We’ve discussed many famous Amoraim, but it’s also nice to better know less famous ones when we encounter them, even if such knowledge doesn’t impact our understanding of the sugya. On Kiddushin 20-21, Rav Huna bar Chinena poses several questions to Rav Sheshet. What do we know about this Amora?
Rav Huna bar Chinena is a fourth-generation Amora. Moed Katan 9b relates that (second and third-generation) Rav Chisda’s wife would adorn herself with various cosmetic treatments on Chol Hamoed in the presence of her daughter-in-law, meaning when she already had a married son. Rav Huna bar Chinena sat before Rav Chisda and said that they only taught this allowance in the Mishna for young women (since it gives them joy), not old women. Rav Chisda exclaimed, “By gosh! Even your mother, your mother’s mother and even a woman standing at the edge of her grave is permitted to adorn herself. As the saying goes, a 60-year-old woman—just like a six year old woman—runs at the sound of timbrels.” He also quotes Rav Chisda in Moed Katan 16a, about giving someone three warnings (on Monday, Thursday, Monday) before excommunication.
He was also a student of Rav Yosef in Pumpedita. In Eruvin 14b, Rav Yosef cited Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel that the halacha not in accordance with Rabbi Yossi, neither regarding preparing brine on Shabbat (that there’s no difference between a little and a lot of salt) nor regarding sideposts (that a lechi need be three handbreadths wide). Rav Huna bar Chinena piped up and said that Rav Yosef—prior to his illness which caused him to forget—had taught them about brine but not sideposts. However, the Gemara also reports Rav Rechumi’s version, which seems to be a variation of the same single incident, with different players—with Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat (note the name similarity) citing Rav (rather than Shmuel), and Rava acting as challenger—and different reasons for changing his position.
Variations in Rav Nachman
He was also a student of Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov), just like Rava1. He cites Rav Nachman in Ketubot 100a, Kiddushin 42a, Bava Batra 155a, Avoda Zara 24a and Temura 30b. Sometimes, Rava and Rav Huna bar Chinena have different accounts of what Rav Nachman said. Thus—in Bava Batra 155a—Rava quotes Rav Nachman that a minor can sell his deceased father’s property when he’s 18, while Rav Huna bar Chinena quotes Rav Nachman that the age is 20. The Gemara continues that Rava’s statement was inferred—not stated explicitly—but see Tosafot on whether we should cross that line out. In Temura 30b, the Mishna records that the sages say—regarding any sacrifice prohibited on the altar—that sacrifice offspring is permitted, while Rabbi Eliezer says that the offspring of any animal which will die within 12 months (tereifa) cannot be sacrificed (perhaps as an example). Rav Huna bar Chinena cites Rav Nachman that the dispute is where the animal first became pregnant and then became the object of bestiality. Rava, or Rava citing Rav Nachman—in an ikka deamrei variant—reverses the order. In Chullin 49b, Rava says that Rav Nachman spoke of two fats on the abomasum (keiva), one called the “chimtza” and the other the “bar chimtza,” only one of which would effectively seal a perforation, with implications for kashrut. But—continued Rava—I don’t know which is which. To this, both Rav Huna bar Rav Nachman (that is, Rav Nachman’s son) and Rav Huna bar Chinena clarified that the bar chimtza seals.
This idea—that Rava and Rav Huna bar Chinena can differ in what Rav Nachman said—may prove useful. Soon—in Kiddushin 42a—Rav Nachman cites Shmuel that if orphans come to divide their father’s property, the court appoints a steward (apotropos) for them, who selects a fine portion for each. When they get older, they can protest the division and redistribute. Rav Nachman himself says the orphans cannot later protest the division, for if so, what advantage is there to the power of the court—מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה. The Gemara then contrasts this with Rav Huna bar Chinena’s citation of Rav Nachman in Ketubot 100a—ruling like the sages in the mishna—against Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who invokes מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה to allow courts to err in assessments even exceeding one-sixth. The Gemara in Kiddushin and Ketubot harmonizes, explaining how the cases differ. Another possibility we might consider is that our plain citation of Shmuel and Rav Nachman is a Mechozan one—via Rava—and that can easily be at odds with a Sichran account from Rav Huna bar Chinena2.
Arguing With Rava
In Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, Rav Aharon Hyman explains that while Rava presided over Mechoza, Rav Huna bar Chinena presided over the nearby town of Sichra. We knew these towns were close, because of an incident (Chullin 94b) where Mar Zutra—son of Rav Nachman—was traveling from Sichra to Bei Mechoza. At the same time, Rava and Rav Safra were traveling in the opposite direction—to Sichra—and they met along the way. Mar Zutra bar Rav Nachman was honored that these two Sages had come out to greet him. Rav Safra corrected the misimpression, and Rava wasn’t happy that he did so.
In Avoda Zara 40a, a ship had carried a certain fish—called “tzachanta”—to Sichra. Rav Huna bar Chinena saw there were scales and so permitted them. Rava objected that in here, scales are common (perhaps on the boat from kosher fish) so aren’t valid evidence. Shofar blasts come out from the courts of both Rava and Rav Huna bar Chinena, each announcing their respective rulings.
On Avoda Zara 57b, a gentile entered a Jew’s store in Mechoza and asked if they had any wine he could buy. They told him, “No.” There was wine in a bucket, and he stuck his hand in the bucket, stirred it around and asked, “Isn’t this wine?” In anger, the Jewish shopkeeper grabbed the bucket and threw its contents into a barrel of wine. Rava held that the wine in the barrel was permitted to be sold to gentiles, while Rav Huna bar Chinena and Rav Huna bar Rav Nachman disagreed. Shofar blasts come out from each court to promulgate their ruling. Rav Huna bar Rav Nachman decided to visit Mechoza. Rava told his attendant—Rav Elyashiv—to close the gates, so that people who would disturb won’t come3. Rav Huna bar Rav Nachman entered and they discussed the matter further.
I’m not entirely convinced that Rav Huna bar Chinena presided over Sichra—rather than a court in Mechoza4—but given that sons of Rav Nachman seem to come from there, rather than being based in Mechoza, it seems logical. There’s more to say about his interactions with colleagues and students, but given space considerations, this is a good introduction for an Amora who would otherwise be unknown.
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 who was also Rav Chisda’s son-in-law.
2 Indeed, the parallel sugya in Ketubot opens with Rava citing Rav Nachman that the mishna’s allowance for judges to err extended to mistakes made by an agent appointed by the court (somewhat parallel to Kiddushin’s apotropos agent for the orphans). Then, another of Rav Nachman’s students—Rav Shmuel bar Bisna—cites Rav Nachman saying the opposite!
3 Rashi explains that this was to keep Rav Huna bar Rav Nachman away. Tosafot argue that Rava wouldn’t keep a disputant away, and point out other girsological difficulties, so that Ri champions a girsa in which Rav Nachman himself visited, with Rava asking for privacy so as to consult with Rav Nachman.
4 and recall that Rava says there’s no violation of לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ of two courts with differing positions in one city (Yevamot 14a).
