אביי ורבא – שתי גישות למשנת התנאים

Many of the controversies between Abbaye and Rava relating to the Mishna, seem to be based on the question whether the text of the Mishna is to be viewed merely as an exterior receptacle for halakhic material, according to Abbaye, or rather as a sanctified text which may be submitted to exegesis, in the manner of the Bible, an opinion entertained by Rava. The examples cited in the present article shed light on two facets of this basic controversy: a) Abbaye usually solved problems arising from certain expressions and linguistic variations in Mishna and Barayta by harmonizing the halakhic contents, at the expense of textual exactitude, whereas Rava placed great stress on the niceties of the mishnaic text. This principle is utilized to explain such recurring controversies between Abbaye and Rava as משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו (=different expository results from the same text), and יגיד עליו רעו (=equations made between passages in close proximity). b) Abbaye frequently solved textual difficulties in the tannaitic text by means of corrected readings and emendations, whereas Rava objected to even the slightest change in the accepted version and solved these very same difficulties through an exegesis of the halakhic text. At least one of the controversies between Abbaye and Rava was found to be based on differences between Palestinian and Babylonian halakhic teachings: Abbaye following R. Yoḥanan, the second generation Palestinian Amora, while Rava based himself on the teachings of his master, Rav Ḥisda, one of the leading Babylonian Amorain. However, the presumption that the differences of approach between the two leading Amorain of the fourth generation lean primarily on halakhic differences between Palestine and Babylon, requires much additional proof. A by-product of the author's discussion of the Abbaye-Rava controversy is an insight into the process whereby an accepted halakhic corpus of definite contents is transformed into a creative source for the development of new laws via precise introspection into its readings. As a result, such laws are granted halakhic sanction in spite of the fact that the original redactor of the text never intended to promulgate them. In the case under discussion, the Mishna of R. Judah the Prince, it is postulated that the above-mentioned process was a result of the changes in the status of the halakhic corpus. Upon its promulgation, the Mishna was considered nothing more than a written summary of tannaitic traditions. However, once this halakhic work was circulated in published form, the oral tradition was set aside completely and the written Mishna came to be recognized as the authorized halakhic source. By its very nature, the published version acheived a status all its own, divorced from the original intentions of its author-compiler, and halakhic authority was attributed to the written text with all its nuances and syntactical details. As a result, each and every halakhic conclusion based on the intricacies of the textual version was granted full validity, even though such an halakha may never have entered the mind of R. Judah the Prince. A later-day example for this phenomenon is evident in the attitude of R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz to the Shulḥan 'Arukh (Code of Jewish Law) of R. Joseph Qaro and R. Moses Isserlees. The controversies between Abbaye and Rava in their approach to the Mishna may thus be viewed against such a background. Abbaye, apparently influenced by the teachings of R. Yoḥanan, stressed accepted halakhic content, while attaching negligible importance to the text. He therefore did not hesitate to make corrections and emendations. On the other hand, Rava seems to have been influenced by Babylonian teachings, and therefore attached major import to the text of the Mishna. This explains his objections to textual emendations, and his concerted efforts to derive halakhic conclusions from the language of the text itself.