All in all, I found these some of these assertions rather unlikely, and as this was the basis for a reinterpretation of sources in a way against the traditional -- meaning the more straightforward, immediately apparent, intuitive -- reading, I was not persuaded.
Even so, disregarding all the arguments against the "traditional explanation", I do think that his interpretation of the brayta as just features of these celestial objects, while these objects are always visible, is somewhat plausible. That is, one can indeed plausibly read the brayta that way, in which case Abaye's statement would indeed be a reinterpretation. (I just don't think you can prove it; and then dismiss Abaye's / the gemara's explicit interpretation. I certainly don't believe we can simply claim that Abaye was not interpreting the brayta, but was arguing with it.)
His second article stands on firmer ground, and once again, he shows that he knows how to do his research. Yet once again, I disagree with him on logical and methodological grounds.
First, though, I will begin with an ad hominem attack, on myself (somewhat) and on Mechon Shiloh (more). But I will be upfront that it is somewhat of an ad hominem attack, and will explain why I think it relevant.
All roads lead to Rome, and both articles from Mechon Shiloh lead to a dismissal of Abaye's explanation. There is such a thing as trying to hard. Regardless of the strength of each article, is there any motivation to draw a particular conclusion? If so, why? The existence of bias does not undermine the validity of any argument, of course, but it should teach us caution when evaluating the merits of subjective determinations of the likelihood of particular readings.
I can see two reasons for wanting to dismiss Abaye's explanation of the brayta. The first I agree with myself.
- The first reason is that is is rather silly to have said Birkat HaChammah when we did. (Actually, I didn't really. I showed up in order not to separate from the community, said Amen to the rabbi's beracha which had Shem uMalchut, and personally said the blessing without Shem uMalchut, which anyway is a somewhat likely meaning of the gemara.)
There are reasons it is silly. (a) The brayta, in both Bavli and Yerushalmi, instituted the blessing when one sees the sun in its tekufah, which is an astronomical event corresponding to the vernal equinox, perhaps a particular one. But one could not really be רואה חמה בתקופתה at the time everyone said the blessing, because it was not the time of vernal equinox any more. (b) Further, it is based on the calendar of Shmuel, which is not as accurate as that of Rav Ada bar Ahava. Why should we base this blessing on this calendar, when for most other purposes we subscribe to the more accurate one? (c) The seeming reason for the 28 year interval in blessing is that, this way, the Sun returns to the place it started at maaseh bereishit. I suppose it couldn't be based, this way, on that of Rav Ada bar Ahava, for it would not return to that configuration for many thousands of years. But then say every vernal equinox. That Shmuel's calendar is inaccurate in this way is to say that the Sun is NOT truly returning to this initial spot!
- The second reason strikes me as something particular to Machon Shiloh. They are very nationalistic, and wish to restore Torat Eretz Yisrael to its "rightful" superior position. Since this explanation of Abaye appears only in Bavli, and there is a way that some meforshim (I would argue based on a faulty girsa) interpret Yerushalmi to give a varying position, Machon Shiloh would like to grant primacy to the Yerushalmi. They can do this by asserting that Abaye, in the Bavli, is really arguing with the brayta; or further, that it is not really Abaye saying this but some rather late accidental insertion into the Talmud.
Now, they may be absolutely right -- in the assertions of either the first article, or the second article. We should judge the arguments on their merits. But I cannot help but see this nationalist agenda at play, here and in other pronouncements (such as regarding kitniyot). And while my inclination would anyway be to evaluate claims such as this carefully and conservatively, I would lean to be even more careful and conservative here.
Enough with the quasi-ad hominem attack. On to my thoughts on the article:
It is again very well researched, with a wide array of sources presented.The question, though, is how to evaluate these sources.
There are two major claims in the article. The first is that Abaye's statement was unknown to Geonim and early Rishonim, so it must be a late insertion. The second involves an interpretation of the Yerushalmi.
1) In terms of the first, much of it strikes me as an argument from absence. And has been argued ad nauseum, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One could argue in the opposite direction, that if it is absent in places we should have expected it to be present, then the absence is indeed evidence.
Some of the examples may indeed be indicative of absence where we should have expected it. But others, I am not so convinced. If we had explicit kitvei yad, manuscripts, which lacked this statement, then I would consider it solid evidence. But here, we are working from secondary sources which quote the primary material, perhaps not in their entirety.
For example, Rif does not cite the statement of Abaye. Therefore, he concludes, it must not have been in the gemara before the Rif. Thus:
But other explanations are plausible (and he even brings down those who suggest it). Namely, the Rif might not hold like this lehalachah; for we know that Rif only cites those sections of gemara he paskens like. Why wouldn't the Rif pasken like Abaye? For the reasons I gave above, for why I thought doing it nowadays was "silly". Namely, we don't usually use Shmuel's calendar; this is not the time of the vernal equinox; and since it is an estimate, it is not really the initial position of the Sun anymore. Alternatively -- much less likely -- perhaps he left it out as mere commentary.
Similarly, the Rosh does bring down the statement, but as a peirush, rather than explicitly attributing it to Abaye. Therefore, he concludes, it must not have been in the gemara before the Rosh.
But would he be unaware of it as part of the gemara, given that Rashi comments on that portion? And since Rosh is effectively a commentary on Rif, perhaps he is trying to present it as not arguing with the Rif, who didn't happen to cite this statement. Also, note that he is summarizing it, rather than giving the difficult language. Also, the most this would really prove is that it was not in the gemara attributed to Abaye. It still could have been the setama digmara which offered this explanation. So it is a bit of overreach to claim that that the comment of Abaye was certainly not present.
In fact, if I were to put forth this position, I would much rather have this be setama, rather than entirely absent.
Why?
Well, it is more than a bit irregular to claim that an entire attributed statement, from an Amora, was inserted into the gemara. An unattributed statement, particularly in Aramaic when the surrounding text is Hebrew, is readily setamaitic, and often when we reconsider the words of the named Amoraim in a different light, many "difficulties" currently present in the gemara get resolved. The idea is that some later commentator -- say, a savora, put his explanation into the gemara, in a way that was clear that it was his interpretation. (Think Tosafot, but embedded inside the text.) But other interpretations are possible. Or a commentary was on the side, as a gloss, and a copyist copied it into the main body of text.
But how can you say this for an attributed statement? You would either have to say this was a deliberate corruption and lie, or else you must posit that the text was edited in stages. First, the gloss was inserted, anonymously, into the text. Subsequently, a scribe erred and attributed the statement to Abaye.
Indeed, if I were arguing this, I could even point out that a number of other explanatory statements in context are attributed to Abaye, or to Abaye / Ullah. If so, some scribe might have miscopied the attribution, or assumed that all the explanations in this area were from the mouth of Abaye.
But to argue this, it pays to have evidence of the text in stages. And we can argue for this by demonstrating instances of the text without any evidence of the statement attributed to Abaye; then with the statement without the attribution; and finally, the statement together with attribution. Say that the Rosh had it, but without attribution to Abaye, and we have the intermediate stage. (Even so, I am not convinced that it is solid evidence.)
Another example from the article:
The implication of this seems to be that Rambam is arguing against Abaye, of it returning to its initial position. But this does not, by any means, indicate that Rambam doesn't have Abaye in the gemara. Rather, Abaye only explains one of them, and one can then extrapolate to the others.
Another example from the article:
True, the Sefer Halachot Gedolot does not cite Abaye here. You can read it inside and confirm.
However, if we compare the Sefer Halachot Gedolot to the gemara, we will find that it is not only this statement that he does not cite. Thus, for example, in Berachot 59a-b, we have immediately before this brayta:
אמר רב יהושע בן לוי
הרואה שמים בטהרה מן העבים ,אומר ברוך עושה בראשית ־
and then transitions to the brayta of Chama bitkufatah. Yes, he adds min he'avim. But he omits much of Abaye's statement, and does not attribute it to Abaye. Does this mean that Abaye's statement here as well was not present before the Baal Halachot Gedolot?! Or does it mean that he is selective in what he cites and summarizes?
Similarly, the gemara in Berachot 59b has:
R. JUDAH SAYS: IF ONE SEES THE GREAT SEA etc. How long must the intervals be? Rami b. Abba said in the name of R. Isaac: From thirty days.
The Baal Halachot Gedolot has:
רבי יהודה אומר הרואה את הים הגדול אומ׳ ברוך שעש׳
את הים הגדול ובזמן שרואהו לפרקי׳ וכמ׳ לפרקי׳ אחד לשלשי' יום
Since the Behag does not explicitly attribute it, does this mean that the statement of Rami bar Abba was absent in his gemara?! (At the most, it would show that it was unattributed.)
Perhaps the answer in all these cases is "indeed, it must have been absent". But I am not convinced. Rather, I don't believe one can solidly make such a conclusion. Other random literary factors might enter into the picture.
Another example from the article:
Since he does not explain bitkufatah as Abaye does, he must not have had this in the Bavli before him. We can see this in the Siddur of Rav Saadia Gaon, inside, here.
However, this is not all that Rav Saadia Gaon does. He also rejects most of the brayta! The brayta spoke of the chamah in its tekufah, the levana in its gevurah, the stars (/planets) in their paths, and the mazalot in their order. But Rav Saadia Gaon only speaks about the Sun in its tekufah. The ellipses provided in the article represent an accidental Dowdification of the quote, because one might think that the discussion of the moon is rooted in the brayta. But if we read inside, we find that the blessing in not oseh bereishit, and the statement is based on a separate statement, of Rav Yehuda citing Rav.
It could be that Rav Saadia Gaon has some cause to reject the brayta in its entirety, and is not basing himself on the gemara in Bavli so much as existing practice, as it somehow developed. And perhaps that common practice was somehow a tradition that came e.g., from Eretz Yisrael, where they have the brayta but not the explanation that came from Abaye. You cannot prove to me, from a siddur that varies this widely from the brayta, that a particular statement of Abaye was not present!
Another example, from the article, discussing Rabbenu Chananel:
I agree that Rabbenu Chananel must not have had the phrase ואת הרקיע בטהרו in the brayta in the Yerushalmi, such that he understands Rav Huna's statement as explaining the entire brayta. However, that he cites this as yesh mi she'omer is not absolute proof that he did not have Abaye's statement. As Rav Buch cited in his article:
If I understand this correctly, a scholar of Rabbenu Chananel is asserting that even though Rabbenu Chananel says yesh mi sheOmer, one should be careful from drawing conclusions from this, because often the yesh mi sheOmer will be a position found in the Talmud itself! That is, an Amora! Yes, often it is Geonim or those who we do not know now, but there are indeed times he intends people found in the Talmud.
Thus, yesh mi sheOmer by itself does not indicate that this statement by Abaye is not found in the Bavli before Rabbenu Chananel, contrary to Rav Buch's conclusion.
I would furthermore advance a reason Rabbenu Chananel describes Abaye as a yesh mi sheOmer instead of citing him by name. It is the same reason he puts the explanation before the brayta. Namely, he wants to dismiss this position as a yesh meforshim but append what he considers the true, correct explanation of Rav Huna immediately after the brayta as the true, real explanation. And so he is paskening like Rav Huna over Abaye.
Another example from the article:
In other words, selective quoting. He quotes Abaye for the first statement, but not for the second statement. Therefore, this is stronger evidence that he didn't have the second statement of Abaye.
(I would note that Rav Buch did not make this argument for the Baal Halachot Gedolot, because there, even the first statement wasn't cited, as I noted.)
But again, as with the Rif, it could just be that he is, for some reason, paskening against Abaye. Maybe for the reasons I gave at the top of the post. Or alternatively -- and you can disagree with me and claim this is far-fetched if you wish -- if we look at the Sefer HaEshkol inside, he follows it up with:
מתני׳ אימתי בזמן שהוא רואהו לפרקים. ופרקים
עד כמה אמר רמי בר אבא אמר ר׳ יצחק עד ל׳ יום
As a stand-alone sefer, this is slightly difficult, since he never cited the Mishna, that this is within Rabbi Yehuda's statement about making a blessing about the seas. And indeed, the piskaot, those little citations from the Mishna are Geonic. (This citation differs from the citation in our gemara, by citing the latter half of the statement, instead of the first.) Perhaps he understood the lifrakim in the gemara as modifying the brayta? Or perhaps not. Perhaps he simply doesn't pasken like Abaye, and so leaves the brayta alone.
Another example from the article:
Just because he says veInyan rather than citing Abaye does not mean that Abaye's statement, with or without Abaye's name attached, is absent from his gemara. Indeed, we should really conduct a study of Meiri to see how he consistently uses the term veInyan, and if it is only to explanations not found in the gemara.
From a literary standpoint, I could understand why he would do this. Namely, he is considering each term in the brayta in turn and giving an explanation. Only one of them is drawn from the gemara. To smooth out everything as a perush, rather than explicitly citing Abaye, he just cites the explanation of that one from the gemara, and proceeds to interpret the other phrases after that.
This is not evidence that the statement did not exist, with or without attribution, in the Bavli before the Meiri.
The discussion of Rokeach:
Rabbenu Bachya:
Perhaps. Or perhaps he was talking based on established halacha, as per Saadia Gaon, and bringing it in to his commentary on Chumash. And because Abaye's explanation was contrary to this halacha, established from elsewhere, he had no cause to cite Abaye's contrary interpretation, which would just muddy matters.
From the article's discussion of the Aruch:
However: since, as Rav Buch writes, he is bringing both peirushim from Rabbenu Chananel, and we saw earlier that Rabbenu Chananel didn't name the first source, but did the second, perhaps he is simply copying from Rabbenu Chananel, rather than telling us anything about the girsa of Bavli in front of the Aruch. And I gave a perfectly valid reason for Rabbenu Chananel omitting Abaye there -- he was paskening like Rav Huna, and his language of yesh mi sheOmer we know is NOT indicative of the name, or statement, being present in the gemara.
Furthermore, if the proof is from the Aruch using the word פירוש, there are other times he does this even when there is a named Amora in the gemara. As one random example, from a simple OCR search:
אברנים כדאמרי בפסחי אברכי׳ בסןף גמרא דכל שעה
פירוש אברכים היינו נא כגון שנצלה מעט
where a named Amora says it. This is not precisely the same, but I confess I am getting exhausted. Suffice it for now that in the same entry, regarding tekufa, he wrote: פירוש אחר: חמה בתקופתה וכוכבים ומזלות כסדרן - בימות הגשמים, בעת שהיו שלושה ימים... where shortly thereafter we see he drew it from the Yerushalmi.
The best proof that some Rishonim did not have this text, IMHO, is one Rav Buch didn't bring. Namely, in Rabbenu Yonah on the Rif, he explains the brayta, saying: פירוש, דבר ידוע הוא etc., then giving the explanation in the gemara. If, besides calling it an explanation, he describes it as a known matter, then it would seem he doesn't have it in his gemara. However, we can answer this up by noting that he also explains that this machzor is when it returns to the position of maaseh bereishit. In which case he is explaining the known reason for Abaye's statement. See inside.
I will have to discuss the second point of the article, namely the alternate girsa in Yerushalmi, in another post. For now, I would like to skip immediately to some concluding thoughts.
Concluding Thoughts
Rashi certainly had this text in the gemara, because he comments on it at length. So at least one fairly early Rishon had this. (We don't know explicitly that it was ascribed to Abaye.)
We then have a bunch of Geonim and Rishonim who give this explanation and don't ascribe it explicitly to Abaye. I am not convinced that all of these Geonim and Rishonim did not have the text in their gemara. They could be describing it as commentary if Abaye's name were not attached to it; or for reasons described above. I would think it rather likely that the Aruch indeed had it in his text, and that Rabbenu Chananel had it in his text as well. So too the Rosh, the Rambam and the Meiri. The absence of explicit citation from the gemara and attribution to Abaye does not bother me. Rather, it seems like over-reach. (On the other hand, as I noted, Rabbenu Yonah might be a good counter-proof.)
We then have a bunch of Geonim and Rishonim who don't give this explanation at all. There are two available explanations for this. One is that they did not have it in their girsa of the gemara. The other is that they did not hold that Abaye's statement was lehalacha, for the reasons given above; and instead understood the brayta in its plain sense. This would naturally yield that explanation of some Geonim as tekufat tammuz, since that is the summer season, which is a rather good explanation of chamah bitkufatah, which would mean the sun in the sunny tekufah.
But the problem with all this evidence is that these are all secondary sources, which are known to omit material from the gemara on the basis of holding that it is not lehalacha. So it is not extremely convincing proof, at least for me.
Assuming, however, that some of these Geonim and Rishonim indeed had a different girsa, then there are two possibilities. One is that the named statement from an Amora was accidentally omitted by a scribe. Another is that an unnamed statement was accidentally inserted into the gemara, and subsequently ascribed to Abaye. Both are possible, but absent any other data, I would consider the deletion operation easier than the dual insertion operation.
(On a related tangent, it seems like the setama conflates naghei and oreta, but named Amoraim, including Abaye in Pesachim -- אמר אביי הילכך האי צורבא מרבנן לא לפתח בעידניה באורתא דתליסר דנגהי ארבסר דלמא משכא ליה שמעתיה ואתי לאימנועי ממצוה. The usage of language there thus seems to match the language here, of Amoraim and of Abayei)
For example, Rif does not cite the statement of Abaye. Therefore, he concludes, it must not have been in the gemara before the Rif. Thus:
רי"ף מסכת ברכות דף מג עמוד ב:
ת"ר: הרואה חמה בתקופתה, לבנה בטהרתה, כוכבים במשמרותיהם, מזלות בעיתם - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. אמר רב יהודה: הרואה לבנה בחידושה - אומר 'ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים' וכו'.
רי"ף העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי. בבבלי שלפני רי"ף לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
ת"ר: הרואה חמה בתקופתה, לבנה בטהרתה, כוכבים במשמרותיהם, מזלות בעיתם - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. אמר רב יהודה: הרואה לבנה בחידושה - אומר 'ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים' וכו'.
רי"ף העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי. בבבלי שלפני רי"ף לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
But other explanations are plausible (and he even brings down those who suggest it). Namely, the Rif might not hold like this lehalachah; for we know that Rif only cites those sections of gemara he paskens like. Why wouldn't the Rif pasken like Abaye? For the reasons I gave above, for why I thought doing it nowadays was "silly". Namely, we don't usually use Shmuel's calendar; this is not the time of the vernal equinox; and since it is an estimate, it is not really the initial position of the Sun anymore. Alternatively -- much less likely -- perhaps he left it out as mere commentary.
Similarly, the Rosh does bring down the statement, but as a peirush, rather than explicitly attributing it to Abaye. Therefore, he concludes, it must not have been in the gemara before the Rosh.
רא"ש מסכת ברכות פרק ט סימן יד:
ת"ר: הרואה חמה בתקופתה, לבנה בטהרתה, כוכבים במשמרותם, מזלות בעיתם - אומר 'ברוך עושה מעשה בראשית'. חמה בתקופתה - היינו מעשרים ושמונה שנה לעשרים ושמונה שנה. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: הרואה לבנה בחידושה - אומר 'ברוך אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים' וכו'.
רא"ש העתיק את הברייתא בעניין החמה בתקופתה והביא את עיקר פירושו של אביי בלשון "היינו...", ולא הביאו בשמו של אביי. ייתכן להסיק מלשון זו, שבבבלי שלפני הרא"ש לא היה פירוש אביי.
ת"ר: הרואה חמה בתקופתה, לבנה בטהרתה, כוכבים במשמרותם, מזלות בעיתם - אומר 'ברוך עושה מעשה בראשית'. חמה בתקופתה - היינו מעשרים ושמונה שנה לעשרים ושמונה שנה. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: הרואה לבנה בחידושה - אומר 'ברוך אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים' וכו'.
רא"ש העתיק את הברייתא בעניין החמה בתקופתה והביא את עיקר פירושו של אביי בלשון "היינו...", ולא הביאו בשמו של אביי. ייתכן להסיק מלשון זו, שבבבלי שלפני הרא"ש לא היה פירוש אביי.
But would he be unaware of it as part of the gemara, given that Rashi comments on that portion? And since Rosh is effectively a commentary on Rif, perhaps he is trying to present it as not arguing with the Rif, who didn't happen to cite this statement. Also, note that he is summarizing it, rather than giving the difficult language. Also, the most this would really prove is that it was not in the gemara attributed to Abaye. It still could have been the setama digmara which offered this explanation. So it is a bit of overreach to claim that that the comment of Abaye was certainly not present.
In fact, if I were to put forth this position, I would much rather have this be setama, rather than entirely absent.
Why?
Well, it is more than a bit irregular to claim that an entire attributed statement, from an Amora, was inserted into the gemara. An unattributed statement, particularly in Aramaic when the surrounding text is Hebrew, is readily setamaitic, and often when we reconsider the words of the named Amoraim in a different light, many "difficulties" currently present in the gemara get resolved. The idea is that some later commentator -- say, a savora, put his explanation into the gemara, in a way that was clear that it was his interpretation. (Think Tosafot, but embedded inside the text.) But other interpretations are possible. Or a commentary was on the side, as a gloss, and a copyist copied it into the main body of text.
But how can you say this for an attributed statement? You would either have to say this was a deliberate corruption and lie, or else you must posit that the text was edited in stages. First, the gloss was inserted, anonymously, into the text. Subsequently, a scribe erred and attributed the statement to Abaye.
Indeed, if I were arguing this, I could even point out that a number of other explanatory statements in context are attributed to Abaye, or to Abaye / Ullah. If so, some scribe might have miscopied the attribution, or assumed that all the explanations in this area were from the mouth of Abaye.
But to argue this, it pays to have evidence of the text in stages. And we can argue for this by demonstrating instances of the text without any evidence of the statement attributed to Abaye; then with the statement without the attribution; and finally, the statement together with attribution. Say that the Rosh had it, but without attribution to Abaye, and we have the intermediate stage. (Even so, I am not convinced that it is solid evidence.)
Another example from the article:
רמב"ם הלכות ברכות פרק י הלכה יח:
הרואה את החמה ביום תקופת ניסן של תחילת המחזור של שמונה ועשרים, שהתקופה בתחילת ליל רביעי - כשרואה אותה ביום רביעי בבוקר, מברך 'עושה בראשית'. וכן כשתחזור הלבנה לתחילת מזל טלה בתחילת החודש ולא תהיה נוטה לא לצפון ולא לדרום, וכן כשיחזור כל כוכב וכוכב מחמשת הכוכבים הנשארים לתחילת מזל טלה, ולא יהיה נוטה לא לצפון ולא לדרום, וכן בכל עת שיראה מזל טלה עולה מקצה המזרח - על כל אחד מאלו מברך 'עושה בראשית'.
אביי פירש רק את עניין החמה בתקופתה, אך רמב"ם פירש גם את עניין הלבנה והכוכבים והמזלות על פי פירושו בעניין החמה.
הרואה את החמה ביום תקופת ניסן של תחילת המחזור של שמונה ועשרים, שהתקופה בתחילת ליל רביעי - כשרואה אותה ביום רביעי בבוקר, מברך 'עושה בראשית'. וכן כשתחזור הלבנה לתחילת מזל טלה בתחילת החודש ולא תהיה נוטה לא לצפון ולא לדרום, וכן כשיחזור כל כוכב וכוכב מחמשת הכוכבים הנשארים לתחילת מזל טלה, ולא יהיה נוטה לא לצפון ולא לדרום, וכן בכל עת שיראה מזל טלה עולה מקצה המזרח - על כל אחד מאלו מברך 'עושה בראשית'.
אביי פירש רק את עניין החמה בתקופתה, אך רמב"ם פירש גם את עניין הלבנה והכוכבים והמזלות על פי פירושו בעניין החמה.
The implication of this seems to be that Rambam is arguing against Abaye, of it returning to its initial position. But this does not, by any means, indicate that Rambam doesn't have Abaye in the gemara. Rather, Abaye only explains one of them, and one can then extrapolate to the others.
Another example from the article:
ספר הלכות גדולות (ר' שמעון קיירא, אחד מגאוני בבל) מסכת ברכות הלכות ברכות המקומות:
אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: הרואה רקיע בטהרה - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה במלאותה וכוכבים במסילותם ומזלות בסידורם - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. רב יהודה אומר: הרואה לבנה בחידושה - אומר 'ברוך אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים...'.
בעל הלכות גדולות העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין זה. בבבלי שלפני בעל הלכות גדולות לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: הרואה רקיע בטהרה - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה במלאותה וכוכבים במסילותם ומזלות בסידורם - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. רב יהודה אומר: הרואה לבנה בחידושה - אומר 'ברוך אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים...'.
בעל הלכות גדולות העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין זה. בבבלי שלפני בעל הלכות גדולות לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
True, the Sefer Halachot Gedolot does not cite Abaye here. You can read it inside and confirm.
However, if we compare the Sefer Halachot Gedolot to the gemara, we will find that it is not only this statement that he does not cite. Thus, for example, in Berachot 59a-b, we have immediately before this brayta:
R. Joshua b. Levi said: If one sees the sky in all its purity, he says: Blessed is He who has wrought the work of creation. When does he say so? — Abaye said: When there has been rain all the night, and in the morning the north wind comes and clears the heavens. And they differ from Rafram b. Papa quoting R. Hisda. For Rafram b. Papa said in the name of R. Hisda: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed there has never been a perfectly clear sky, since it says: I clothe the heavens with blackness and I make a sackcloth their covering.The Baal Halachot Gedolot just has:
אמר רב יהושע בן לוי
הרואה שמים בטהרה מן העבים ,אומר ברוך עושה בראשית ־
and then transitions to the brayta of Chama bitkufatah. Yes, he adds min he'avim. But he omits much of Abaye's statement, and does not attribute it to Abaye. Does this mean that Abaye's statement here as well was not present before the Baal Halachot Gedolot?! Or does it mean that he is selective in what he cites and summarizes?
Similarly, the gemara in Berachot 59b has:
R. JUDAH SAYS: IF ONE SEES THE GREAT SEA etc. How long must the intervals be? Rami b. Abba said in the name of R. Isaac: From thirty days.
The Baal Halachot Gedolot has:
רבי יהודה אומר הרואה את הים הגדול אומ׳ ברוך שעש׳
את הים הגדול ובזמן שרואהו לפרקי׳ וכמ׳ לפרקי׳ אחד לשלשי' יום
Since the Behag does not explicitly attribute it, does this mean that the statement of Rami bar Abba was absent in his gemara?! (At the most, it would show that it was unattributed.)
Perhaps the answer in all these cases is "indeed, it must have been absent". But I am not convinced. Rather, I don't believe one can solidly make such a conclusion. Other random literary factors might enter into the picture.
Another example from the article:
רס"ג (רבי סעדיה גאון) סידור (עמ' צ): עלינו לבאר את ברכות המקרים התלויים בחושיו (של האדם), ונאמר שהסוג הראשון מהם הם הדברים הנראים, והם שני חלקים: ארציים ושמימיים. והשמימיים, כגון הרעמים והברקים וקרני הזיקים והזוועות וגם רעידת האדמה... ועל הקשת כשנראית... ועל השמש ביום תקופת תמוז מברכים גם כן 'עושה בראשית', ועל הירח הנראה מן הלילה הרביעי עד ליל ארבעה עשר... והארציים...
רס"ג פירש את עניין החמה בתקופתה שלא כאביי. בבבלי שלפני רס"ג לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
רס"ג פירש את עניין החמה בתקופתה שלא כאביי. בבבלי שלפני רס"ג לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
Since he does not explain bitkufatah as Abaye does, he must not have had this in the Bavli before him. We can see this in the Siddur of Rav Saadia Gaon, inside, here.
However, this is not all that Rav Saadia Gaon does. He also rejects most of the brayta! The brayta spoke of the chamah in its tekufah, the levana in its gevurah, the stars (/planets) in their paths, and the mazalot in their order. But Rav Saadia Gaon only speaks about the Sun in its tekufah. The ellipses provided in the article represent an accidental Dowdification of the quote, because one might think that the discussion of the moon is rooted in the brayta. But if we read inside, we find that the blessing in not oseh bereishit, and the statement is based on a separate statement, of Rav Yehuda citing Rav.
It could be that Rav Saadia Gaon has some cause to reject the brayta in its entirety, and is not basing himself on the gemara in Bavli so much as existing practice, as it somehow developed. And perhaps that common practice was somehow a tradition that came e.g., from Eretz Yisrael, where they have the brayta but not the explanation that came from Abaye. You cannot prove to me, from a siddur that varies this widely from the brayta, that a particular statement of Abaye was not present!
Another example, from the article, discussing Rabbenu Chananel:
יש מי שאומר (אולי הוא גיליון ונכנס בפנים (ב"מ לוין)): הרואה חמה בתקופתה בתחילת מחזור כ"ח שנופלת התקופה של ניסן באורתא דתלת נגהי ארבע בכוכב שבתי כתחילת בריאתה.
תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה כוכבים ומזלות כסדרן, אומר 'ברוך עושה מעשה בראשית'. ירושלמי: אמר רב הונא: הדא דאתמר - בימות הגשמים, ולאחר שלושה ימים, שנאמר "וְעַתָּה לֹא רָאוּ אוֹר בָּהִיר הוּא בַּשְּׁחָקִים וְרוּחַ עָבְרָה וַתְּטַהֲרֵם". פירוש, זה שאומר חמה בתקופתה וכוכבים ומזלות כסדרן - בימות הגשמים, בעת שהיו שלושה ימים מעוננים ולא נראתה חמה בהם ולא כוכבים, אותה העת צריכים לברך עליהם בעת שיתראו, וזולתי זו העת לא (בירושלמי שלפני ר"ח לא היו בברייתא המילים "ואת הרקיע בטהרו").ש
תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה כוכבים ומזלות כסדרן, אומר 'ברוך עושה מעשה בראשית'. ירושלמי: אמר רב הונא: הדא דאתמר - בימות הגשמים, ולאחר שלושה ימים, שנאמר "וְעַתָּה לֹא רָאוּ אוֹר בָּהִיר הוּא בַּשְּׁחָקִים וְרוּחַ עָבְרָה וַתְּטַהֲרֵם". פירוש, זה שאומר חמה בתקופתה וכוכבים ומזלות כסדרן - בימות הגשמים, בעת שהיו שלושה ימים מעוננים ולא נראתה חמה בהם ולא כוכבים, אותה העת צריכים לברך עליהם בעת שיתראו, וזולתי זו העת לא (בירושלמי שלפני ר"ח לא היו בברייתא המילים "ואת הרקיע בטהרו").ש
...
ר"ח הביא את פירוש אביי בלשון "יש מי שאומר", ולא הביאו בשמו של אביי. ייתכן להסיק מלשון זו, שבבבלי שלפני ר"ח לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
I agree that Rabbenu Chananel must not have had the phrase ואת הרקיע בטהרו in the brayta in the Yerushalmi, such that he understands Rav Huna's statement as explaining the entire brayta. However, that he cites this as yesh mi she'omer is not absolute proof that he did not have Abaye's statement. As Rav Buch cited in his article:
לדרך הפירוש של ר"ח (מתוך הספר: פירוש ר"ח לתלמוד - ש' אברמסון, עמ' 65):ש
הרבה פעמים אין הוא (ר"ח) מסתפק בפירוש אחד אלא הוא מביא כמה פירושים, בדרך כלל במונח "יש מי שאומר", אלא שצריך להיזהר להוציא מסקנה מדיבור זה, משום שיש שהוא מתכוון לדעות שנמצאות בתלמוד. במקומות הרבה אנו יודעים מי הוא האומר, והרבה מהם הם גאונים שלא קרא בשמם על הדברים מאיזה טעם שהוא, והרבה פעמים אין אנו יודעים עכשיו למי הדברים מגיעים.
הרבה פעמים אין הוא (ר"ח) מסתפק בפירוש אחד אלא הוא מביא כמה פירושים, בדרך כלל במונח "יש מי שאומר", אלא שצריך להיזהר להוציא מסקנה מדיבור זה, משום שיש שהוא מתכוון לדעות שנמצאות בתלמוד. במקומות הרבה אנו יודעים מי הוא האומר, והרבה מהם הם גאונים שלא קרא בשמם על הדברים מאיזה טעם שהוא, והרבה פעמים אין אנו יודעים עכשיו למי הדברים מגיעים.
If I understand this correctly, a scholar of Rabbenu Chananel is asserting that even though Rabbenu Chananel says yesh mi sheOmer, one should be careful from drawing conclusions from this, because often the yesh mi sheOmer will be a position found in the Talmud itself! That is, an Amora! Yes, often it is Geonim or those who we do not know now, but there are indeed times he intends people found in the Talmud.
Thus, yesh mi sheOmer by itself does not indicate that this statement by Abaye is not found in the Bavli before Rabbenu Chananel, contrary to Rav Buch's conclusion.
I would furthermore advance a reason Rabbenu Chananel describes Abaye as a yesh mi sheOmer instead of citing him by name. It is the same reason he puts the explanation before the brayta. Namely, he wants to dismiss this position as a yesh meforshim but append what he considers the true, correct explanation of Rav Huna immediately after the brayta as the true, real explanation. And so he is paskening like Rav Huna over Abaye.
Another example from the article:
ספר האשכול (ר' אברהם ב"ר יצחק מהעיר נרבונה שבפרובנס דרום צרפת) (אלבק) הלכות ברכת הודאה דף לב עמוד א:
אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: הרואה רקיע בטהרה - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. אימת? - אמר אביי: כי אתא עיבא ואתי מיטרא בליליא ואתי איסטינא ומגלי ליה.
תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה בטהרתה, כוכבים במשמרותם ומזלות בעיתם - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'.
בעל ספר האשכול העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין זה. כשהעתיק את המאמר של ריב"ל בעניין רקיע בטהרו, הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין זה. בבבלי שלפני בעל ספר האשכול לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: הרואה רקיע בטהרה - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. אימת? - אמר אביי: כי אתא עיבא ואתי מיטרא בליליא ואתי איסטינא ומגלי ליה.
תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה בטהרתה, כוכבים במשמרותם ומזלות בעיתם - אומר 'ברוך עושה בראשית'.
בעל ספר האשכול העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין זה. כשהעתיק את המאמר של ריב"ל בעניין רקיע בטהרו, הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין זה. בבבלי שלפני בעל ספר האשכול לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
In other words, selective quoting. He quotes Abaye for the first statement, but not for the second statement. Therefore, this is stronger evidence that he didn't have the second statement of Abaye.
(I would note that Rav Buch did not make this argument for the Baal Halachot Gedolot, because there, even the first statement wasn't cited, as I noted.)
But again, as with the Rif, it could just be that he is, for some reason, paskening against Abaye. Maybe for the reasons I gave at the top of the post. Or alternatively -- and you can disagree with me and claim this is far-fetched if you wish -- if we look at the Sefer HaEshkol inside, he follows it up with:
מתני׳ אימתי בזמן שהוא רואהו לפרקים. ופרקים
עד כמה אמר רמי בר אבא אמר ר׳ יצחק עד ל׳ יום
As a stand-alone sefer, this is slightly difficult, since he never cited the Mishna, that this is within Rabbi Yehuda's statement about making a blessing about the seas. And indeed, the piskaot, those little citations from the Mishna are Geonic. (This citation differs from the citation in our gemara, by citing the latter half of the statement, instead of the first.) Perhaps he understood the lifrakim in the gemara as modifying the brayta? Or perhaps not. Perhaps he simply doesn't pasken like Abaye, and so leaves the brayta alone.
Another example from the article:
המאירי ברכות נט,א-ב:
הרואה שמים בטהרה, והוא אחר שנכלא הגשם ובא רוח צפוני ופיזר את העבים ונזדכך האוויר, אומר: 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. ובתלמוד המערב פירשוה, בימות הגשמים ובלבד לאחר שלושה ימים.
הרואה חמה בתקופתה, ולבנה בתקופתה, כוכבים במשמרותם, ומזלות כסדרן, אומר: 'ברוך עושה בראשית'.
ועניין חמה בתקופתה הוא, שרואה ביום תקופת ניסן של תחילת מחזור של עשרים ושמונה שנה, והוא הנקרא מחזור גדול, שבשעה זו, ר"ל בסוף מחזור גדול, חמה חוזרת לנקודה ראשונה שבה נתלו המאורות מתחילה, והוא בתחילת ליל רביעי... ויש מפרשים: בתקופתה - בבהירותה (ר"ח, הערוך).
ועניין לבנה בתקופתה, כשחוזרת בכל חודש וחודש לנקודתה לתחילת מזל טלה...
וכוכבים במשמרותם, כשהשלימו כל כוכב מחמישה כוכבים הנשארים מהלכם, וחזרו כנגד תחילת מזל טלה למי שמכיר את דרכיהם.
ומזלות בעיתם הוא בנקודה שטלה עולה מצד המזרח...
המאירי פירש את דברי הברייתא בעניין החמה בתקופתה וכו' כמו רמב"ם. המאירי הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין החמה בתקופתה בלשון "ועניין...". ייתכן להסיק מלשון זו, שבבבלי שלפני המאירי לא היה פירוש אביי.
הרואה שמים בטהרה, והוא אחר שנכלא הגשם ובא רוח צפוני ופיזר את העבים ונזדכך האוויר, אומר: 'ברוך עושה בראשית'. ובתלמוד המערב פירשוה, בימות הגשמים ובלבד לאחר שלושה ימים.
הרואה חמה בתקופתה, ולבנה בתקופתה, כוכבים במשמרותם, ומזלות כסדרן, אומר: 'ברוך עושה בראשית'.
ועניין חמה בתקופתה הוא, שרואה ביום תקופת ניסן של תחילת מחזור של עשרים ושמונה שנה, והוא הנקרא מחזור גדול, שבשעה זו, ר"ל בסוף מחזור גדול, חמה חוזרת לנקודה ראשונה שבה נתלו המאורות מתחילה, והוא בתחילת ליל רביעי... ויש מפרשים: בתקופתה - בבהירותה (ר"ח, הערוך).
ועניין לבנה בתקופתה, כשחוזרת בכל חודש וחודש לנקודתה לתחילת מזל טלה...
וכוכבים במשמרותם, כשהשלימו כל כוכב מחמישה כוכבים הנשארים מהלכם, וחזרו כנגד תחילת מזל טלה למי שמכיר את דרכיהם.
ומזלות בעיתם הוא בנקודה שטלה עולה מצד המזרח...
המאירי פירש את דברי הברייתא בעניין החמה בתקופתה וכו' כמו רמב"ם. המאירי הביא את פירוש אביי בעניין החמה בתקופתה בלשון "ועניין...". ייתכן להסיק מלשון זו, שבבבלי שלפני המאירי לא היה פירוש אביי.
Just because he says veInyan rather than citing Abaye does not mean that Abaye's statement, with or without Abaye's name attached, is absent from his gemara. Indeed, we should really conduct a study of Meiri to see how he consistently uses the term veInyan, and if it is only to explanations not found in the gemara.
From a literary standpoint, I could understand why he would do this. Namely, he is considering each term in the brayta in turn and giving an explanation. Only one of them is drawn from the gemara. To smooth out everything as a perush, rather than explicitly citing Abaye, he just cites the explanation of that one from the gemara, and proceeds to interpret the other phrases after that.
This is not evidence that the statement did not exist, with or without attribution, in the Bavli before the Meiri.
The discussion of Rokeach:
ספר הרוקח (רבנו אלעזר מגרמייזא - וורמייזא, היא העיר וורמס שבגרמניה) הלכות ברכות - המשך סימן שמג:
הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה בגבורתה וכוכבים במסילותם ומזלות כסדרם - אומר 'עושה בראשית'.
בעל ספר הרוקח העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי. בבבלי שלפני בעל ספר הרוקח לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
which you can read inside here. Perhaps. But perhaps not, for the reasons offered above.הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה בגבורתה וכוכבים במסילותם ומזלות כסדרם - אומר 'עושה בראשית'.
בעל ספר הרוקח העתיק את הברייתא בעניין חמה בתקופתה ולא הביא את פירוש אביי. בבבלי שלפני בעל ספר הרוקח לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
Rabbenu Bachya:
רבנו בחיי בראשית א,יב: "והיו לאותות" - הם (המאורות) אותות לישראל בקריאת שמע של בוקר שמצוותה עם הנץ החמה וקריאת שמע של ערב שמצוותה עם צאת הכוכבים, גם בחיוב ברכת השמש בתקופת תמוז שחייב אדם לברך 'ברוך עושה' בראשית', וכן דרשו חז"ל בברכות פרק הרואה: "תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה בטהרתה וכוכבים במשמרותם ומזלות בעיתם - אומר: 'ברוך עושה בראשית'", וגם בהיות הלבנה בחידושה שחייב לברך: 'אשר במאמרו ברא שחקים'.
רבנו בחיי הביא את הברייתא שבבבלי ופירש את עניין החמה בתקופתה כרס"ג ולא כאביי. בבבלי שלפני רבנו בחיי לא היה פירוש אביי.
רבנו בחיי הביא את הברייתא שבבבלי ופירש את עניין החמה בתקופתה כרס"ג ולא כאביי. בבבלי שלפני רבנו בחיי לא היה פירוש אביי.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he was talking based on established halacha, as per Saadia Gaon, and bringing it in to his commentary on Chumash. And because Abaye's explanation was contrary to this halacha, established from elsewhere, he had no cause to cite Abaye's contrary interpretation, which would just muddy matters.
From the article's discussion of the Aruch:
הערוך (ערך חמה):
תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה בתקופתה וכו' (ברכות נט,ב). פירוש: חמה בתקופה - בתחילת מחזור עשרים ושמונה, שנופלת התקופה של ניסן בתחילת ליל רביעי בכוכב שבתי כתחילת בריאתה.
פירוש אחר: חמה בתקופתה וכוכבים ומזלות כסדרן - בימות הגשמים, בעת שהיו שלושה ימים מעוננים ולא נראתה חמה בהם ולא כוכבים, אותה העת צריכים לברך עליהם בעת שיתראו, וזולתי זו העת לא. ירושלמי: אמר רב הונא: הדא דאת אמר - בימות הגשמים, ולאחר שלושה ימים, שנאמר "וְעַתָּה לֹא רָאוּ אוֹר בָּהִיר הוּא בַּשְּׁחָקִים וְרוּחַ עָבְרָה וַתְּטַהֲרֵם".
הערוך העתיק את שני הפירושים מר"ח.
הערוך הביא את פירוש אביי בלשון "פירוש". ייתכן להסיק מלשון זו, שבבבלי שלפני הערוך לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
תנו רבנן: הרואה חמה בתקופתה ולבנה בתקופתה וכו' (ברכות נט,ב). פירוש: חמה בתקופה - בתחילת מחזור עשרים ושמונה, שנופלת התקופה של ניסן בתחילת ליל רביעי בכוכב שבתי כתחילת בריאתה.
פירוש אחר: חמה בתקופתה וכוכבים ומזלות כסדרן - בימות הגשמים, בעת שהיו שלושה ימים מעוננים ולא נראתה חמה בהם ולא כוכבים, אותה העת צריכים לברך עליהם בעת שיתראו, וזולתי זו העת לא. ירושלמי: אמר רב הונא: הדא דאת אמר - בימות הגשמים, ולאחר שלושה ימים, שנאמר "וְעַתָּה לֹא רָאוּ אוֹר בָּהִיר הוּא בַּשְּׁחָקִים וְרוּחַ עָבְרָה וַתְּטַהֲרֵם".
הערוך העתיק את שני הפירושים מר"ח.
הערוך הביא את פירוש אביי בלשון "פירוש". ייתכן להסיק מלשון זו, שבבבלי שלפני הערוך לא היה פירוש אביי בעניין חמה בתקופתה.
However: since, as Rav Buch writes, he is bringing both peirushim from Rabbenu Chananel, and we saw earlier that Rabbenu Chananel didn't name the first source, but did the second, perhaps he is simply copying from Rabbenu Chananel, rather than telling us anything about the girsa of Bavli in front of the Aruch. And I gave a perfectly valid reason for Rabbenu Chananel omitting Abaye there -- he was paskening like Rav Huna, and his language of yesh mi sheOmer we know is NOT indicative of the name, or statement, being present in the gemara.
Furthermore, if the proof is from the Aruch using the word פירוש, there are other times he does this even when there is a named Amora in the gemara. As one random example, from a simple OCR search:
אברנים כדאמרי בפסחי אברכי׳ בסןף גמרא דכל שעה
פירוש אברכים היינו נא כגון שנצלה מעט
where a named Amora says it. This is not precisely the same, but I confess I am getting exhausted. Suffice it for now that in the same entry, regarding tekufa, he wrote: פירוש אחר: חמה בתקופתה וכוכבים ומזלות כסדרן - בימות הגשמים, בעת שהיו שלושה ימים... where shortly thereafter we see he drew it from the Yerushalmi.
The best proof that some Rishonim did not have this text, IMHO, is one Rav Buch didn't bring. Namely, in Rabbenu Yonah on the Rif, he explains the brayta, saying: פירוש, דבר ידוע הוא etc., then giving the explanation in the gemara. If, besides calling it an explanation, he describes it as a known matter, then it would seem he doesn't have it in his gemara. However, we can answer this up by noting that he also explains that this machzor is when it returns to the position of maaseh bereishit. In which case he is explaining the known reason for Abaye's statement. See inside.
I will have to discuss the second point of the article, namely the alternate girsa in Yerushalmi, in another post. For now, I would like to skip immediately to some concluding thoughts.
Concluding Thoughts
Rashi certainly had this text in the gemara, because he comments on it at length. So at least one fairly early Rishon had this. (We don't know explicitly that it was ascribed to Abaye.)
We then have a bunch of Geonim and Rishonim who give this explanation and don't ascribe it explicitly to Abaye. I am not convinced that all of these Geonim and Rishonim did not have the text in their gemara. They could be describing it as commentary if Abaye's name were not attached to it; or for reasons described above. I would think it rather likely that the Aruch indeed had it in his text, and that Rabbenu Chananel had it in his text as well. So too the Rosh, the Rambam and the Meiri. The absence of explicit citation from the gemara and attribution to Abaye does not bother me. Rather, it seems like over-reach. (On the other hand, as I noted, Rabbenu Yonah might be a good counter-proof.)
We then have a bunch of Geonim and Rishonim who don't give this explanation at all. There are two available explanations for this. One is that they did not have it in their girsa of the gemara. The other is that they did not hold that Abaye's statement was lehalacha, for the reasons given above; and instead understood the brayta in its plain sense. This would naturally yield that explanation of some Geonim as tekufat tammuz, since that is the summer season, which is a rather good explanation of chamah bitkufatah, which would mean the sun in the sunny tekufah.
But the problem with all this evidence is that these are all secondary sources, which are known to omit material from the gemara on the basis of holding that it is not lehalacha. So it is not extremely convincing proof, at least for me.
Assuming, however, that some of these Geonim and Rishonim indeed had a different girsa, then there are two possibilities. One is that the named statement from an Amora was accidentally omitted by a scribe. Another is that an unnamed statement was accidentally inserted into the gemara, and subsequently ascribed to Abaye. Both are possible, but absent any other data, I would consider the deletion operation easier than the dual insertion operation.
(On a related tangent, it seems like the setama conflates naghei and oreta, but named Amoraim, including Abaye in Pesachim -- אמר אביי הילכך האי צורבא מרבנן לא לפתח בעידניה באורתא דתליסר דנגהי ארבסר דלמא משכא ליה שמעתיה ואתי לאימנועי ממצוה. The usage of language there thus seems to match the language here, of Amoraim and of Abayei)
