In Bava Batra 90b, fourth-generation Rav Pappa bar Shmuel instituted a measure of three kefiza. His rabbinic colleagues object to him saying that this conflicts with the position of the first-generation Amora, Shmuel—who says that one should not increase existing measures by more than a sixth. He responds that this is not an adjustment of an existing measure, but a brand new measure. He then tried to gain adoption of his measure. He sent it to the Pumbeditans and they rejected it. He sent it to the Papunyans and they accepted it, calling it (perhaps) “Ruz Puppa.”
Let’s sort out some biographical details. I see Pappa bar Shmuel, and I see Shmuel. Are they related as father and son? Well, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel was the student of Rav Sheshet and Rav Chisda, who were third-generation Amoraim. He asked a question to Rav Yosef and interacted with Abaye and Rava. I think he was born too late to be Shmuel’s son (but see below), and.
Pumbeditan Judge
According to Sanhedrin 17b, when we encounter the phrase “the judges of Pumbedita,” this refers to Rav Shmuel bar Abba. I am not sure how this is known. It could be by oral tradition, or it could be what some anonymous Stammaic Sage determined by analyzing various sugyot. If the latter, I’d look first within Sanhedrin, to 26b—in which two robbers signed on a deed of gift, and he thought as judge to deem it valid, since there had been no prior court declaration that these robbers were disqualified. Rava argues that thieves by biblical law are disqualified automatically. We also see cases come before him in Bava Kamma 84a about appraisal of a child injured by a donkey—with Abaye and Rava disagreeing—and Bava Metzia 109b, when a planter wishes to leave his work and move to the land of Israel—where Rava disagrees about the compensation.
The identification seems logical, as he’s clearly a judge and a fourth-generation Pumbeditan. The only place I see the plural דייני דפומבדיתא is Ketubot 80a, where plural “they” describe how Rav Yehuda practically ruled in a case where a husband took his wife’s property—a bundle of branches—and fed them to animals. Yet, the founder of Pumbedita academy, Rav Yehuda, was a second-generation Amora, so I’d expect these judges or this judge to relate firsthand knowledge of a court case. Rav Aharon Hyman—in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim—describes the situation as follows: “It seems apparent that when Abaye and Rava were before Rabba and Rav Yosef (as students), then Rav Pappa bar Shmuel was among the Pumbeditan judges.” I suppose this is because we do see interactions with Rav Yosef. This pushes him back to the third scholastic generation, who could then witness Rav Yehuda’s actions directly.
Another irregularity is that, in our sugya, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel “sends”—שַׁדְּרֵיהּ, the measure to Pumbedita and they reject it. Why describe this as sending to his own city. Rav Aharon Hyman senses this, and summarizes the statement thusly, “to explain: that he wished the people of his city would accept it as a measure.”
Papunians and Pappa
The Papunians accepted his measure and called it “Ruz Pappa.” The simple reading is that they named the measure after its creator. Could they have named it after themselves? Admittedly, they didn’t name it “Ruz Papunia,” but the “Papunia” and “Pappa” sound similar.
Jastrow points to what Adolf Neubauer writes (in French) in “La Géographie du Talmud:” “Paphounya, often mentioned in conjunction with Pome-Beditha, Neresch and Mahouza. It is undoubtedly the city of Epiphania on the Euphrates, also called ‘Arcesicera.’ It should not be confused with Epiphanie, in Syria1.” However, Jastrow has reservations, pointing us to his second entry on פפא, which describes “Pappa/Nehar Pappa,” the name of canal and place in Babylonia.
In Bava Metzia 68a, Rava says: the halacha regarding usury is not like those who approve of טַרְשֵׁי פַּפּוּנָאֵי—the Papunaite tacit interest agreements, nor those who approve of the documents of Mechoza, nor those who approve of the tenancies of Neresh. Both Artscroll and Koren define טַרְשֵׁי פַּפּוּנָאֵי as “the interest agreement of Rav Pappa.” They follow the Gemara, which immediately defines each of these terms, including טַרְשֵׁי פַּפּוּנָאֵי as כְּטַרְשֵׁי דְּרַב פָּפָּא. The Gemara’s source is that agreement defined earlier on Bava Metzia 65a, where Rav Pappa declared that his “tarsha” was permitted—he would sell liquor and accept delayed payment at a higher price.
This explanation seems strange. First, Mechoza and Neresh are places, so why is Papunia—often a place name—suddenly referring to Rav Pappa’s practice? Also, fourth-generation Rava is the primary teacher of fifth-generation Rav Pappa. Is this an elderly Rava expressing disapproval of his student’s action? I’d prefer an open canon approach, even if it means that we don’t know what the Papunian “tarsha” was. Alternatively, Rav Pappa adopted the Papunian practice or vice versa.
Ode to a Persian Urn
According to our printed text (Vilna, Venice, Pisaro), the Pappunians called the measure “Ruz Pappa.” Rashbam explains that this is the measure of Rav Pappa, which we devised ברזי לבו—with “raz” meaning “secret”; alternatively, they called this measure in their own language “ruz.” Manuscripts differ—with Hamburg 165 and Escorial having כוז פפא, Munich 95 having רז פפא without the vav, Paris 1337 having רון פפא and Vatican 115b having רד פפא. Orthographic errors seem to account for these variants, as the resh and dalet are similar, the resh is the top part of a kaf, and the nun sofit—as a sofer writes it—is essentially a zayin with an elongated regel.
Additional evidence might be drawn from Yevamot 79a, which contrasts the possibility of certain hewers and burden bearers being slaves versus being דּוּגְזַר. Tosafot ad loc. emends this to דונ-גר, which they explain as a measure of wage-earning, since “dun” means “measure,” based on our sugya in Bava Batra. There are several variants—including omitting it—rugzar, dungar and (within the same manuscript as dungar) dugar. Now, nun and gimel are orthographically similar, and metathesis (swapping letters in a word) happens in spoken and written words. Jastrow traces “rangar” not to Persian but to Latin “angaria—compulsory public service,” which works well here. He also notes that Rabbeinu Chananel traces it to Persian “ruzgar—servitium,” and ascribes the corrupted words to this derivation. If so, perhaps Yevamot isn’t helpful to understanding the Pappan Ruz.
Without any in-depth research, I’d guess that “Kuz Pappa” is correct. According to Wiktionary, کوزه, or “kuz,” is Persian for “a pottery vase with a long neck” or “an urn.” What’s a Persian urn? About 115 million rials a month. Recall that Rav Pappa bar Shmuel innovated a liquid volume measure, so an urn or vase makes sense.
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 In a footnote, Neubauer notes that Pauly’s “Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft” disagrees, but I wasn’t able to find the entry.
