One fine Shabbat night or day, Rav Malkiya (מלכיא or מלכיה) visited Rabbi Simlai’s house and moved an extinguished oil lamp. This angered Rabbi Simlai, for he maintained that such lamps were muktzeh (not for use on Shabbos) (Shabbat 46a). Now, Rabbi Simlai was an attendant to first-generation Amora, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia I—Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s grandson—and a colleague of third-generation Amora, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia II. This places Rav Malkiya as approximately a second or third-generation Amora.
Meanwhile, there was a deaf-mute in Rav Malkiyo’s (מלכיו) neighborhood who married a woman and, despite such a situation not requiring a ketubah, Rav Malkiyo arranged a ketubah of 400 zuz from the deaf-mute’s property. Fourth-generation Rava approvingly observed, “Who is as wise as Rav Malkiyo, as he is a great man,” and found a way of arranging this positive result, (Yevamot 113a). The implication is that this happened in Rava’s days, and that Rava was prominent enough that his praise was meaningful, so Rav Malkiyo seems like a fourth-generation contemporary. As Rav Aharon Hyman observes in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, Rav Malkiya and Rav Malkiyo lived in different scholastic generations.
Yet, their names are similar and both of them quote Rav Ada bar Ahava, in a total of six instances. This led to confusion, which we will explore. Note that there are two Amoraim named “Rav Ada bar Ahava.” The first is, indeed, “bar Ahava,” a second-generation Amora who was Rav’s student and, eventually, became a teacher in Pumbedita. The second is really “bar Abba,” but scribal errors turned many instances into “bar Ahava.” He was a fifth-generation student of Rava in Pumbedita/Mechoza academy. The most reasonable quotee is, therefore, Rav Ada bar Ahava I.
Six Statements
We’ll run through the six statements:
(A) The first appears in our sugya, Makkot 21a, where Rav Malkiya quoted Rav Ada bar Ahava: “It is forbidden for a person to place burnt ash on his wound (to promote healing), because it looks like a tattoo (after a time, once it heals). While the preceding mishna restricts the biblical violation to ink, kohl or any substance that marks, this is still a stand-alone statement, a שמעתא (Rivan).”
(B) In Beitza 28b, second-generation Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel that after a meat skewer had been used to roast meat on Yom Tov, it is forbidden to move it. Rav Adda bar Ahava (!) quoted Rav Malkiyo that one may pull the skewer out and place it in a corner (so that it doesn’t harm anyone). Second-generation Rav Chiya bar Ashi quotes his contemporary, Rav Huna, that this is true so long as a kezayit of meat remains on the skewer.
Note the reversed order of quotation, for usually the quotee is Rav Adda bar Ahava—this is only in printed texts (Vilna, Soncino, Venice). All the manuscripts have, “Rav Malkiyo or, alternatively, Rav Ada bar Ahava.” I would guess that it was only Rav Malkiyo who said it, because two fifth-generation Amoraim (see below) attest to this. Rav Ada bar Ahava enters the picture from the common pattern, and the printers or their source manuscript turned the alternatives into a quotation. Note that איתימא and אמר both begin with aleph and can appear in abbreviated form.
(C) In a mishna (Ketubot 5:5) delineated a wife’s tasks for her husband, but it is noted that if the wife brought in a maidservant as her dowry, the maidservant could perform some of those tasks. Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus) disagreed, saying that even if she brought in 100 maidservants, she still must perform those tasks herself, because idleness leads to licentiousness. In Ketubot 61b, Rabbi Malkiyo endorses Rabbi Eliezer’s position as halacha.
(D) Rabbi Chelbo—a third-generation Amora in Sura—quoted his teacher, second-generation Rav Huna, that the two hairs which signify adulthood must have follicles at their root. Rav Malkiyo cited Rav Ada bar Ahava that two follicles alone—even without hair—constitute a sign of adulthood (Niddah 52a).
(E) A baraita states that a Jewish barber cutting a gentile’s hair should not deal with the forelock, since that aspect of the hairstyle was associated with idolatry. Rav Malkiya quotes Rav Ada bar Ahava that he should leave three fingerbreadths—in each direction—around the forelock (Avoda Zara 29a).
(F) A mishna in Avodah Zara (29b) prohibited the gentiles’ cheese of Bet Unyaki, and various Tannaim and Amoraim speculated as to the reason for this prohibition. Shmuel offers an explanation. Rav Malkiya quoting Rav Ada bar Ahava suggested it’s because they smooth its surface with pig fat. Next, third-generation Rav Chisda, and then, fifth-generation Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak proffer other explanations.
Confused Attributions
Rav Chinena ben Rav Ikka was a fifth-generation Amora, and a valued contemporary of Rav Pappa and Rav Yehoshua ben Rav Yehoshua, though he died prematurely (Brachot 58b). I would speculate that he’s an early redactor of the proto-Talmud. Abaye and Rava argue about whether one may recite Shema when undressed. Rav Zevid records the dispute one way (רַב זְבִיד מַתְנִי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא הָכִי), while Rav Chinena ben Rav Ikka records it otherwise (Brachot 25b). This verb מַתְנִי is used often about variant versions of the Talmud—often with Amoraim associated with particular academies—so I imagine that our Talmud is one standardized text, but that there were others floating around. See also Nedarim 30, where Rav Acha ben Rav Ikka and Rav Pappa disagree whether a specific analysis should be applied—מַתְנִי—to the reisha or seifa of a mishna.
In Makkot and elsewhere, Rav Pappa and Rav Chinena ben Rav Ikka assign Malkiyo or Malkiya to positions A-F. (In Vilna and Venice printings, it is Rav Natan ben Rav Ikka, but in the Ktav HaRav Herzog and Munich 95 manuscripts—as well as all other sugyot this appears—it is “Chinena” or “Chanina.”) Rav Chinena ben Rav Ikka says that skewers, maidservants and follicles (B, C, D) are Rav Malkiyo, while forelock, burnt ashes and cheese (E, A, F) were stated by Rav Malkiya. Rav Pappa says that those pertaining to Tannaitic statements (C, E, F) are Rav Malkiyo, while those pertaining to Amoraic statements/discussions (A, B, D) are Rav Malkiya. A mnemonic to this is מַתְנִיתָא מַלְכְּתָא. The Talmudic narrator says the practical difference between these assignments is maidservants, C. (Ashes, A, should also be a point of distinction, but this is a dispute amongst Rishonim; perhaps its dual matnita/shmayta status helps.)
The mnemonic for Rav Pappa’s grouping stands between Rav Pappa’s statement and the Talmudic narrator’s analysis of מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ. I’d usually attribute mnemonics to the Talmudic narrator—often of the Savoraic era or later—but this is, admittedly, unclear. I’d imagine a mnemonic is useful for a garsan (reciter) or else a sofer (scribe) who needs to make sure to get the associate the correct name to the correct statement. Does our standard text follow Rav Pappa or his disputant? Because these Amoraim generally agree, the sugyot to inspect are A (Makkot) and C (Ketubot).
For A, the printings and the Yad HaRav Herzog manuscript have Malkiya, like Rav Chinena ben Rav Ikka. Interestingly, Munich 95 has “Malkiy’” as an abbreviated word. Admittedly, Munich employs many abbreviations, but could it be deliberately preserving the ambiguity? However, for C, all girsaot in printings and manuscripts—including Munich 95—have Rav Malkiyo, the position of Rav Chinena ben Rav Ikka. That is, we standardized against Rav Pappa!
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.
