Two stories in Sanhedrin deal with changing later generations judging earlier generations. The Mishnah (90a) listed three kings who had lost their share in the world-to-come: Yeravam, Achav and Menashe; with Rabbi Yehuda disputing Menashe’s inclusion. Sanhedrin 102 relates that R’ Abahu would regularly expound (דָרֵישׁ, perhaps publicly), about the three kings. He fell ill, and accepted that he would no longer do so. He recovered and once again lectured on this topic. They—meaning his colleagues or students—asked him: “Didn’t you accept not to do this?” He answered: “Did they repent (הדר), that I should retract (הדר)?”
Rav Ashi ended his lecture one day saying that, “Tomorrow, we’ll begin with our colleagues, ” meaning the three kings. King Menashe appeared to him in a dream and upbraided him: “Do you think we are your colleagues or your father’s colleagues?” Menashe asked: “From where do you cut the loaf when reciting Hamotzi?” Rav Ashi admitted ignorance, and asked for the answer, so that he could cite it in his name. The answer was: “From where it crusts as a result of baking.” Asked why he engaged in idolatry, Menashe said, “If you lived then, you would have lifted the hem of your cloak and run after me.” The next day, Rav Ashi opened his shiur with, “We begin with our teachers.”
Chazal are not monolithic in their attitudes, and here we have two Sages differing. R’ Abahu will judge previous generations for their failures, and will even shrug off seeming divine disapproval of his speech. Rav Ashi seems less willing to “cancel” prior generations for their moral failings, and to judge them by modern standards—even where those actions were obviously bad even at the time.
Reish Chupchik
Reish Chupchik is not Reish Lakish’s lesser known cousin. Rather, I mean the letter ר with an apostrophe or diacritic above it. That’s the text in the Vilna printing, ר’ אבהו. I was careful above not to give R’ Abahu’s title as “Rav” or “Rabbi,” because the title is mostly ambiguous. In Rav Steinsaltz’s work, this Amora is written as רבי אבהו and Rabbi Abahu. Artscroll might be a bit more cautious. On the translation side, they spell out רבי אבהו in their Hebrew text but write R’ Abahu in their English rendition. I thought that was to match the ambiguity of the Vilna text, but I’ve seen many instances of Vilna’s spelled-out רבי nonetheless rendered as R.
If it is Rabbi Abahu I, then he’s rather famous, and we know him as Rabbi Yochanan’s student. However, it’s interesting that a parallel story does appear in Yerushalmi, and that there’s a sudden leap from this third-generation Amora from the land of Israel to Rav Ashi, a sixth-generation Amora from Babylonia.
The other possibility is Rav Avahu II—one of Rav Ashi’s students—a seventh-generation Amora, leading into the first-generation of Savoraim. We’d then prefer that Rav Ashi precede, but still, we have approximate contemporaries taking different approaches to the same topic. This works much better.
Examining printings and manuscripts, only the Venice printing has Rabbi Abahu. Many others (Vilna and Barco printings, Florence 9, Yad HaRav Herzog, Reuchlin 2, and Munich 95 manuscripts) have R’ Abahu, preserving the ambiguity. (In the image of the 13th-century Florence 9 manuscript, I include some of the translation that regularly appears in the margins.) Finally, the Vatican 171 and Hamburg: Levy 168 manuscripts have רבבהו—“Ravavahu” as a contraction, surely referring to the seventh-generation Amora. Since there’s no real contradiction, we may safely rule that it’s “Ravavahu.”
Know the Ambiguity
I write this just to give credit—or blame—to the proper Amora for standing firm after his recovery. Often, we try to build a picture of Amoraim, their personality and halachic framework based on their occurrences. Now we know it’s Ravavahu, whom we might explore in greater depth in another article.
More importantly, you should know that many, many instances of “Rabbi Avahu” that you encounter when learning Gemara are actually this “Ravavahu.” For instance, there’s a famous and unique expression, מְגַדֵּף בַּהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ—“R’ Abahu would scorn it,” which appears in Shabbat 62b, Kiddushin 71a, Sanhedrin 3b and 40b and Zevachim 12a. It is always actually written as the ambiguous R’ Abahu in all printings and manuscripts I’ve seen—except as Rabbi Abahu in Venice and Vilna printings of Zevachim—and critically as Ravavahu in Geneva: Genizah, Maseches 31 of Kiddushin. Much like the unique expression of פריך רב אחאי—who might be a Savora or possibly even Rav Achai Gaon—this unique expression is there to indicate a named transitional Amora/Savora weighing in.
So too, there’s a decisive principle of ruling like the later Amora (הלכתא כבתראי), from the fourth generation (Rava and Abaye) and on. Rabbi Abahu I is earlier than that, while Rav Avahu II is later, but being post-Ravina and Rav Ashi, may or might not compete. When you see R’ Abahu in a sugya—even when the Vilna text spells it out as Rabbi Abahu—you must carefully investigate before arriving at a definitive identification.
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.
