A few Amoraim were capable of supernatural creation of beings (Sanhedrin 65b). Interpreting a verse in Yeshaya 59:2, “But your iniquities have been a separation between you and your God … ”, Rava* explains that the truly righteous, those without iniquities, could create a world. Seemingly demonstrating this, Rava* created a gavra/man. He sent this golem before Rabbi Zeira*, who tried to speak to it. Since Rava did not embed a large language model such as ChatGPT into his creation, the golem did not respond. Rabbi Zeira says, “You are from the fellowship/colleagues/Sages—Return to your dust!” Next, Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya would sit every erev Shabbat, engage in the mystical work Sefer Yetzira. Thereby, a third-born calf—a delicacy—would be created for them, which they’d eat on Shabbat. This mystical calf-creation seems a further demonstration of Rava’s biblical interpretation about righteous people’s creative capabilities.
Much can be said about the ideas in this sugya, relating to the ethics/halachics of creating embodied artificial intelligence, especially now that some claim we’re approaching AGI (artificial general intelligence). Upstream to any such analysis, I would like to establish the identities of the Amoraim in the sugya and how they might relate to one another. For instance, did Rava truly make both the biblical interpretation and the golem, or was one of them Rabba? What other mystical capabilities might Rava possess? Can we compare Rava’s actions with other Rava positions? Was Rabbi Zeira a colleague or teacher? Was Rav Chanina in Rabbi Zeira’s same scholastic generation, or earlier? All this could impact the halachic weight we grant any Amora’s position or action.
Rava, Rabba and Rabbi Abba
Rava was a fourth-generation Amora active in/eventually led Pumbedita academy. Rabba (bar Nachmani) was a third-generation Amora who was active in/eventually led Pumbedita academy. We know so much about Rabba and Rava that I won’t elaborate here. Either name is a contraction of a rabbinic title (rabbi/rav) and Abba. Their names differ only in the final letter, aleph/heh. Are we sure the same person (Rava or Rabba) both interpreted the verse and fashioned the golem?
There are also Amoraim named the full Rabbi Abba. According to Rav Aharon Hyman, Rabbi Abba I was a second- and third-generation Babylonian Amora who eventually ascended to the land of Israel. His lifetime overlapped with first-generation Rav, whom he quoted many times; although we don’t observe any direct conversation. He also quoted Shmuel. Later, he sat as a student before the next generation, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, and interacted with their students, in turn, as colleagues. Those third-generation students include Rabbi Zeira I, Rav Yosef and Rav Kahana. (The caveat is that there’s more than one Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Zeira and Rav Kahana; deciding who’s who in each sugya requires judgement calls and knowledge of still other sugyot and rabbinic biographies.) Eventually, Rabbi Abba went to Israel, where he interacted with Rabbi Zeira I, who had moved to Israel some time earlier.
Rabbi Abba II (bar Matna) was a fifth-generation Amora from the land of Israel who studied under Rabbi Zeira and later moved to Bavel. (There’s often a scholastic generation’s discrepancy between Bavel and Israel). After Rav Yosef’s death, he was a candidate against fourth-generation Abaye and Rava to lead Pumbedita academy. Finally, Rabbi Abba III was an Amora from the Land of Israel who moved to Bavel during sixth-generation Rav Ashi’s time.
On the Hachi Garsinan website, all manuscripts (Florence 8-9, Yad HaRav Herzog, Reuchlin 2, Klosterneuburg Fragment 127-128) and printings (Vilna, Venice, Barco) have Rava both interpret the verse and create the golem. Only Munich 95 gives us trouble, for it is ר׳ אבא who interprets the verse to say a tzaddik could create the world. On the next line, it is רב׳ who sends the created gavra to ר׳ זיר׳. Note the abbreviations, which add ambiguity. We don’t know if the scribe thought Rabba or Rava sent it. Also, these names are often fluid, in that ר׳ אבא can be written without a space as ראבא; sometimes, Rava is written with an aleph as ראבא, and רבה and רבה are confused for one another. The scribe might have intended to have the same interpreter and sender.
We could try to disambiguate based on the interaction with Rabbi Zeira. For instance, there’s the famous Gemara in Megillah 7b, where Rava* declares that one must become intoxicated on Purim until he cannot distinguish between “cursed be Haman” and “blessed be Mordechai.” Rabba* prepared a Purim feast with Rabbi Zeira, became intoxicated and killed Rabbi Zeira. The next day, Rabba prayed for mercy and revived him. The next year, Rabbi Zeira turned down his invitation to the feast, saying that miracles don’t happen every hour. Alas, such sugyot cannot definitively resolve our identification crisis, because there was more than one Rabbi Zeira. Also, there’s manuscript disagreement in Megillah—all have Rava or declare the intoxication halacha. Most have Rava invite Rabbi Zeira, but printings (Vilna, Venice, Pesaro) and the Munich 95 have Rabba; Columbia 294-295 has ראבא.
Rabbi Zeira I and II
It’s unclear how many Amoraim named plain Rabbi Zeira there were. Tosafot asserts that Rav Zeira and Rabbi Zeira were separate people. Aside from having different titles, Rav Zeira/and Rabbi Zeira (Menachot 40b) ask as to why not to put tzitzit on a linen cloak. Rav Hyman thinks this was a single Rav Zeira I who merely changed his mind. The title shift occurred after ascending to Israel. Rabbi Zeira I was third-generation, and Rav Yehuda’s student.
Rav Hyman also discusses Rabbi Zeira II—a fourth-generation Pumbeditan Amora who was Rav Yosef’s student—who moved to the land of Israel. Due to political oppression in Israel, he moved back to Bavel and interacted with colleagues Abaye and Rava. How should we understand the dynamics of golem-sending in Sanhedrin (and/or Purim invitations in Megillah)? It seems more like an interaction between colleagues. If so, it could be Rabba with Rabbi Zeira I, or Rava with Rabbi Zeira II.
Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya
Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya were brothers, second and third-generation Amoraim born in Bavel who moved to the land of Israel. There, they were colleagues with third-generation Rabbi Zeira I, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. Rav Chanina is, sometimes, called “Rav Chanania”— (colleague) חברון of the Sages and kept his “Rav” title, presumably because he was never ordained and so was a “chaver.” (See Kiddushin 33a for this distinction.)
Rav Avraham Zacut (Sefer Yuchsin) asserts they were brothers of Rabba bar Nachmani. He points to Ketubot 111a, where Rabba’s brothers (note the plural) sent him a letter telling him to come to Israel; while he’s a great scholar, he could learn much from Rabbi Yochanan. That Gemara doesn’t mention Rabba’s brothers’ names.
While that isn’t clear proof, Rav Hyman points to Yerushalmi Peah 8:8, Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi and Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachman were administrators of public charity. They gave a dinar to Rabbi Chama—the father of Rabbi Oshiya—but he gave it away to others. That text is nonsensical, since these administrators were third-generation Amoraim, while Rabbi Chama—the father of Rabbi Oshiya—was in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s generation. Therefore, he emends, “Chama” to “Nachmani.” Thus, Nachmani traveled to the land of Israel with these two sons, leaving his son Rabba behind. (His fourth son, Keilil—father of Abaye—died.)
Rav Hyman also notes that Rabba is a descendant of Eli the Kohen and worried about a shortened lifespan (Yevamot 105a). Meanwhile, in Sanhedrin 14a, Rabbi Yochanan repeatedly tried to ordain Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya, unsuccessfully. They told him not to be distressed. They were descendants of Eli the Kohen, whose curse included, “ … there shall not be an elder in your house,” which refers to no descendant being ordained a Sage. If these brothers and Rabba are from Eli’s house, it lends support to them sons of Nachmani. Let us add that they were plural brothers in Rabbi Yochanan’s orbit, so it makes sense that they had sent the letter inviting Rabba to study from Rabbi Yochanan.
If Rabba mystically created the golem, it makes sense that his brothers regularly mystically created a third-born calf. It’s also logical that a story about third-generation Amoraim follows a story about third-generation Amoraim, Rabba and Rabbi Zeira I. Still, it’s not impossible that the Rava story was juxtaposed to Rava’s drasha of a verse in Yeshaya, which was juxtaposed to the preceding segment interpreting the same verse. Then, relating Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya’s actions logically follows. We haven’t yet arrived at definitive identification of the golem’s creator. Rava makes the most sense, but Rabba/Rabbi Abba I/Rabbi Abba II can also work. We hope to continue exploring this topic next week.
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.
