Q&A: A Question in Otzar HaGeonim
A Question in Otzar HaGeonim
Question
Hello Rabbi, please share your thoughts:
A passage from Otzar HaGeonim:
8. Rami bar Hama said: This implies that if one lifts up a found item for his fellow, his fellow acquires it. And that which Rami bar Hama said, that if one lifts up his fellow’s found item, his fellow acquires it — this is the Jewish law, for Rav Aha the son of Rav Avya said to Rav Ashi: Establish it according to Rami bar Hama. From where? And we answer with several answers, and we conclude: rather, infer from this that if one lifts up a found item for his fellow, his fellow acquires it. And if you would say it is because of Rava — Rava was merely reconsidering it, and the discussion weighs it back and forth: actually, I could tell you that his fellow does not acquire it. But our conclusion is what Rabbah bar bar Hannah said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: if one lifts up a found item for his fellow, his fellow acquires it. And if you would ask from our Mishnah — there he said to him, “Give it to me,” and did not say to him, “Acquire it for me.” And Rav Nahman also held this way, for he said: If one drew water and gave it to his fellow, Rav Nahman said: they are according to the feet of the one for whom they were filled, while Rav Sheshet said: according to the feet of the one who filled them. And we discussed it: what is the case? And we said in the conclusion: rather, here they disagree about one who lifts up a found item for his fellow; one master holds that his fellow acquires it, and one master holds that his fellow does not acquire it.
According to this passage, Rav Nahman too holds that if one lifts up a found item for his fellow, his fellow acquires it. But the Talmud explicitly writes:
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Metzia 10a
Rav Nahman and Rav Hisda both said: If one lifts up a found item for his fellow — his fellow does not acquire it. What is the reason? It is like one who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a way that harms others, and one who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a way that harms others — does not acquire it.
Were the Geonim unfamiliar with the Talmud? Are they ignoring it? What is going on here?
Answer
The Geonim proved this from the passage in Beitzah 39b (“according to the feet of the one for whom they were filled”), where it indeed appears as they say. But that contradicts our Talmudic passage regarding Rav Nahman. Because of this, Rashi changed the text there in the Talmud and reversed it. The Geonim apparently understood that this is a dispute between Talmudic passages, or that there is a distinction between the cases — between a found item and a water pit. And in fact the medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagreed about this. See this note in the Havruta edition on Rashi there:
In the straightforward reading, the explanation of the Talmud is not like Rashi’s explanation. Rather, they disagreed whether, if one lifts up a found item for his fellow, his fellow acquires it or not. Rav Nahman held: his fellow does acquire it, and therefore they are according to the feet of the one for whom they were filled. Rav Sheshet held: his fellow does not acquire it, and consequently the one who filled them acquires them, so they are according to his feet. However, Rashi was forced to explain it differently, because Rav Nahman held in Bava Metzia 10a that if one lifts up a found item for his fellow, his fellow does not acquire it. Because of this difficulty, Rashi changed the textual reading that stood before him [whose meaning was like the interpretation Rashi rejected]:
“They disagree about whether, if one lifts up a found item for his fellow, his fellow acquires it,” and instead he read: “They disagree about one who lifts up a found item for his fellow.” Tosafot wrote in the name of Rashbam to uphold the standard text. Rav Nahman held: his fellow does acquire it in the case of a water pit, because we only say that his fellow does not acquire it regarding a “found item,” since he is seizing on behalf of a creditor in a way that harms others; but in the case of a water pit he is not harming others, since there is plenty of water in the pit and others can also draw. See further in their comments. And Rav Sheshet held: even in the case of a pit, his fellow does not acquire it; and since his fellow did not acquire it, the one who filled the water did acquire it. And in the name of Rabbenu Tam they wrote to uphold the standard text: Rav Sheshet held that his fellow does acquire it, and nevertheless they are according to the feet of the one who filled them, because his lifting for his fellow is effective [in Rav Sheshet’s view] due to “since he can acquire for himself, he can also acquire for his fellow.” And since the one for whom they were filled acquired by the power of the one who filled them, the water is according to the feet of the one who filled them. Rav Nahman held: his fellow does not acquire it; but the one who lifted it also did not acquire it, since he did not intend to acquire it for himself, and when the water reached the hands of the one for whom they were filled, he acquired it, and so they are according to his feet.
Discussion on Answer
Anything is possible, but there’s no necessity to say that. There are quite a few statements by medieval authorities (Rishonim) and Geonim about conflicting Talmudic passages.
Moreover, why do they bother bringing Rav Nahman from Beitzah 39 here at all? Apparently in order to say that we should not learn from the conclusion of the passage here regarding Rav Nahman’s view. So it seems that this passage actually was before them, and they came specifically to exclude that inference.
That is if, in their view, the passages disagree. And if not — if rather there is a distinction between a found item and a water pit — then perhaps they mean to say that Rav Nahman’s general opinion is that his fellow does not acquire it, except for the special case here.
Rabbenu Hananel says on the Talmud in Bava Metzia 10a that Rav Nahman retracted what he said in Bava Metzia because of what we see in tractate Beitzah regarding a water pit. Apparently that is also how the Geonim understood it. This also fits with Rabbenu Hananel’s closeness to the period of the Geonim.
Thank you very much.
The gist of your words is: “The Geonim apparently understood that this is a dispute between Talmudic passages, or that there is a distinction between the cases — between a found item and a water pit.”
A dispute between Talmudic passages? Meaning Rav Ashi did not edit all the passages? If so, how did he leave them contradictory?
A distinction between the cases is such an important point that the Geonim did not even mention it. How can they so blatantly ignore an explicit statement? Is it possible that the passage before us was not before them, and only its end was (= Rabbi Yohanan’s closing statement)?