Daf Yomi Beitza 14a: Rav Acha Bardela Said To His Son -- Or Did Rav Say To Rav Acha Bardela? Resolving A Girsological Issue

Important Note: This post was initially incorrect. This is a corrected version.

I noticed an interesting deviation in the Rif's girsa of the gemara on Beitza 14a. Here is a translation of the Rif:

{Beitza 14a}
Mishna:
Bet Shammai say: Spices may be crushed {on Yom Tov} with a wooden pestle, and salt in a{n earthenware} flask or a wooden mixing spoon.
And Bet Hillel say: Spices may be crushed in their normal way, with a stone pestle, and salt with a wooden pestle.

Gemara:
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: Anything that is crushed may be crushed in its normal way, and even salt.

Rav said to Rav Acha Bardela {our gemara: Rav Acha Bardela said to his son}: When you crush, lean {the pestle on its side} and crush.

And this of Rav, the post-Talmudic Sages established it as regarding salt, but spices do not require leaning.

And this understanding is supported by this that it states that Rav Sheshet heard the sound of a {stone} pestle and said "this is not coming from my house." And we ask, perhaps he {whoever was using the pestle} leaned it? And we answer that he heard that its sound was clear {which would not be the case by a leaned pestle}. And perhaps it was spices being crushed? Spices make a loud sound when being crushed.

And from the fact that we ask "perhaps he leaned it" and answer that he {Rav Sheshet} heard that the sound was clear, and we return and ask "and perhaps it was spices," we deduce that spices do not require leaning. And thus, automatically, we derive that this that Rav said to Rav Acha Bardela to "lean and crush" he said in respect to salt, but spices do not require leaning.

And so is the halacha ruled in Halachot Pesukot {by Yehudai Gaon} and Halachot Gedolot {another, anonymous, Geonic work, written by the Behag = Baal Halachot Gedolot - possibly Shimon Kayyara}.

The relevant girsa change, to emphasize, is that the Rif has Rav saying this to Rav Acha Bardela, while in our printed gemara, it is Rav Acha Bardela saying this to his son. Now, this change in the Rif does not seem to be a matter of typographical error of a copyist, for the next statement is:

And this of Rav, the post-Talmudic Sages established it as regarding salt, but spices do not require leaning.

and so Rav is mentioned explicitly as the author of the statement.

So who is correct? I believe I have convincing evidence that the girsa in our gemara is correct. We need to turn to the Yerushalmi Beitza 7b, where it records a dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

שמואל שחק על סיטרא דמדוכתא
רב אמר כל הנידוכין נידוכין כדרכן

Shmuel would turn it on its side to crush, while Rav said that any crushing could be done in its usual way, with no change.

Now, one could claim a dispute between Bavli and Yerushalmi as to what Rav held. On the other hand, it stands to reason that Rav is consistent in Bavli and Yerushalmi, especially where another girsa -- that of our printed text -- is available that allows this.

{Update:} Returning to the first hand once again, we should consider context in the Bavli as well. The statement immediately preceding that involving Rav Acha Bardela was:

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: Anything that is crushed may be crushed in its normal way, and even salt.

Rav said to Rav Acha Bardela {our gemara: Rav Acha Bardela said to his son}: When you crush, lean {the pestle on its side} and crush.

Comparing once again to the Yerushalmi:

שמואל שחק על סיטרא דמדוכתא
רב אמר כל הנידוכין נידוכין כדרכן

Thus, we actually have both positions -- whether one needs to tilt and crush, or whether can crush normally. Except, we do indeed have the positions reversed. An easy way out is to reverse the positions in the Yerushalmi. Indeed, the Bavli positions have someone citing Shmuel, and have Rav saying something to another person. This is much more difficult to have been switched than the simple Rav and Shmuel in apposition.

On the other hand once again, who says Rav actually says this in our gemara? This girsa is suspect to start out with, for perhaps it was just Rav Acha Bardela and his son who are involved in this dispute. If so, we may say that we have Shmuel in Bavli having retracted once he returned to Bavel, and agreeing with Rav, and this is what Shmuel is doing in our Bavli.

Another thing to consider. Would a father instruct his son, or would Rav instruct Rav Acha Bardela? I would guess the first is more likely.

There is perhaps a significant nafka mina at play here. The halacha is like Rav over Shmuel in cases of prohibitions, so when Rif rules in accordance with Rav {=Rav Acha Baredela in our girsa} that one should do a shinui, he does so because it is Rav who made the statement. If Rav actually holds one need not make a shinui, and Shmuel either agrees or disagrees, then perhaps the halacha should go that way.

In fact, it would seem not to be so, because we would rule like Rav Acha Bardela in any case. After all, the setama degemara suggests that this was a case of leaning (in the case of Rav Sheshet), and so from the fact that the shakla vetarya of the gemara goes one way, it is clear that the halacha is like that. This is a principle Rif himself uses on occasion. So there would really be no practical nafka mina.

Thus, to conclude, I have no real resolution. I originally thought I did, but it turned out to be more complicated than I initially surmised.