Abaye and Rava are contemporaries. They are fourth-generation Amoraim of Pumbedita academy who studied under the same teachers, and their disputes are frequently featured throughout the Talmud. On Chagigah 17b, I was slightly surprised to see Rava contest an anonymous Talmudic proof based on a statement by Abaye. Does this violate chronology, and demonstrate the existence of Rava II?
The anonymous Talmudic Narrator (the Stamma) had attempted several resolutions of whether missed obligatory Shavuot offerings could be made up in the subsequent six days, just like Sukkot offerings. After all, unlike Sukkot, Shavuot only lasts one day, so the following days aren’t of the festival. Rabbi Eleazar (b. Pedat) cited Rabbi Oshaya, a quasi-Tanna, who deduces such sacrificial redress based on Scriptural juxtaposition of the festivals of Pesach, Sukkot and Shavuot, but the Talmud questions and considers this at length. Finally, the Talmudic Narrator brings a brayta taught by Rabba bar Shmuel, Scripturally comparing Rosh Chodesh to Shavuot: just as day units are counted for Rosh Chodesh and Rosh Chodesh is consecrated for one day, so too units are counted for Shavuot and it’s consecrated for one unit, the implication being one day. To this, Rava counters that we count both days and weeks for Shavuot. After all, Abaye interprets verses to require counting both days and weeks, and furthermore, the festival itself is called Weeks!
Following many scholars, I typically assume that the Stamma is rather late—from Ravina and Rav Ashi, or Savoraic, or in certain cases, even Geonic. How could Rava, of the fourth-Amoraic generation, respond to the Stamma1? Also, if Rava maintains the obligation to count both days and weeks, let him either cite an earlier authority or assert it himself! It seems strange to cite his chavruta for this law.
Rava II
Several scholars (including Hanokh Albeck) asserted that there was a late Sage also named Rava, from the late Amoraim, the Savoraim or even Geonim. They point to passages where Rava appears after fifth or sixth-generation Amoraim; passages in which Rava interprets Tannaitic material in a manner they deem late in style or character; or passages in which Rava responds to the Talmudic Narrator. I don’t know if they discuss our sugya, but it seems a good candidate.
Other scholars argue against the existence of a second Rava. I found Barak Cohen’s JQR article, “Was There Really a Rava II? (A Re-Examination of the Talmudic Evidence)” persuasive. Variant manuscripts and an understanding of ha’avara (sugyot transferred from one passage in Bavli to another) readily explain Rava appearing after later Amoraim. Analyses deemed late in character reflect Rava I’s stylistic approach. And, later Stammaic material is often inserted into a prior Amoraic sugya, which reads smoothly without the interpolation and with only Amoraim speaking. Sometimes the Stamma expands/clarifies the underlying point prompting the Amora’s statement and sometimes transforms the sugya’s meaning. Regardless, Rava can absolutely be early.
Rava Depends on Abaye
In Menachot 66a, the Boethusian sectarians claimed that the Omer was counted from Sunday, since the verse said counting was from the “Sabbath” morrow. Ten Tannaitic counter-proofs were offered, and Rava carefully analyzes them and demonstrates how each is refutable, except for two Tannaitic proofs that are unassailable. Perhaps this method of detailed analysis is stylistically “late.” However, the structure is identical to one discussed in last week’s column, where in three sugyot Tannaim offer competing proofs for a tenuous law, Shmuel proffers an alternative proof, Rava demonstrates how only Shmuel’s proof is unassailable, and Rava’s student (either Ravina I or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) then offers an aphorism about a sharp pepper being better than a basket of pumpkins. I’m convinced this is Rava I’s authentic style.
In that same sugya in Menachot (65a), a Boethusian elder had prattled that Moshe was a lover of Jews. Since Shavuot was only one day, he wanted them to have a two-day Yom Tov. Rabbi Yochanan first countered jokingly that if Moshe was such a philo-semite and Israel was but an 11-day journey from Chorev, how come he kept them in the wilderness for 40 years? He followed up with the idea that one verse mentions counting 50 days and another mentions seven complete weeks. The latter refers to when the first day of Pesach occurs on Shabbat while the former refers to Pesach falling mid-week. Rava then notes that one could argue against Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai based on Abaye’s alternative interpretation of the verse, that one must count separately both days and weeks.
I don’t know whether Rava agreed with Abaye. Certainly the Sages of Rav Ashi’s academy acted so, and Ameimar only didn’t because in the post-Temple era without an omer offering, counting Sefira is only rabbinic or a reminiscence. Perhaps Rava pointed to his contemporary Abaye’s position only to show that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s proof wasn’t unassailable, but not to adopt it himself. Thus, it isn’t strange for him to refer to Abaye’s position in our sugya in Chagigah as well.
Finally, I wonder whether we should conduct surgery on our sugya. Eliminating the Stamma, we have Rabbi Oshaya’s proof, the brayta from Rabba bar Shmuel and Rava’s elaboration of that brayta, interpreting it to endorse a full week of sacrificial redress. Rava’s invocation of Abaye’s position is unnecessary, and might represent a late ha’avara (transfer) by the Talmudic Narrator from Menachot, to bolster Rava’s position.
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.
1 An alternative conservative position some advance is that Stammaitic material might have been composed in different eras, and the Stamma in each sugya can only be shown to be later than the Amoraic positions it discusses. If so, Rava might simply respond to a Stamma composed in the second generation (Rabba b. Shmuel) until his own fourth generation.
