I wish to thank Professors Baruch M. Bokser, Shaye J. D. Cohen, and Burton Visotzky of the Jewish Theological Seminary, who read earlier versions of this paper and offered several valuable suggestions.

1. See below, Bibliographical Note.

2. See, for example, Fraenkel, Yonah, “Sheelot Hermeneutiot be-Heker Sipur ha-Agadah,” Tarbiz 47 (1978): 139–172.Google Scholar See also the response by Halevi, E. E., “Od al Genre Hadash ba-Sipurei ha-Agadah,” Tarbiz 49 (1980): 424–428, and Fraenkel's rejoinder (“Teshuva,” p. 429, there).Google Scholar

3. Cox, Patricia, Biography in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 69–101.Google Scholar

4. Yevamot 122a (see Dikdukei Sopherim, n. yud, on Hullin 77a) and Hullin lla. See also Baba Batra 22a. The student referred to in both instances is Rav Ada bar Ahava, for Rav Ada bar Matna is elsewhere described as a student of both Abaye and Rava, while Rav Ada bar Ahava was only a student of Rava. See Yudelowitz, Mordechai, Mahoza: Me-Hayei ha-Yehudim bi-Zeman ha-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 85,Google Scholar and Bacher, Wilhelm, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoraer (Frankfurt am Main, 1913), p. 115, n. 8, and see the discussion below.Google Scholar

5. Nazir 19b and Makkot 6a.

6. Horayol 14a. The phrase literally means they “needed a head.”

7. Note that in the continuation of the story, Abaye does a poor job of concealing his happiness at having defeated his colleagues. The story does not reflect any clear-cut pro-Abaye or anti-Rava bias. See also Taanil 21b–22a, and see the discussion below.

8. Baba Batra 174b.

9. Avodah Zarah 57b–58a.

10. See also Shabbat 7b, Eruvin 57b (twice), Ketubot 81a –b (see Halivni, David, Mekorot u-Mesorot: Nashim [Tel Aviv: Dvir 1968], pp. 45–46), and possibly Ketubot 39a (see the discussion below) and Hullin 125b.Google Scholar

11. Kalinin, Richard, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, Amoraic or Saboraic? (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1989), pp. 54–65.Google Scholar See also Neusner, Jacob, A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965–70), vol. 4, p. 74, n. 1, and pp. 287–289.Google Scholar

12. Avodah Zarah 57b–58a.

13. See Tractate Abodah Zarah, ed. Shraga, Abramson (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1957), p. 212, notes on line 18. See also Tosafot, s.v. Ikla, and Ritba, s.v. u-le-Inyan. My point is made even more decisively according to the reading of the printed edition.Google Scholar

14. Avodah Zarah 40a.

15. See also Shabbat 129a, Pesahim 58b, Bezah 6a, Ketubot 71b, Gittin 75a–b, Baba Kamma 6a and 42a, Baba Balra 21a (twice), Avodah Zarah 12a, 30a–b (the Munich manuscript reads Rav Papa instead of Rava) and 44b, Zevahim 96b, Menahot 35a (twice), Arakhin 22b, Niddah 24b, and possibly Yoma 72b. In these cases, Abaye's or Rava's statements are followed by opposing statements by Rav Dimi MiNehardea, Rabbah bar Ulla, and the Nehardeans. Several of these opposing statements contain explicit criticisms of the opinions of Abaye or Rava. And yet statements by these amoraim are included in the Talmud primarily to the extent to which they are transmitted in the proximity of opposing statements by Abaye or Rava. With regard to the Nehardeans, see Goodblatt, David, “Local Traditions in the Babylonian Talmud,” Hebrew Union College Annual 48 (1977): 187–194. The disciples of Abaye and Rava who transmitted these disputes did not alter them to make it appear as if their masters had the final word, nor did they remove the explicit criticisms of their masters' opinions.Google Scholar

16. For a discussion of the editorial techniques used by ancient authors, see Downing, F. Gerald, “Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no 1 (1988): 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Downing shows (p. 70) that in the ancient world, “even the most highly literate and sophisticated writers employ relatively simple approaches to their ‘sources.’” Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 280, for example, writes that Diodorus Siculus “merely paraphrased or extracted, without addition or interpretation, except of the simplest kind.”Google Scholar

17. Eruvin 25b.

18. Nedarim 23b.

19. Eruvin 67b.

20. Hullin 49b.

21. Hullin 50a–b. See also Baba Batra 155a and Avodah Zarah 24a (and parallel).

22. I have paraphrased Rava's statement. The literal meaning is, “Haven't I told you not to hang empty bottles on Rav Nahman!”

23. Baba Batrala and 151b, and Avodah Zarah 37b. In addition, Rava rejects Mar Zutra b. 'Rav Nahman's argument on Gittin 50a. Interestingly, the two amoraim are definitely in each other's presence only on Hullin 94b, in which context we find no hint of competition between them. See also Bezah 34b and Bekhorot 54b.

24. Horayot 10b (see Dikdukei Sopherim, n. heh). In that context, Rava simply objects against Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda's view and follows with an alternative.

25. Ketubot 63b, Shevuot 12b, and Hullin 88b. In all three cases, Rava's comment is followed by a defense of Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda's opinion by Rav Nahman bar Yizhak. In both instances, Rav Nahman bar Yizhak's argument prevails.

26. Baba Batra 149a.

27. See Graetz, Heinrich, Geschichte der Juden (1853–75; reprint ed., Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1873–1900), vol. 4, pp. 332–333, who criticizes Rava's actions in this story. See the material collected by Yudelowitz, Mahoza, pp. 68–70. Yudelowitz concludes that relations between Rava and his students were strained.Google Scholar

28. See Mishnah Avot 1:8. See also Ketubot 52b, where R. Yohanan castigates himself for giving halakhic advice to one of the parties in a monetary dispute, and thereby influencing the outcome of the case.

29. See the discussion below.

30. Shabbal 108a. According to the printed editions, this story describes Rav's first appearance in Babylonia. See, however, Dikdukei Sopherim, n. bet.

31. On Baba Kamma 80a–b, the anonymous editors attempt to resolve the tension between this story of the relationship between Rav and Shmuel and the picture of their relationship found elsewhere in the Talmud. The anonymous editors claim that later on in his career, Rav regretted his cursing of Shmuel and treated him with special respect. Modern scholars claim that Shmuel was attempting to cure Rav of his intestinal disease. See, for example, Hyman, Aharon, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim (London: Ha-Express, 1910), p. 1124. However, Rav's reaction, the conclusion of the story, and the fact that Shmuel initiates the offensive test of Rav's learning (see Baba Batra 22a) make this interpretation extremely unlikely.Google Scholar

32. For a story hostile to Rav, see Avodah Zarah 36a, where Rav claims that R. Simlai's quotation of R. Yehuda ha-Nasi (Rabbi) presents no difficulty to his opinion because R. Simlai's traditions are untrustworthy. Shmuel suggests that they send to Rabbi for verification of his opinion, and Rav “turns white [with embarrassment].”

33. See, for example, Berakhot 12a, Eruvin 90a–b, Taanit 20b, Moed Katan 24a, Hagigah 14a, Yevamot 121a, Sanhedrin 24b, Avodah Zarah 31b, and Hullin 59a. One might reconcile these accounts with Shabbat 108a by arguing that Rav and Shmuel were harsh men who test one another and then put aside their differences and cooperate.

34. Shabbat 53a, Eruvin 78a, and Moed Katan 12b. For additional evidence of the existence of tension between Rav and Shmuel, see Eruvin 93b–94a. Rav turns his head in an expression of disagreement in response to Shumel's suggestion for repairing an eruv which has fallen down. Shmuel responds by proposing that Rav's own garment be used in repairing the eruv in the manner he suggested. Ritba and Meiri claim that Shmuel's comment was made in jest, but in light of the other stories we have examined in the course of this paper, it seems more likely that Shmuel's response should be taken at face value, as an expression of his anger at Rav's display of disagreement and as an attempt by Shmuel to assert himself in the face of his recalcitrant colleague.

35. Yevamot 121a and Hullin 59a.

36. See, for example, Hullin 95b.

37. Kiddushin 70a–b.

38. Neusner, History of the Jews in Babylonia vol. 2, pp. 61–75.

39. See Albeck, Hanokh, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), pp. 298–300. See also Florsheim, “Ha-Yahasim bein Hakhmei ha-Dor ha-Sheni shel Amoraei Bavel,” p. 282.Google Scholar

40. Compare Kimelman, Ronald Reuven, “Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias: Aspects of the Social and Religious History of Third Century Palestine” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1977), pp. 131–137.Google Scholar

41. Ketubot 25b and Makkot 5b. For further evidence of tension between them, see Yevamot 72b and Menahot 93b. Compare Zevahim 5a. See also Baba Kamma 100a and Dikdukei Sopherim, n. bet, and Bekhorot 26b (the Munich, Florence, Vatican, and London manuscripts read R. Ilai instead of R. Elazar).

42. Baba Mezia 84a.

43. Berakhot 5b, Yoma 53a, Hagiga 13a, and Baba Batra 7b.

44. Bekhorot 5a and 56a.

45. Ketubot 111b.

46. Kiddushin 31b.

47. Hullin 19b and Keritut 27a.

48. See Yevamot 35b–36a, where R. Elazar comments on a statement by Resh Lakish and displays no ill will toward him. See below for my discussion of the relationship between Rava and Rav Yosef. Rava's conduct was an issue for Rav Yosef and/or his disciples (or later editors), but in statements attributed to Rava, we find no evidence of any tension between them.

49. Yevamot 96b. See also Yer. Berakhot 2:1 (and parallels).

50. With regard to Rav and Rav Shila, see Yoma 20b and Sanhedrin 44a, where Rav Shila appears in the presence of Rav and is portrayed unfavorably. See also Sanhedrin 109a. Compare Berakhot 49b, where Rav Shila quotes a statement by Rav. See also the references cited in Benjamin Kosowsky, Ozar ha-Shemot (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture and Jewish Theological Seminary, 1976–83), vol. 5, p. 1546. With regard to R. Elazar and Shmuel, see Eruvin 74a and Hullin 111b, where Shmuel appears in the presence of R. Elazar and in both cases is portrayed unfavorably. On Ketubot 77a, they appear in each other's presence and Shmuel harshly rejects R. Elazar's tradition. With regard to Rabbah and Mar Yehuda, see Eruvin 61b and Kiddushin 58a. See the references cited in Kosowsky, op. cit., p. 1036. With regard to Rava and Rav Papa bar Shmuel, see Rosh Hashana 27a and 34b, Baba Kamma 84a, Baba Mezia 60b and 109b, and Sanhedrin 26b. Compare Baba Batra 90b and Sanhedrin 17b. See the references cited in Kosowsky, vol. 4, p. 1226. With regard to Rava and Mar Zutra b. d 'Rav Nahman, and Rava and Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda, see the discussion above. In cases where Rava is not involved, reaction to the opinions of Mar Zutra b. 'Rav Nahman and Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda follows no consistent pattern. Sometimes their opinions are rejected, other times they go unchallenged. See the references cited by Kosowsky, vol. 3, pp. 1035–1036 and 1104–1105.

51. Baba Kamma 84a. See Dikdukei Sopherim n. shin.

52. See Fraenkel, Yonah, Iyyunim ba-Olamo ha-Ruhani shel Sippur ha-Agadah (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz ha-Meuhad, 1981), pp. 74–77.Google Scholar

53. Compare Kimelman, “Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias,” pp. 20–23 and 127–131.

54. Eruvin 78a–b and 78b, and Kiddushin 58a.

55. Shabbat 119a, Eruvin 51a and 65b, Moed Kalan 27b, Yevamol 66b, Baba Mezia 70a, Hullin 46a, and Bekhorot 31a. See also Moed Katan 25b, Ketubol 106a, and Sanhedrin 17b.

56. Berakhot 64a. The traditional understanding of this story is that Rabbah and Rav Yosef were candidates for the office of head of the academy, but that understanding has been seriously called into question by recent scholarship. See Goodblatt, David, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), especially pp. 1–59 and 263–285;Google Scholar and “Hitpathuyot Hadashot be-Heker Yeshivot Bavel,” Zion 43 (1978): 14–38. Compare Gafni, Yeshayahu, Yahadut Bavel u-Mosdoteha bi-Tekufat ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1976), pp. 79–104;Google Scholar “‘Yeshiva’ u-‘Metivta’” Zion 43 (1978): 12–37: “He'arot le-Ma'amaro shel D. Goodblatt,” Zion 46 (1981): 52–56; “Ha-Yeshiva ha-Bavlit le-Or Sugyat B.K. 117a,” Tarbiz 49 (1980): 292–301; and “Hiburim Nestorianim ke-Makor le-Toldot Yeshivot Bavel,” Tarbiz 51 (1982): 567–576. Compare also Beer, Moshe, Rashut ha-Golah be-Bavel bi-Yemei ha-Mishna ve-ha-Talmud (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1976), pp. 100–103.Google Scholar

57. See Dikdukei Sopherim, n. yud, on Berakhot 64a, and see Horayol 14a.

58. Rav Yosefs concern about the astrological prediction perhaps strikes us as superstitious, but it would have seemed the height of rationality to many of the rabbis of the Talmud. See, however, Pesahim 113b. Rav Yosefs denial of responsibility perhaps strikes us as less than heroic, unbefitting a man called upon to play a critical role in the leadership of his people. To the rabbis, however, Rav YosePs actions were not in the slightest cause for criticism. Talmudic rabbis went to great lengths to delay entrance to the world-to-come, and frequently went to great lengths to avoid public office, giving themselves more time for Torah study.

59. Compare Mordechai Yudelowitz, , Yeshivat Pumbedita bi-Yemei ha-Amoraim (Tel-Aviv, 1935), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

60. Ketubol 42b and Baba Kamma 66b.

61. Baba Mezia 86a.

62. See Baruch M. Bokser, “Rabbah bar Nahmani,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 12, p. 181.

63. Note, however, that on Moed Katan 28a, Rava is portrayed as speaking highly of Rabbah. Compare Ketubot 42b and Baba Kamma 66b.

64. Rava's presence there is almost certainly a scribal error, as Rabbinovicz in Dikdukei Sopherim, n. dalet, already observed.

65. See Dikdukei Sopherim, n. bet, and Yeshayahu Gafni, “‘Yeshiva’ u-‘Metivta,’” p. 25, n. 64.

66. We must be wary, however, about placing too much weight on an argument from silence.

67. Baba Batra 22a.

68. The text goes on to say that Rav Ada bar Ahava died, suggesting that Rav Yosef s words were directed against Rav Ada bar Ahava rather than Rava. However, it is clear that the teacher, Rava, who sent his student to test a fellow sage and who no doubt made the final decision to deny Rav Dimi market privileges, is also responsible. Furthermore, the sentence informing us of Rav Ada bar Ahava's death very likely does not end the previous story but rather begins the following section. Accordingly, the text provides no indication that Rava is not the object of Rav Yosef s wrath.

69. Nedarim 55a. The long narrative on Nedarim 55a might be a combination of two stories, one of which is also found on Eruvin 54b.

70. For other stories involving Rav Yosef in which Rava is criticized, see Hullin 133a and the discussion of Ketubot 63a, below.

71. Ketubot 42b and 43a (twice), and Hullin 133a.

72. Nedarim 55a, Baba Batra 22a, and Hullin 133a.

73. Yoma 53a–b.

74. Bezah 8b. See Francus, Yisrael, Talmud Yerushalmi Massekhet Bezah im Perush Ehad ha-Kadmonim Rabenu Elazar Azkari Baal Sefer Haredim (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1967), p. 40, n. 100.Google Scholar

75. Yer. Bezah 1:3. See Francus, op. cit., and Ephraim Urbach, Ha-Halacha, Mekoroteha ve-Hitpathutah (Yad la-Talmud, 1984), p. 214, who claim that this is the only statement by Rava preserved in the Yerushalmi.

76. Other talmudic rabbis are referred to in more than one way, which some scholars have taken as evidence of diverse sources. See, for example, Halivni, David, Mekorot u-Mesorot: Shabbat (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), p. 94, n. 2, for a discussion of the names R. Shimon and R. Shimon ben Yohai, and Rabbi and R. Yehuda ha-Nasi.Google Scholar

77. In the Yerushalmi (see above, n. 75), he is referred to as R. Abba bar Yosef.

78. See Eruvin 54a, Yevamot 122a, Nedarim 55a, and Hullin 43b and 77a.

79. Ketubot 63a.

80. See Fraenkel, lyyunim ba-Olamo ha-Ruhani shel Sippur ha-Aggadah, pp. 99–115.

81. See Kosowsky, Ozar ha-Shemot, pp. 877–878.

82. Ketubol 106a. Gafni, “Hiburim Nestorianim ke-Makor le-Toldot Yeshivot Bavel,” pp. 574–575, notes that Christian sources preserve a strikingly similar account of the gradual decline of the Nestorian academy at Nisibis (Nezivin).

83. Note the coupling of Rabbah and Rav Yosef, creating the impression that they presided over a single, unified house of study. See the discussion above.

84. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sassanian Babylonia, pp. 56–57, basing himself on the chronology of Rav Sherira Gaon, dates the core of this passage, the section dealing with Rav, Rav Huna, and Rabbah and Rav Yosef, to the middle third of the fourth century. Goodblatt views the concluding section as an attempt by students of Abaye, Rav Papa, and Rav Ashi to update the tradition so that mention would be made of their own teachers, whom they considered to be the greatest scholars of their generation.

85. Dikdukei Sopherim ha-Shalem, ed. Herschler, nn. on line 17, and n. 38. Note that a genizah fragment records Rava's name but not Abaye's. Note also that all versions omit reference to Shmuel, and see the discussion above.

86. Yevamot 122a (see Dikdukei Sopherim, n. yud, on Hullin 77a), Baba Balra 22a, Makkot 6a, and Hullin 77a.

87. Compare Yudelowitz, Yeshivat Pumbedita, p. 41.

88. Shabbat 53a, Eruvin 78a, MoedKatan 12b, Ketubot lla, Kiddushin 44b, and Hullin 111b.

89. See Berakhot 56a, according to which Abaye's students went on to become disciples of Rava after the death of Abaye. Because of the miraculous elements contained in the story, and because of its obvious character as propaganda (serving to legitimate Rava as successor to Abaye), it is difficult to evaluate this narrative as history. Nevertheless, the evidence of the Talmud supports Bar Hedia's claim that “Abaye will die and his metivta will go to you [Rava].” That is, most of Abaye's students went on to become students of Rava. Throughout tractates Berakhot, Pesahim, Bezah, Ketubot, Nedarim, Baba Mezia, Baba Balra, and Makkot, we find the following amoraim active as Abaye's students: Abba bar Marta, Rav Ada bar Matna, Rav Aha bar Manyumi, Rav Idi bar Abin, Rav Huna b. d 'Rav Yehoshua, Rav Huna b. 'Rav Moshe bar Azrei, Rav Zevid, Rav Hiyya b. 'Rav Huna, Rav Hinena b. 'Rav Ika, Rav Tavyumi, Rav Yemar bar Shelamya, Rav Yaakov bar Abba, Rav Kahana, Rav Menashya bar 'da, Rav Mari b. 'Bat Shmuel, Rav Nihumi bar Zecharya, Rav Papa, Rav bar Rav Hanan, Rava bar Sharshom, Rav Rehumi, Rav Sheravya, and possibly Rav Avya. Of these students, all were also students of Rava with the exception of Abba bar Marta, Rav Idi bar Abin (but see Moed Katan 16a), Rav Menashya bar 'da, Rav Nihumi bar Zecharya, Rava bar Sharshom, and possibly Rav Aha bar Manyumi (however, see Nedarim 47b). I doubt that these students were disciples of both amoraim at the same time, for such students would have constituted a living link of communication between the schools of Abaye and Rava, and the Talmud preserves no evidence of such a link.

90. See Heinemann, Yizhak, Darkhei ha-Aggadah (Jerusalem: Masada, 1949 /50), pp. 4–7 and 15–95.Google Scholar

91. See Baumgarten, Albert I., “Rabbi Judah I and His Opponents,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 12, no. 2 (1981): 141–142, and the literature cited in n. 28 there.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92. The work of David Halivni, Shama Friedman, and others in separating the additions of the anonymous editors from amoraic legal dicta may contradict this suggestion. See Halivni, David, Mekorot u-Mesorot: Nashim and Mekorot u-Mesorot: Yoma-Hagigah (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1975);Google ScholarMekorot u-Mesorot: Shabbat; and Mekorot u-Mesorot: Eruvin-Pesahim (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982); and Friedman, Shama, Perek ha-Isha Rabbah ba-Bavli (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978). However, we will not be in a position to fully appreciate the work of the anonymous editors in altering their amoraic sources until the discrete analyses of individual sugyot have been systematically analyzed and the full range of anonymous editorial activity catalogued and described. See Kalmin, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 66–94, for a systematic analysis of the anonymous editorial commentary based on statements by the latest amoraim mentioned in the Talmud.Google Scholar