buyer, should have specified that those items that are not integral parts of the field are nevertheless included in the sale, and since he neglected to do so, he suffers the loss. But in the case of a gift, that one, the recipient, should not have specified what was included in the gift, as it would have been inappropriate for him to act in this manner.
It is rather that the person should have specified, should not have specified.
I wonder if we could tap a different meaning or word sense of פרש instead, namely to separate. Perhaps a seller is different from a gift giver in that he is divesting himself from it in some way.
Yehuda ben Nekusa appears only a few times, but interestingly, one of them is Niddah 56a, where the P-SH-R root appears:
אם יכולין להשרות בעי רבי ירמיה תחילתו וסופו בפושרין או דלמא תחילתו אף על פי שאין סופו
§ The mishna teaches that if one could soak those dry substances in water and restore them to their previous state they would transmit impurity both when moist and when dry. The mishna further teaches that this is referring to soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does the mishna mean that the soaking must be performed in lukewarm water from the beginning of the soaking until its end, or perhaps it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at the beginning of the soaking, even if at the end of the soaking the water is not lukewarm?
ת"ש דתניא כמה היא שרייתן בפושרין יהודה בן נקוסא אומר מעת לעת תחילתו אף על פי שאין סופו רשב"ג אומר צריכין שיהו פושרין מעת לעת
The Gemara explains: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: How much time is their soaking in lukewarm water? Yehuda ben Nekosa says: This is referring to a twenty-four-hour period, and it is sufficient if the water is lukewarm at its beginning, even if it is not lukewarm at its end. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The water must be lukewarm for the entire twenty-four-hour period.
Shabbat shalom!