In the Mishnah on Yevamot 81a, Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Shimon declare that an androgynous kohen’s wife may eat terumah. A brayta (83a) seems to represent Rabbi Yossi’s position otherwise, that androgynous people are neither gender, with the Sages not determining whether they’re male or female, carrying an implication that if they were kohanim and did marry, their wives couldn’t eat terumah. Does the brayta uproot the Mishnah, demonstrating that Rabbi Yossi retracted, or vice versa, with the Mishnah being more authoritative? One resolution is: רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס וּבְהַרְכָּבָה וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְּקוֹשִׁי וּבְקִידּוּשׁ. In Rav’s academy, they said in Rav’s name that the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi by the hermaphrodite and by grafting, while Shmuel said it’s like him by protracted labor (koshu) and forfeiture (kiddush). (As an aside, in this statement format, it’s left ambiguous whether Rav’s academy also cited Shmuel’s statement. See below. As another aside, “androgynous” and “grafting” are conceptually related, while “koshi” and “kiddush” are phonologically related, useful for remembering oral traditions.) That Rav or Shmuel discuss one set of cases doesn’t inform about what the other (Shmuel or Rav) maintain about the other’s cases, so the gemara seeks to establish their respective positions for each case.
Sura vs. Pumbedita
Rav’s academy was in Sura, and after his death, it was led by second-generation Rav Huna. After Rav Huna’s death, it was led by his son, the third-generation Rabba bar Rav Huna and Rav Huna’s student/colleague Rav Chisda. Meanwhile, about 100 miles away, the Pumpedita academy, in the third generation, was first led by Rabba bar Nachmani, and then Rav Yosef bar Chiyya.
Rav Yosef (83b) addresses what Rav held regarding “kiddush.” He cites Rav Huna (of Sura, previous generation) citing Rav that we don’t hold like Rabbi Yossi. Abaye (his fourth-generation Pumpeditan student) objects! Why not cite Rav Adda bar Ahava, who cites Rav that we do hold like Rabbi Yossi? Note that while our printed texts have simply Rav Adda, several manuscripts (Munich 141, Oxford 367, Vatican 110, Cambridge) include “bar Ahava.” This is relevant since Rav Adda bar Ahava I was a second-generation Amora (thus parallel to Rav Huna) who was a major student of Rav, and who subsequently expounded in the streets of Pumbedita (Yevamot 110b). Abaye is saying to his rebbe, why not rely on our local talmidei chachamim?!
Identifying Unknown Figures
The Talmudic Narrator responds, אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב מַנּוּ רַב הוּנָא וְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה. “Who is ‘they said in Rav’s academy?’ It’s Rav Huna! And Rav Huna said the halacha is not like Rabbi Yossi.” As Rashi explains, the initial statement above about Rav and the androgynous person and grafting (I’d add: with the accompanying statement about Shmuel and koshi and kiddush) that prompted all this was from Rav’s academy. And who is Rav’s academy? None other than Rav Huna. Thus, Rav Yosef said, or would say, we should follow Rav Huna’s clarification regarding koshi.
Identifying Rav Huna as Rav’s academy is potentially problematic when we consider Sanhedrin 17b. A fairly late sugya there (probably Savoraic) aggregates many ambiguous rabbinic references in the Talmud and identifies them with particular figures. It adopts a closed-canon approach, so just as midrash identifies the anonymous Hebrew midwives as Yocheved and Miriam, it identifies the anonymous “judges of the Diaspora” as Karna. Some identifications are taken from explicit Amoraic statements. For instance, it declares רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל רַבִּי אַבָּא. This is drawn from Shevuot 47a, where Rabbi Ami refers to these two groups, and Rav Pappa makes the identification by analyzing sources.
Other identifications are less explicit, but can be made from either traditional/personal knowledge, or more likely, deduction based on the biographical details of the Amora who employed the term, and the interaction within the sugyot (indicating same, earlier, later generation). So, for instance, Menachot 17a refers to חֲרִיפֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, and Rava, a fourth-generation Amora of Pumpedita reacts. Sanhedrin 17b identifies these sharp ones of Pumbedita as Avimi and Eifa, sons of Rechava. This might be drawn from Shevuot 28b, where Avimi studied tractate Shevuot in Rabba’s academy. He’s thus fourth-generation in Pumpedita. His brother Eifa grills him on the fine details, so these two are suitable candidates. Note this is my unique assumption about the late provenance of the Sanhedrin 17b sugya; others may assume this lexicon of people is Amoraic tradition, assembled in one place for convenience, which would impact how they treat apparent contradictions.
Rav Huna or Hamnuna?
Sanhedrin 17a declares אָמְרֵי בֵּי רַב רַב הוּנָא, “they said in Rav’s academy” refers to Rav Huna. This would be drawn from the Talmudic Narrator’s (or Rav Yosef unattributed) explicit conclusion/identification in Yevamot 83b. It then objects, for we find instances (such as Beitza 40a) where Rav Huna cites Rav’s academy citing Rav. (Again, this shows late provenance and knowledge of other sugyot across Talmud.) It answers אֶלָּא רַב הַמְנוּנָא, it is rather Rav Hamnuna. This seems to undermine Yevamot 83b’s conclusion.
Tosafot note the contradiction between sugyot and offer two parsings. One parsing is: when Rav Huna cites Rav’s academy, “Rav’s academy” is Rav Hamnuna. The problem is that in Eruvin 62b, Rav Hamnuna is a student/colleague of Rav Chisda, who in turn is a student/colleague of Rav Huna. Rav Huna wouldn’t cite this later figure! They answer that there were two Rav Hamnunas, and one was a direct student of Rav (see Bava Kamma 106a). Indeed, there seem to be three plain Rav Hamnunas without patronymic.
Another parsing is: When Rav Huna cites Rav’s academy, emend “Rav Huna” to be Rav Hamnuna. I’d note that this could be due to an oral error, since Hamnuna sounds like Huna and both were associated with Sura, or could be a textual error, with intermediate letters omitted. I was only able to find one manuscript instance of this alleged initial text Rav Hamnuna, rather than Rav Huna, citing Rav’s academy, in the Escola manuscript of Bava Metzia 102b.
If pressed to declare Rav Huna citing Rav’s academy as a transmission error, I’d suggest the original being Rabba bar Rav Huna. We see instances of second (Rav Adda bar Ahava), third (Rav Chana bar Acha) and fourth-generation (Rava) Amoraim citing Rav’s academy. And we have third-generation Rabba bar Rav Huna, who is Rav Huna’s successor, citing Rav’s academy—an identical statement in Rosh Hashanah 23a, Sukkah 37a, Bava Batra 80b about 10 species of cedar. It seems easy to omit the “Rabba bar” portion. Alternatively, since Rav’s academy is Sura, perhaps Amoraim of different generations would use “Rav’s academy” to refer to different people, or indeed, the collective members of the academy rather than its leader.
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.
