On Nazir 42a, Rav Acha son of Rav Ikka deduces a rather important global principle: that the majority is reckoned as the entirety (rubo kechulo) even on a biblical level. He derives this from a Mishna (Negaim 14:4) that if the nazir, leper or levite had shaved but left over two hairs, the shaving doesn’t count. This is based on an explicit derasha. If a derasha is required, the default, where no derasha exists, would be the reverse.

Rav Acha, a fifth-generation Amora, lived in Papunya. His mother was the sister of fourth-generation Rav Acha bar Yaakov (also in Papunya). His father interacts with fourth-generation Abaye (Avodah Zara 65a). He argues with fifth-generation Rav Pappa and speaks with sixth-generation Rav Ashi (Bava Kamma 74a). Yet who objects to his deduction? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.

As we’ve covered recently (“Ground Control to Rabbeinu Tam”), Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina (henceforth RYbRC) is generally understood to be a third-generation Amora, ordained by Rabbi Yochanan. In that article, I supported Rabbeinu Tam’s suggestion that there was an earlier RYbRC I, who appeared in a brayta, and was the one Reish Lakish cited as opposing Rabbi Yochanan. He’d be a transitional Tanna/Amora, or a first-generation Amora, like Rav.

Rav Yechiel Heilprin, in Seder HaDorot, finds the interaction surprising, given the generational divide. Rav Aharon Hyman, in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, points to Tosafot d.h. מתקיף לה in our sugya, clarifying that RYbRC is objecting to a statement in the Mishna. It’s just that Rav Acha berei deRav Ikka’s statement is predicated on that Mishnaic statement. Despite this, note that both Artscroll and Koren, in their gloss, frame RYbRC’s objection as to Rav Acha berei deRav Ikka.

Evil Twin?

Continuing my exploration of RYbRC I and II, how readily should we propose that there is another figure by that same name? Is this a cop-out? Well, firstly there are indeed several figures taking the same name, such as Shapur I and II, or the various Rabban Gamliels. Secondly, certain names are more popular than others. Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim is organized alphabetically from aleph to tav, 22 letters, and volume 2 is just Tannaim and Amoraim whose name began with a chet, tet or yud. And, there are only 34 tet-initial figures. For such popular names as Chanina and its variants (133 occurrences), and Yosef and its variants (137 occurrences), it makes sense that more than one father and son pair by these names could appear in rabbinic circles.

Still, scholastic generations are not from Sinai. They are arrived at by scholars who interpret ambiguous Talmudic texts, examining interactions between people. I’m satisfied that RYbRC I exists. What about RYbRC II? How do we know there’s such a third-generation Israeli Amora?

Rabbeinu Tam had pointed to Sanhedrin 30b. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim had been endeavoring unsuccessfully to obtain semicha for RYbRC. When Rabbi Yochanan was unsure whether the Halacha accords with (fifth-generation Tanna) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha and asked if anyone knew, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim pointed to RYbRC, saying “this one knows”. “If so, let him speak!” “Let the Master ordain him first.” Once ordained, Rabbi Yochanan said, “My son, tell us what you heard.” RYbRC said that he had heard that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha concedes to (fifth and sixth-generation Tanna) Rabbi Natan, such that the witnesses need not testify together. Rabbi Yochanan was disappointed that he ordained RYbRC, because it didn’t entirely resolve his query, but said that once he had ascended to ordination, he shouldn’t descend.

Because Rabbi Yochanan is a second-generation Amora and ordained RYbRC, we assume he’s third-generation. To play devil’s advocate, ordination was particularly difficult to arrange. Recall that Rav was successfully ordained but Shmuel was not. Could RYbRC be Rabbi Yochanan’s contemporary or even elder?! He’s listed before Rabbi Yochanan in Shabbat 59a.

RYbRC is Rabbi Yochanan’s regular student. In Bava Batra 39a, he asks Rabbi Yochanan’s students whether Rabbi Yochanan told them before how many people a protest must be lodged. Additionally, in Shabbat 94b, the rabbis are trying to figure out RYbRC’s derivation of prohibitions of a woman applying eye-shadow and braiding hair on Shabbat, and second and third-generation Amora, Rabbi Abahu says that he was told an explanation directly by RYbRC. While possible to say about a contemporary, לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ is something one says of an elder. For two instances, Rabbi Abahu says the same phrase about his teacher Rabbi Yochanan in 54b, and Rabbi Zeira says it about his teacher Rav Yehuda in Yevamot 78b. Even in the Sanhedrin ordination case, Rabbi Yochanan was hoping to hear an independent report (that is, not from him) about the fifth-generation Tanna’s position. All this might work well with a singular, earlier RYbRC.

Laugher or Laughee?

A sugya in Sanhedrin 17b tries to unmask various Sages referred to only by descriptions. “The Sharp Ones of Pumbedita” are Eifa and Avimi, sons of Rechava, and “Our Rabbis in Babylonia” are Rav and Shmuel. “They say in the school of Rav” refers to Rav Huna. A later, Stammaic stratum objects that we find רב הונא אמרי בי רב (e.g. Beitza 40b), and changes it to Rav Hamnuna. (This is complicated. Rashi takes this as Bei Rav = Rav Hamnuna, and Tosafot grapple with Yevamot 83b which keeps the original, as well as with Rav Hamnuna’s scholastic generation for this to work.)

The sugya continues that “they sent from there” refers to RYbRC, while “they laughed at it in the west” refers to Rabbi Eleazar (ben Pedat). A later, Stammaic stratum objects that we find a missive sent from there which begins: according to the statement of RYbRC. (See Sanhedrin 34b.) The Talmudic Narrator therefore reverses the laugher and sender’s identities. This is again complicated. Tosafot point out that תימה, in our sugya, Nazir 42a, “they laughed” at RYbRC’s suggestion.

There’s the temptation to feed two birds with one scone, and propose an emendation which could fix both the anachronistic generation problem and the laughing identity problem. For instance, Rav Acha b. Rav Ikka had a fifth-generation brother Rav Chanina (Berachot 58b), and Rav Yehuda (thus R”Y) b. Rav Chanina was likewise a fifth-generation Amora.

However, my assumption is that the earlier stratum isn’t necessarily repeating a tradition, but unmasking based on textual cues. It might have seen 34b, שלחו מתם לדברי רבי יוסי בר חנינא מוצא מכלל רבינו, and used it to identity the שלחו מתם as RYbRC, since it clarifies the meaning of his words. The later stratum takes the same as counterevidence, but only searches locally in masechet Sanhedrin, so Tosafot’s global search undermines the Stamma’s conjectural emendation. I thus wouldn’t say RYbRC is both laugher and laughee.

Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.