Yehuda Nesia I in the Mishnah?
A Mishnah on Avodah Zarah 35b discusses gentile-produced products which are prohibited in consumption but not all benefit. These include milk which a gentile milked unsupervised, as well as their bread and oil. As a post-script, the Mishnah notes רַבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ הִתִּירוּ הַשֶּׁמֶן, that “Rabbi and his court permitted oil” entirely, including in consumption.
Rashi notes that this isn’t the famous “Rabbi”. That is, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has a son Rabban Gamliel beRabbi, and his son was Rabbi Yehuda Nesia I, a first-generation Amora. There is also that Amora’s grandson, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia II, a third-generation Amora who was Rabbi Yochanan’s student.
Rashi refers to Avodah Zarah 37a, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia was traveling while leaning on the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant. He said: Simlai, you weren’t in the study hall last night when we permitted gentile oil. Rabbi Simlai answered: In our days, you will also permit gentile bread! He said: If so, they will call us a permissive court!
Now, this spelling of רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה, when it appears in the gemara, designates the Amora, not the Tanna. Thus, Rashi concludes, it is clear that it was Rabbi Yehuda Nesia I’s court who permitted oil. If so, Rashi continues, this statement does not belong in the Mishnah.
Manuscript Evidence
Some texts conform to Rashi’s suggestion to remove the Mishnaic statement, while others keep it in. Vilna and Venice printings have it while the Pesaro printing skips it. Among manuscripts, Munich 95 has it, as does the Wien, SB: Cod. 295 fragment. The Paris 1337 manuscript and Oxford: Heb. d. 63/12 fragment include it, but as רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא וּבֵית דִּינוֹ, rather than as Rabbi (or Rabbi Yehuda Nesia). The JTS 15 manuscript omits it, but the transcription includes ג"א ר' ובית ד.... השמן, indicating some marginal note that includes it as a variant. Looking at the image, I wasn’t able to spot that marginal note. JTS is a Sefardic manuscript from 1290 CE, by the scribe Shlomo son of Rabbi Shaul, so it post-dated Rashi and may have been influenced by his comment.
The Kaufmann Mishnah manuscript includes it. The Mishnah in Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah has רִבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ הִתִּירוּ בַשָּׁמֶן. Thus, it’s present in three separate Mishnah traditions. While it is possible that some early variant influenced the others, we should recognize that Rashi’s emendation was based on logic rather than some textual tradition.
Talmudic Story as Evidence
Again, Rashi’s proof is that this Sage is called Rabbi Yehuda Nesia on daf 37a, and that throughout the Talmud Rabbi Yehuda Nesia refers to a descendant Amora. Now, printings and manuscripts indeed have it as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. One exception is Paris 1337, which has Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, which would undermine Rashi’s proof. However, consider that Paris 1337 also had Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instead of רבי in the Mishnah.
I wonder whether this particular name is proof. After all, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה is simply that Aramaic equivalent of רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא. Perhaps Tannaitic sources like braytot are in Hebrew and use the Hebrew name for the Tanna, while many Talmudic sources are in Aramaic and use the Aramaic term for the descendant Amora. Still, an Aramaic story about the Tanna could use the Aramaic term, and the story in Avodah Zarah is entirely Aramaic.
In particular, consider Bechorot 11a, where Rabbi Yehuda Nesia (and so in all printings and manuscripts) had a firstborn donkey. He sent it before Rabbi Tarfon, a third and fourth-generation Tanna, to ask how much he needed to give a kohen to redeem it. This would need to be the sixth-generation Tanna.
On the other hand, Rav Aharon Hyman, in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, discusses this story and objects that even this is hardly possible, for in Bava Metzia 85a, Rabbi (meaning the Tanna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) visited Rabbi Tarfon’s town and inquired whether any of Rabbi Tarfon’s sons were around, given Rabbi Tarfon’s practice of taking oaths by the lives of his children. They told him that there were no surviving sons, but there was a surviving grandson, who had gone off-the-derech. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then convinced him to repent, perhaps by proposing a shidduch with his daughter. Thus, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi couldn’t have seen Rabbi Tarfon. Rav Hyman considers changing the girsa, eventually landing on דבי נשיאה, “of the Nasi’s house”.
I don’t see how the chronology proves they didn’t meet since, in Bava Metzia, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi seemed familiar with Rabbi Tarfon’s habits, and indeed expected to see a son. Rabbi might have sent the firstborn donkey in his relative youth, and seen Rabbi Tarfon’s grandson in his relative older age. Also, the Aramaic / Hebrew distinction seems plausible even without the example.
Still, other elements in this story and others help fix this as Yehuda Nesia I. For instance, he leads on his attendant, Rabbi Simlai. We know Rabbi Silmai as a second-generation Amora, serving as attendant to Yehuda Nesia I and to first-generation Rabbi Yannai, and colleague of third-generation Yehuda Nesia II. In another story in Bavli (36a) and Yerushalmi, Rav and Shmuel hear the report on this permissive ruling. Shmuel believes it while Rav is initially more skeptical, thinking that Rabbi Simlai of Lud / Luddites in general was generally opposed to the restrictive rulings, and may have authored it. Rav and Shmuel did overlap with, and interact with, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Even so, was the Mishnah only redacted and distributed when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died in 217 CE? I’d imagine that Rav and Shmuel, well established in Bavel, knew the Mishnah, if this was part of it. This is either an update to the Mishnah regarding the Tanna Rabbi or, more likely, an incident involving his grandson.
Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 2:8 also mentions that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is called “Rabboteinu” in three places: here, in a statement regarding divorce documents, and regarding a miscarriage that resembles a sandal. This designation might be more noteworthy if it applies to the quasi-Tannaitic grandson than if it applies to the Tannaitic grandfather. Further, in discussing this in Mevo’ot LeSifrut HaTanaim, Professor Yaakov Nachum Epstein notes that “Rabboteinu” is a general designation for the transitional generation separating Tannaim from Amoraim, so that’s why it applies to Yehuda Nesia I.
Posthumous Mishnaic Changes?
Though it was Yehuda Nesia I and his court who permitted oil, this might not preclude his appearance in the Mishnah. The Mishnah’s text was essentially fixed, but as an oral tradition, and perhaps some fluidity was still possible, especially for a member of the transitional generation, a Nasi, who was also a member of the redactor’s family.
At least within Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s lifetime, there were changes in the Mishnah. For instance, in Bava Metzia 44a, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught (מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ) his son Rabbi Shimon a version of the Mishnah such that gold coins acquire silver. His son objected that, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s youth, he had taught it that silver coins acquire gold. The gemara explains the reasoning for each position, though separately there had been a change in the Roman coinage standard that may account for which is considered coins. Regardless, the Bavli name of the fourth perek is HaZahav, after the first word of the Mishnah, while the Yerushalmi’s Mishnah in begins with silver acquiring gold, and names the perek HaKesef.
Similarly, the Bavli’s Mishnah Avodah Zarah 4:4 declares that a gentile can revoke the idolatrous status of both his own idol and that of his fellow gentile. On Avodah Zarah 52b, and the parallel Yerushalmi, we hear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught it this way to his son Rabbi Shimon in his old age. His son said, “Rabbi, in your youth you taught us that a gentile can revoke the idolatrous status of both his own idol and that of a Jew!” The Mishnah in Yerushalmi follows the version from Rabbi’s youth. Thus, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi revised the Mishnaic text within his own lifetime, so it was slightly in flux.
The final Mishnah in Sotah (9:15) relates the great attributes of various Tannaim, such that this trait was lost when they died. For instance, “when Rabbi Yishmael ben Pavi died, the glory of the kehuna ceased. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, humility and fear of sin ceased.” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, humble as he was, might not have written of his own humility, and certainly could not have added this after his own death. This indicates a posthumous addition to the Mishnah, though this could be right after he died, rather than two generations later.
The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah was treated in some communities as a handy compendium of practiced law, so they modified it to conform to local practice. Most famously, the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefillin Umezuzah veSefer Torah 8:8), discusses how Ha’azinu is written in 70 lines, based on the Aleppo Codex. Yet, in the Codex it’s written with 67 lines. Local copyists changed the Rambam to match the local “correct” number of lines.
I wonder if the same fluidity existed in the immediate generations after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reaction, if Amoraim treated it as a canonized text from Rabbi but also a way of establishing practiced halacha. Examples about, but one selected at random is Shabbat 137a. The Mishnah discusses two baby boys awaiting their circumcision, one with the eighth day on Shabbat and the other on Sunday. If the mohel forgot and circumcised the Sunday baby on Shabbat, he is liable to a sin offering. In the gemara, Rav Huna matni / teaches the Mishnah as “liable” while Rav Yehuda teaches it as “exempt”. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda are second-generation Amoraim, both students of Rav. Rav Huna stands at the head of Sura academy and Rav Yehuda at the head of Pumbedita. Each has logic for their version, but we might wonder if the tradition or the logic came first.
In summary, “Rabbi and his court” is actually the transitional Rabbi Yehuda Nesia I. Since this was an important halachic update, from someone influential named “Rabbi” within the Nasi’s family, where the Nasi redacted the Mishnah, the Mishnah’s early fluidity could allow the inclusion of this statement.