When the fast of the 17th of Tammuz ends, in Kew Gardens Hills, New York, 2011

If you live elsewhere, you cannot simply rely on these times. You should go to the linked websites and check out the time for your particular zip code. Also note that this is for this particular year. It is not the same time, precisely, each year.

The Etz Chaim Bulletin has:
Fast of 17 Tammuz    begins 4:28 AM; ends 9:05 PM




















According to Chabad.org, it is the middle number here:

Shkiah (sunset)	8:23 pm
Fast Ends	8:55 pm
Tzeit Hakochovim (nightfall)	9:02 pm

And according to MyZmanim:

Fast Begins at 3:57 AM Dawn - Degrees or at 4:27 AM Dawn - Fixed Minutes Eating of a settled character - אכילת קבע - may not be started during the half hour immediately preceding dawn. Please consult your Rabbi for details.  Fast Ends R' Tukaccinsky The fast ends no later than the emergence of ג' כוכבים בינונים at - 8:58 PM R' Moshe Feinstein One who finds fasting difficult may eat at - 9:02 PM One who does not find fasting difficult should wait until the time for מוצאי שבת at - 9:11 PM ?מהיכא תיתי

(The time given for Rabbi Tukaccinsky is typically 3 minutes more than the Chabad time, for the following reason they give:

* 3 minutes have been added to compensate for the fact that the שקיעה times (for ירושלים) printed in ר' טוקצינסקי-'s luach, are 2 to 3 minutes later than the times for "sea level שקיעה". Definitions provided by other Poskim may also be subject to a similar translating.
)

I wonder whether the 9:05 given by the Etz Chaim bulletin is similarly a 3 minute shift to R' Moshe Feinstein's zman.

Now, I have given three times. Which one do we hold like? More importantly, which one do you hold like? Ask your parents, or your local Orthodox rabbi, to see how you hold in general.

What can I add? Oh, yes. Here is what gives me mild discomfort about the fast of the 17th of Tammuz, in particular. To cite Wikipedia regarding the Sumerian deity Tammuz -- the name of the month, Chazal tell us, was adopted by the Jews on their return from Bavel:

In Babylonia, the month Tammuz was established in honor of the eponymous god Tammuz, who originated as a Sumerian shepherd-god, Dumuzid or Dumuzi, the consort of Inanna and, in his Akkadian form, the parallel consort of Ishtar. The Levantine Adonis ("lord"), who was drawn into the Greek pantheon, was considered by Joseph Campbell among others to be another counterpart of Tammuz,^[1] son and consort. The Aramaic name "Tammuz" seems to have been derived from the Akkadian form Tammuzi, based on early Sumerian Damu-zid.^{[citation needed]}The later standard Sumerian form, Dumu-zid, in turn became Dumuzi in Akkadian.

Beginning with the summer solstice came a time of mourning in the Ancient Near East, as in the Aegean: the Babylonians marked the decline in daylight hours and the onset of killing summer heat and drought with a six-day "funeral" for the god. Recent discoveries reconfirm him as an annual life-death-rebirth deity: tablets discovered in 1963 show that Dumuzi was in fact consigned to the Underworld himself, in order to secure Inanna's release,^[2] though the recovered final line reveals that he is to revive for six months of each year (see below).

In cult practice, the dead Tammuz was widely mourned in the Ancient Near East. Locations associated in antiquity with the site of his death include both Harran and Byblos, among others. A Sumerian tablet from Nippur (Ni 4486) reads:

She can make the lament for you, my Dumuzid, the lament for you, the lament, the lamentation, reach the desert — she can make it reach the house Arali; she can make it reach Bad-tibira; she can make it reach Dul-šuba; she can make it reach the shepherding country, the sheepfold of Dumuzid

"O Dumuzid of the fair-spoken mouth, of the ever kind eyes," she sobs tearfully, "O you of the fair-spoken mouth, of the ever kind eyes," she sobs tearfully. "Lad, husband, lord, sweet as the date, [...] O Dumuzid!" she sobs, she sobs tearfully.^[3]

These mourning ceremonies were observed even at the very door of the Temple in Jerusalem to the horror of the Israelite prophet Ezekiel, whose Biblical prophecy expresses Yahweh's anger at His people's apostate worship of idols:

"Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." —Ezekiel 8:14-15

Ezekiel's testimony is the only direct mention of Tammuz in the Hebrew Bible.

Mourning for Tammuz is a cult practice, and one that even extended to the Jews, until the time of Churban Bayis Rishon. Yes, we have our own reason for fasting, but no explicit mention of a reason is given in Tanach. Rather, in Zecharia 8:19, it is referred to as 'the fast of the fourth month', and the gemara fills in the rest of the details.

Update: I'll add to this post some halachos of the fast, from the 5th Avenue Synagogue:

I. Nature of the Fast

The first questioner asked a series of questions: What is the nature of the obligation to fast on the Tenth of Tevet? Under what circumstances may one be lenient? For example, if a soldier is on standby or positioned on the border, though there is no danger right now, may he omit fasting because he could be called into action? Is there a difference between eating and drinking? May one shower?

A. Bathing

The answer said that Asara B’Tevet and the other minor fasts (Shiva Asar B’Tammuz and Tzom Gedaliah, with Ta’anit Esther in another category because it is not a mournful occasion) are not treated as strictly as Tisha B’Av, in that the only prohibition is eating and drinking, and the other afflictions (refraining from washing, anointing, leather shoes, and marital intimacy) are not observed. Some say that people of high religious spirit should be strict even on the minor fast days, citing the Bach, who said we do not see people bathe on the three minor fasts. R. Rabinovich concludes that this is not a proof, because the Bach lived in an era when it was uncommon for people to bathe other than on Erev Shabbat. Even according to the Bach, in years when Asara B’Tevet falls on Friday, one should bathe. In our era, when people are accustomed to a daily hot shower, we do not see people impose a stringency against bathing on the Tenth of Tevet. R. Rabinovich added that, especially for soldiers, whose exertions cause perspiration, to be stringent would be acting strangely. Finally, he cited the Aruch Hashulchan, who said that even according to the Bach one may wash in cold water or take a sauna.

BeChazirei, or Bei Chozaah?

As a quick followup to this post about whether Rav Yehuda was worried about swine flu or hog cholera, I would suggest neither. Let us examine the gemara again:

אמרו ליה לרב יהודה איכא מותנא בחזירי
גזר תעניתא
נימא קסבר רב יהודה מכה משולחת ממין אחד משולחת מכל המינין
לא שאני חזירי דדמיין מעייהו לבני אינשי
אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי
גזר תעניתא
א"ל והא מרחק
אמר ליכא מעברא הכא דפסיק ליה

The words נימא קסבר רב יהודה מכה משולחת ממין אחד משולחת מכל המינין and לא שאני חזירי דדמיין מעייהו לבני אינשי would appear to be the analysis of the setama degmara. In contrast, the back and forth in the case of Shmuel, who is Rav Yehuda's teacher, is clearly attributed as a back and forth between Amoraim. Stripping out the setama, we thus have:

אמרו ליה לרב יהודה איכא מותנא בחזירי
גזר תעניתא
אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי
גזר תעניתא
א"ל והא מרחק
אמר ליכא מעברא הכא דפסיק ליה

Now compare what they told to Rav Yehuda with what they told to Shmuel. Rav Yehuda is told איכא מותנא בחזירי while Shmuel is told איכא מותנא בי חוזאי. The only difference is that one is told בחזירי while the other is told בי חוזאי. Perhaps there is some textual corruption at play here. For example, put the yud and the resh of בחזירי together to make an aleph. Perhaps in both cases it was originally that place in Bavel, Bei Choza'ei. It would not be the opposite, that both began as בחזירי, because the explicit objection, and Shmuel's explicit response, has to do with distance.

Was Rav Yehuda concerned about swine flu, or about hog cholera?

Life in Israel has a post about two interesting statements from the chief rabbinate of Israel. The first concerns bonfires on lag baomer, and to be careful, and also:

all should remember that wood should not be taken from building sites or private property, but only from hefker.

In terms of this particular aspect, I am reminded of the custom of bonfires after Succot, and how some kids took the belongings of others to make the bonfire, and steps taken against that.

In a second statement, he reports that:

Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar has issued a statement in response to the Swine Flu (or Mexican Flu if you prefer). According to Ladaat.net, Rabbi Amar has called upon everyone to accept this Thursday as a day of fasting and prayer. He quotes the gemara that says when there is illness by the pigs, they declared a fast day - because the digestive tracts of the swine are similar to that of humans. As well, when there is a plague in one place, they should fast in other places as well, as the plague can spread from one place to the other easily.

Both of these are based on the gemara in Taanit 21b. To quote Ladaat's summary:

שאמרו לו לרב יהודה, שיש מגיפה בחזירים, ומיד עמד וגזר תענית על הצבור, משום שבני מעיים ומערכת העיכול של החזירים דומה למערכת העיכול של האדם. עוד אמרו שם שאמרו לשמואל שיש מגיפה במקום רחוק, וגזר תענית, משום שזה עובר ממקום למקום.

Earlier, we saw this gemara as applying to swine flu at matzav.

However, I believe that this is a misguided derivation from the gemara. If we examine the gemara closely, we see from the give and take that these were medical concerns. The gemara wonders whether Rav Yehuda is of the position that if a disease is cast on one species, it is cast on all species. And the answer is that it is not so, but just because both pigs and humans have similar digestive tracts (Rashi: that they lack a rumen).

If so, it is medical concerns. And do we really hold like the medicine of the gemara?! Surely not! See Rambam. Rather, we determine the medical reality, and then apply whatever halacha is to apply.

If swine flu is indeed dangerous and a fatal pandemic, then whether or not there is an explicit gemara, it is appropriate to declare a fast day. And if it is not, then the gemara is frankly irrelevant. The same for Shmuel and a disease far away. What do medical professionals tell us about the possibility of this spreading in virulent form. Because in mild form, it is no different than human influenza in its effects.

Declaring a fast day, while having the positive effect of getting people to beseech Hashem for mercy, has the possible negative effect of sparking hysteria in an already some-times ignorant public (especially if that public eschews secular knowledge, as found in e.g. newspapers). On the other hand, it does show that Jews are concerned for the world at large.

So what of the gemara? Is it discussing a pig disease that may spread to humans?

אמרו ליה לרב יהודה איכא מותנא בחזירי
גזר תעניתא
נימא קסבר רב יהודה מכה משולחת ממין אחד משולחת מכל המינין
לא שאני חזירי דדמיין מעייהו לבני אינשי
אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי
גזר תעניתא
א"ל והא מרחק
אמר ליכא מעברא הכא דפסיק ליה

What is the disease which is fatal for pigs, which is מותנא בחזירי? There are two candidates, swine flu and hog cholera. Swine flu is not really a pestilence for pigs. Rather,

In pigs influenza infection produces fever, lethargy, sneezing, coughing, difficulty breathing and decreased appetite.^[14] In some cases the infection can cause abortion. Although mortality is usually low (around 1-4%),^[1] the virus can produce weight loss and poor growth, causing economic loss to farmers.

I would not expect this to be described in the gemara as מותנא בחזירי. Furthermore, why talk about the digestive tract being similar to humans? I suppose decreased appetite can fit.

But here is the other candidate, a completely different disease: acute hog cholera. Hog cholera is indeed often fatal for pigs. To cite:

Hog cholera (HC) is a highly contagious viral disease of swine that occurs in an acute, a subacute, a chronic, or a persistent form. In the acute form, the disease is characterized by high fever, severe depression, multiple superficial and internal hemorrhages, and high morbidity and mortality.

also,

Pigs of any age may be affected. There are typically a high fever, loss of appetite, and dullness. Other symptoms include blotchy discoloration of the skin (particularly the extremities), incoordination and weakness of the hindquarters, constipation followed by diarrhea, gummed-up eyes, and coughing. Death occurs within 4–7 days, and the mortality is usually high.

This is something easily described as מותנא בחזירי.

What about the similarity of digestive tracts? Well, constipation and diarrhea are symptoms of hog cholera, and

Hemorrhages are also found on the surface of the small and large intestine, the larynx, the heart, the epiglottis, and the fascia lata of the back muscles.

One could easily worry that it would manifest in humans, as cholera, which also affects the digestive tract, as its "action on the mucosal epithelium lining of the small intestine is responsible for the disease's infamous characteristic, exhaustive diarrhea."

Was Rav Yehuda correct to be concerned? Well, if swine flu, it can exist in mild or extreme forms, and it is zootonic, which means it can cross species and impact humans. However, as I will discuss soon, the most virulent forms cannot be widespread to humans, unless they are really packed together, for reasons having to do with evolution. (To be discussed a bit later.) Besides, it is likely not the swine flu, because that is not so drastically fatal to pigs, as discussed above.

What if hog cholera? In that case, it is fatal to pigs, in high numbers. And it is also zootonic. However, while humans can carry hog cholera, and thus help infect other pigs, it is not harmful to humans.

I would note that while the gemara notes that Rav Yehuda was concerned and thus declared a fast, we do not have evidence that it was in fact harmful to humans. Rav Yehuda was in all likelihood working with the best medical knowledge of his time.

On to the concerns of the virulent forms of the disease spreading from elsewhere, as per Shmuel's concern. I read an interesting article in the New York Post, which for some reason I cannot find online. Note that the fatal cases are all centered in Mexico, at the point of origin, and the one case in the US was an infant from Mexico. Other cases are milder.

The author of that article pointed out a reason for it. For the virus to spread, people have to be manifesting the effects of it and moving about. The most virulent strains cause people to be bedridden and then die in pretty short order. This means that they are not going about in public, spreading it. Meanwhile, the milder strains, which have basically the same effects as human influenza which is going around anyway, allow people to go out in public and spread it. So yes, it might spread a lot, but there are natural limits, imposed by the evolutionary mechanisms, which seem to be ensuring that this virus stays mild as it spreads.

Update: See also the discussion of the Meiri and whether this was metaphorical as noted by anon1, but also at length over at DovBear.

No Greaters Days For Israel Than Tu BeAv and Yom Kippur

So Tu BeAv is a great day for Israel, and for shidduchim. To cite Taanit 26b:

{Taanit 26b}

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא היו ימים טובים לישראל כחמשה עשר באב וכיום הכפורים שבהם בנות ישראל יוצאות בכלי לבן שאולין שלא לבייש את מי שאין לו וכל הכלים טעונין טבילה ובנות ישראל יוצאות וחולות בכרמים ומה היו אומרות בחור שא עיניך וראה מה אתה בורר לך אל תתן עיניך בנוי תן עיניך במשפחה:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were not festivals for Israel comparable to the 15th of Av and Yom Kippur, that on these days the Jewish maidens would go out with borrowed white garments, so as not to embarrass she who has none. And all this clothing had to be previously immersed. And the Jewish maidens would go out and dance in the vineyards, and what did they say? "Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not cast your eyes on beauty but rather cast your eyes on family."

After the war sparked by the incident with the concubine of Gibeah, the remaining men of Banjamin could not marry, because of an oath everyone else took not to give a daughter to marry them. After the war, they did not want an entire tribe of Binyamin to die out, so they sought creative halachic solutions. First, they gave them the daughters of Yavesh Gilead, who had not partaken in the oath. Then, in the second half of Shoftim 21:

טז וַיֹּאמְרוּ זִקְנֵי הָעֵדָה, מַה-נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנּוֹתָרִים לְנָשִׁים: כִּי-נִשְׁמְדָה מִבִּנְיָמִן, אִשָּׁה.	16 Then the elders of the congregation said: 'How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?'
יז וַיֹּאמְרוּ, יְרֻשַּׁת פְּלֵיטָה לְבִנְיָמִן; וְלֹא-יִמָּחֶה שֵׁבֶט, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.	17 And they said: 'They that are escaped must be as an inheritance for Benjamin, that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel.
יח וַאֲנַחְנוּ, לֹא נוּכַל לָתֵת-לָהֶם נָשִׁים--מִבְּנוֹתֵינוּ: כִּי-נִשְׁבְּעוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אָרוּר, נֹתֵן אִשָּׁה לְבִנְיָמִן. {ס}	18 Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters.' For the children of Israel had sworn, saying: 'Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin.' {S}
יט וַיֹּאמְרוּ הִנֵּה חַג-יְהוָה בְּשִׁלוֹ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה, אֲשֶׁר מִצְּפוֹנָה לְבֵית-אֵל מִזְרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, לִמְסִלָּה, הָעֹלָה מִבֵּית-אֵל שְׁכֶמָה--וּמִנֶּגֶב, לִלְבוֹנָה.	19 And they said: 'Behold, there is the feast of the LORD from year to year in Shiloh, which is on the north of Beth-el, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Beth-el to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.'
כ ויצו (וַיְצַוּוּ), אֶת-בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן לֵאמֹר: לְכוּ, וַאֲרַבְתֶּם בַּכְּרָמִים.	20 And they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying: 'Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;
כא וּרְאִיתֶם, וְהִנֵּה אִם-יֵצְאוּ בְנוֹת-שִׁילוֹ לָחוּל בַּמְּחֹלוֹת, וִיצָאתֶם מִן-הַכְּרָמִים, וַחֲטַפְתֶּם לָכֶם אִישׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ מִבְּנוֹת שִׁילוֹ; וַהֲלַכְתֶּם, אֶרֶץ בִּנְיָמִן.	21 and see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
כב וְהָיָה כִּי-יָבֹאוּ אֲבוֹתָם אוֹ אֲחֵיהֶם לרוב (לָרִיב) אֵלֵינוּ, וְאָמַרְנוּ אֲלֵיהֶם חָנּוּנוּ אוֹתָם--כִּי לֹא לָקַחְנוּ אִישׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ, בַּמִּלְחָמָה: כִּי לֹא אַתֶּם נְתַתֶּם לָהֶם, כָּעֵת תֶּאְשָׁמוּ. {ס}	22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come to strive with us, that we will say unto them: Grant them graciously unto us; because we took not for each man of them his wife in battle; neither did ye give them unto them, that ye should now be guilty.' {S}
כג וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן, בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן, וַיִּשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים לְמִסְפָּרָם, מִן-הַמְּחֹלְלוֹת אֲשֶׁר גָּזָלוּ; וַיֵּלְכוּ, וַיָּשׁוּבוּ אֶל-נַחֲלָתָם, וַיִּבְנוּ אֶת-הֶעָרִים, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בָּהֶם.	23 And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they carried off; and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and built the cities, and dwelt in them.
כד וַיִּתְהַלְּכוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּעֵת הַהִיא, אִישׁ לְשִׁבְטוֹ וּלְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ; וַיֵּצְאוּ מִשָּׁם, אִישׁ לְנַחֲלָתוֹ. {פ}	24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance. {P}
כה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו, יַעֲשֶׂה. {ש}	25 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes. {P}

It is quite possible that this last verse, which is also the last verse of the sefer, is passing negative judgment on these particular actions.

This incident has rough parallels with the account of the Rape of the Sabine women by the Romans -- the "rape" in that case connoting "seizing" (rapere, to grab) in order to wed. To cite Wikipedia:

It refers to an event supposed to have occurred in the early history of Rome, shortly after its foundation by Romulus and a group of mostly male followers. Seeking wives in order to found families, the Romans negotiated with the Sabines, who populated the area. The Sabines refused to allow their women to marry the Romans, fearing the emergence of a rival culture. Faced with the extinction of their community, the Romans planned to abduct Sabine women. Romulus invited Sabine families to a festival of Neptune Equester. At the meeting he gave a signal, at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men. The indignant abductees were implored by Romulus to accept Roman husbands.

Here too, a seizing at the festival in order to allow an otherwise forbidden marriage.

What was the nature of this Jewish festival, and dancing? Was it really originally done for the purpose of marriage? It would seem not. Rather, festivals were a time of joy, and this was a way of expressing such joy. And it was by Shiloh (think Mishkan Shiloh), and it was a feast to Hashem:

יט וַיֹּאמְרוּ הִנֵּה חַג-ה בְּשִׁלוֹ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה, אֲשֶׁר מִצְּפוֹנָה לְבֵית-אֵל מִזְרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, לִמְסִלָּה, הָעֹלָה מִבֵּית-אֵל שְׁכֶמָה--וּמִנֶּגֶב, לִלְבוֹנָה.

19 And they said: 'Behold, there is the feast of the LORD from year to year in Shiloh, which is on the north of Beth-el, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Beth-el to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.'

It was presumably the unmarried virgins who went out to dance, which is why it was easy to seize the ones who went out to dance and take them as wives. Thus, perhaps there was some cultic aspect to these dances -- praising God via joy, celebration, and dance, and not just via sacrifice.

We have Tehillim 150:

א הַלְלוּ-יָהּ: הַלְלוּ-אֵל בְּקָדְשׁוֹ; הַלְלוּהוּ, בִּרְקִיעַ עֻזּוֹ.	1 Hallelujah. {N} Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the firmament of His power.
ב הַלְלוּהוּ בִגְבוּרֹתָיו; הַלְלוּהוּ, כְּרֹב גֻּדְלוֹ.	2 Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.
ג הַלְלוּהוּ, בְּתֵקַע שׁוֹפָר; הַלְלוּהוּ, בְּנֵבֶל וְכִנּוֹר.	3 Praise Him with the blast of the horn; praise Him with the psaltery and harp.
ד הַלְלוּהוּ, בְּתֹף וּמָחוֹל; הַלְלוּהוּ, בְּמִנִּים וְעֻגָב.	4 Praise Him with the timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and the pipe.
ה הַלְלוּהוּ בְצִלְצְלֵי-שָׁמַע; הַלְלוּהוּ, בְּצִלְצְלֵי תְרוּעָה.	5 Praise Him with the loud-sounding cymbals; praise Him with the clanging cymbals.
ו כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה, תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ: הַלְלוּ-יָהּ.	6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. {S} Hallelujah. {P}

Perhaps it developed it connection to matchmaking secondarily, as an outgrowth of the Biblical story.

Presumably, when the women went out to dance at Tu BeAv and Yom Kippur, the men did not just seize them there and that was all. Rather, presumably there was betrothal and a year later nuptials. And also most likely dating and arrangement of the match before that - shidduchin. But this was essentially a big singles event, in which men saw the available women and then sought their hand in marriage later.

Why Is Hallel HaGadol Called The Great Hallel?

I think I just discovered why. In the very beginning of the megillah (whose masechta we will be starting tomorrow), we hear about the impressive span of the countries over which King Achashverosh rules:

א וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ: הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד-כּוּשׁ--שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה, מְדִינָה.

1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus--this is Ahasuerus who reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces--

Apparently, Hallel haGadol has a similarly impressive span:

On Rif Taanit 9a {going on Taanit 26a}

ואיזהו הלל הגדול רב יהודה אמר מהודו עד על נהרות בבל
וקיימא לן כוותיה

And what is the Great Hallel? Rav Yehuda said: From Hodu {Tehillim 136}:

א הוֹדוּ לַה כִּי-טוֹב: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.

1 O give thanks unto the LORD, for He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever.

until "Al Naharot Bavel" {Tehillim 137}

א עַל נַהֲרוֹת, בָּבֶל--שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ, גַּם-בָּכִינוּ: בְּזָכְרֵנוּ, אֶת-צִיּוֹן.

1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

{presumably only chapter 136}
And we establish like him.

It is not meHodu veAd Kush, from India to Ethiopia but rather meHodu veAd Al Naharot Bavel, until the banks of the rivers of Babylon.

;)

Daf Yomi Taanit 30a: Kinnot means Eicha

Soncino mentions this, and it is fairly obvious, but one popular daf Yomi site does not translate Kinos, leaving it just as Kinos, Iyov and Yirmiyahu, perhaps because they thought it was obvious, perhaps wanting to leave it ambiguous, or perhaps because they actually thought it meant Kinos, aside from Eicha.

The question is what one may "read" on Tisha BeAv. "Read" in this context means specifically reading things in Tanach. And opposed to "learn" which applies to Torah sheBaal Peh. In this case, if Kinot occurs in the list of allowed reading, and the context is other seforim in Tanach, then Kinot means Eicha. Which makes sense, given that this is traditionally the Kinah composed by Yirmiyahu, and that the non-Hebrew name of the book is Lamentations, which is a translation of Kinnot. So know this when learning this in daf Yomi tomorrow.

ת"ר כל מצות הנוהגות באבל נוהגות בט"ב. אסור ברחיצה ובסיכה ובנעילת הסנדל ובתשמיש המטה ואסור לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים ולשנות במשנה ובתלמוד ובהלכות ובהגדות אבל קורא הוא במקום שאינו רגיל לקרות ושונה במקום שאינו רגיל לשנות וקורא בקינות ובאיוב ובדברים הרעים שבירמיה ותינוקות של בית רבן (אינן) בטלין בו ד"ר מאיר
ר' יהודה אומר אף אינו קורא במקום שאינו רגיל לקרות ואינו שונה במקום שאינו רגיל לשנות אבל קורא הוא בקינות ובאיוב ובדברים הרעים שבירמיה ותינוקות של בית רבן בטלין בו משו' שנא' פקודי ה' ישרים משמחי לב

והלכתא כר' יהודה:

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: All commandments which are practice by a mourner are practiced on the 9th of Av. Forbidden are washing {oneself}, anointing, wearing of sandals, and marital relations, and it is forbidden to read the Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim, and to learn Mishna, Talmud, halacha and aggada. However he may read from a place he is not used to reading and learn from a place he is not used to learning, and may read Kinnot {=Eicha}, Iyyov, and the negative things in Yirmiyahu. And children in school are {one possible girsa: are not} let off on it. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda says: He also does not read from the place he is not used to reading from, nor may he learn from the place he is not used to learning from, but he may read Kinnot {=Eicha}, Iyyov, and the negative things in Yirmiyahu. And children in school are let off on it, for it is written {Tehillim 19:9}:

ט פִּקּוּדֵי יְשָׁרִים, מְשַׂמְּחֵי-לֵב; מִצְוַת ה בָּרָה, מְאִירַת עֵינָיִם.

9 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

{Rif:} And the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.

Daf Yomi Taanit: Berachot 14a: What Does It Mean To Taste During a Fast?

A short while ago in Rif Yomi, the Rif {Rif Taanit 4a} cited a gemara in Berachot and discussed whether one may taste during a fast, and then gave a definition of tasting, citing a Yerushalmi for support:

גרסי' בפ' היה קורא בתורה בעא מיניה אשיאן תנא דבי רבי אמי מר' אמי השרוי בתענית מהו שיטעום
אכילה ושתיה קביל עליה והא לא קא אכיל או דילמא הנאה קביל והא קא מתהני
אמר ליה טועם ואין בכך כלום

תניא נמי הכי מטעמת אינה צריכ' ברכה והשרוי בתענית טועם ואין בכך כלום

We learn in perek Haya Korei BaTorah {Berachot 14a}: Assian the Tanna {reciter of Tannaitic sources} in the academy of Rabbi Ammi inquired of Rabbi Ammi: One who is dwelling in fast, may he taste?
Eating and drinking he accepted upon himself, and he is not here eating, or perhaps benefit he accepted upon himself {not to do} and here he is benefiting?
He {Rabbi Ammi} said to him: He may taste, and there is nothing in this.

A brayta also say so: A taste does not require a blessing, and one who dwells in fast may taste, and there is nothing in this.

ועד כמה רבי אמי ורבי אסי טעמי עד רביעיתא
ומפרשי רבנן דצריך לאזהורי כי היכי דלא ליבלע כלום:

And until much? Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi would taste up to a reviit.
And the {post-Talmudic} Sages explained that {in tasting} he needs to be careful that he does not actually swallow anything.

ירושלמי בנדרים בפרק קונם יין שאני טועם
נדר להתענות ושכח ואכל כבר אבד תעניתו
רבי אבא בשם רבנן דתמן והוא שאמר יום סתם ומתענה יום אחר כדי לקיים נדרו הואיל ושכח ואכל ביום זה
הא אם אמר יום זה מתענה ומשלים
ולא אמרן אלא אם בלע אבל אם טעם לא
כלומר אפי' אמר יום סתם אם לא אכל אלא טעם בלבד מתענה ומשלים אותו היום:

Yerushalmi, in Nedarim Perek Konam Yayim {perek 8, Nedarim 26b}:
If someone vowed to fast, forgot and ate, he has already lost his fast.
Rabbi Abba cited the Sages of there {Bavel}: And this is where he said "a day" plain {rather than this specific day}. And so he fasts another day in order to fulfill his vow, since he forgot and ate on this specific say. But, if he said "this day," he finishes the fast. And they only said this if he swallowed. But if he merely tasted, no.
That is to say, even if he says "a day" plainly, if he did not eat but only tasted, he finishes the fast on that day.

This is a fairly convincing argument. Yet, I could present a counterargument for both Bavli and Yerushalmi, and define tasting as putting a tiny amount of food in one's mouth and swallowing it.

Bavli
Note that the Bavli does not define tasting, just distinguishing it from eating and drinking. And furthermore, there is a set measure up to which one may taste -- a reviit for liquids. If the point of distinction whereby tasting would or would not be permitted is

אכילה ושתיה קביל עליה והא לא קא אכיל או דילמא הנאה קביל והא קא מתהני
Eating and drinking he accepted upon himself, and he is not here eating, or perhaps benefit he accepted upon himself {not to do} and here he is benefiting?

and tasting is permitted, then why should it be permitted only up to a certain point, that of a reviit? Having the pleasure of the taste of drink in one's mouth is just that pleasure, it is not drinking or eating! And even if one placed, either simultaneously or sequentially, two reviit in one's mouth and then spat it out, one would not be eating. So why should there be an upward limit on tasting? (One might counter-argue that when liquid is in one's mouth, a tiny amount is absorbed into the bloodstream, a phenomenon encountered when doing a lot of wine-tasting, even when the wine is consistently expelled from one's mouth.)

On the other hand, if tasting involves swallowing a bit each time, then the upwards limit of reviit (either including or not including the upward limit as permitted) makes sense. For even if we consider the concept of chatzi shiur as prohibited, that is achila, eating, of a chatzi shiur, and this tasting is not considered achila (/shetiya). However, once we reach the full measure of reviit, even though each time he swallowed only a tiny amount, we would find this problematic and perhaps even within the realm of achila, since all together it adds up to what one would eat/drink, and perhaps it is now considered achila/shetiya, rather than just the hanaah from the taste.

Yerushalmi
However, the Rif brings forth a very convincing argument with his citation of the Yerushalmi which stated ולא אמרן אלא אם בלע אבל אם טעם לא, thus setting up "tasting" as opposed to "swallowing." It is thus clear that tasting means without swallowing.

Yet there are difficulties with this. Firstly, what is the definition of eating, achila, when the Yerushalmi states נדר להתענות ושכח ואכל כבר אבד תעניתו?

Ran (on the daf of Rif) suggests that the measure of eating is that of a koseves, a date, and learns this from a parallel to the affliction of eating by Yom Kippur. This Ran seems problematic in that it sets up an apparent contradiction between the beginning of the Yerushalmi and the end.

In the beginning, we state נדר להתענות ושכח ואכל כבר אבד תעניתו. If we define this as eating a koseves or more, then if he ate less than that he does not lose his fast. At the end, we state ולא אמרן אלא אם בלע אבל אם טעם לא. This states that if he swallowed, he loses his fast, but if he merely tasted, he does not. The simplest implication of this is that if he swallowed less than a koseves, since this is not mere tasting, he would indeed lose his fast.

(This is a question common to the style of the setama digmara, which typically then resolves it with a chasurei mechsera vehachi katani.)

Further, if the known implication of achila in the beginning was a koseves, then what need was there at the end to mention tasting. With tasting, he did not swallow a koseves!

Perhaps one can rescue this by setting up a similar distinction to the strange one in Bavli about tasting up to a reviit or less than a reviit. That is, in the beginning it was speaking about eating a koseves or more. And, we would have thought that this included even tasting and not swallowing a koseves. Then, towards the end, we have a clarification -- either that putting a koseves in one's mouth and not swallowing is considered nothing, or perhaps (if we were exactly parallel to the reviit in the Bavli) putting less than a koseves in one's mouth and not swallowing is considered nothing. The former is problematic, as it contradicts the Bavli's upper limit of reviit even for tasting. The latter is problematic, for what need would one have to distinguish between tasting and swallowing in such a case?

One can resolve this Ran in a few ways. Perhaps these questions are not valid questions, and it is just the way of the gemara, and so:
a) eating and thus swallowing a koseves would cancel a fast, but tasting and not swallowing a koseves would not
b) eating and thus swallowing a koseves would cancel a fast, but eating less than a koseves would not cancel a fast, yet should not be done; meanwhile, mere tasting is entirely permitted. This is not really the implication of ולא אמרן אלא אם בלע אבל אם טעם לא, where the issue is canceling the fast, but we are saying that the gemara is being somewhat inexact.

Or else, one could say that the Ran was incorrect in his giving a measure of koseves to the eating which cancels a fast, and in truth, swallowing any amount would cancel the fast.

There is a further "problem" with the Ran. Specifically, our girsa of the Yerushalmi is different from that of the Rif on two counts, and the first is that where Rif's Yerushalmi has נדר להתענות ושכח ואכל כבר אבד תעניתו, our Yerushalmi has נדר להתענות ושכח ואכל כזית כבר אבד תעניתו.

Thus, Ran would appear to be incorrect in positing a koseves as a measure of eating which would cancel a fast, since we have a version of the Yerushalmi that explicitly gives the measure of a kezayis.

I would note that the type of fast under discussion here is one adopted via vow, and this thus falls under the definition of standard achila rather than a definition of a fast. Thus, I would argue that kezayis actually makes more sense than koseves here, and thus I would side with the explicit Yerushalmi in our girsa over the Ran's perush to the girsa where it is missing.

Of course, this could be an incorrect girsa. And all the questions we have asked above on the Ran can now be asked on this explicit Yerushalmi, substituting the word koseves with kezayis.

Thus, we tend to think that the Ran is conceptually correct that there is a minimum measure for eating, even if he might be incorrect in the specific measure.

How then can we resolve the questions we asked above? First, let us see the Yerushalmi inside, as we have it:

נדר להתענות ושכח ואכל כזית איבד תעניתו.
ר' בא בשם רבנין דתמן והוא שאמר יום סתם.
הא אם אמר יום זה מתענה ומשלים.
לא אמר אלא אכל.
הא טעם לא.

We can note two differences from the Yerushalmi of the Rif. The first is that it is ואכל כזית rather than just ואכל, as we have discussed above.

The second is that rather than stating ולא אמרן אלא אם בלע אבל אם טעם לא, we have לא אמר אלא אכל .הא טעם לא That is, rather that tasting being contrasted with swallowing, tasting is contrasted with eating.

Now, one could argue haynu hach, they are identical, and this is just substitution of one term for another. This certainly makes sense according to those who say that tasting means not swallowing. Thus, אכל means בלע.

On the other hand, we can say that what is meant here by אכל is exactly what was meant by אכל above, that is, achila of a kezayis. Meanwhile, טעם refers to (perhaps much) less than a kezayis. Or alternatively, it refers to normal eating (even of chatzi shiur), whereas tasting, even tasting and swallowing, is not considered normal eating (and is not considered chatzi shiur).

It then makes sense to impose minimal shiur of a kezayis (or koseves), as above.

Of course, this would have broad implications for fast days, and quite possible clashes with other definitions of chatzi shuir from elsewhere, such that it would disprove this. Tzarich Iyyyun Gadol.

And it need not be said, this discussion is not intended halacha lemaaseh.

Daf Yomi: Taanit daf 12: Eating After Waking Up Before A Fast

While preparing Rif Yomi, I came across the following interesting gemara and pesak halacha regarding someone who broke off eating and slept before a fast, whether he could resume, and under what circumstances:

{Rif Taanit 3b}
{Taanit 12a}

אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שלא גמר אבל גמר אינו אוכל

איתיביה אביי ישן ועמד הרי זה אוכל
התם שלא סילק
איכא דאמרי אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שלא ישן אבל ישן אינו אוכל
איתיביה אביי ישן ועמד הרי זה אוכל
התם במתנמנם
היכי דאמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר כגון דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר:

Rava {our gemara: Abaye} said: They only learned this {about being able to eat in the morning before a fast} where he did not finish {his meal} but if he finished it, he may not eat.
Abaye {our gemara: Rava} objected {from a brayta}: If he slept and arose, he may eat.
There, he did not remove {the table}.

Some {versions} say:
Rava said: They only learned this where he did not sleep, but if he slept, he may not eat.
Abaye objected: If he slept and arose, he may eat.
There {where he may eat} is where he {merely} dozed.

What is the definition of this dozing?
Rav Ashi said: {Taanit 12b} He is asleep but not asleep, awake but not awake, such that you call him and he answers, but it not able to respond with thought {to give a reasoned response} but if you remind him, he remembers {e.g. if you ask him while is is dozing like this, "Did you hear such and such?" he will be able to remember.}

הא מילתא לא אפסיקא בה הלכתא בהדיא אלא מדחזינא לגמרא דקא טרח לפרושי מתנמנם שמעי' דהלכתא כי האי לישנא בתרא
ועוד דאיסורא דרבנן הוא ולקולא עבדינן הלכך בין סילק בין לא סילק אם לא ישן אוכל ושותה עד שיעלה עמוד השחר הדין הוא סברא דילן

In this matter, the halacha is not explicitly set up. However, from the fact that we see that the gemara troubles itself to define "dozing," we deduce that the halacha is in accordance with this latter phrasing. And furthermore, it is a Rabbinic prohibition, and we conduct ourselves leniently. Therefore, whether they removed {the table} or did not remove, if he did not sleep, he may eat and drink until daybreak. Such is our opinion.

{Though see Ran as to the relation between the two leshonot and the subsequent context in which this dozing is done.}

ואיכא מרבוותא מאן דכתב הכין קי"ל דלגבי תענית דאכיל בלילי ומפסיק אם גמר וסילק לא יאכל אבל אם לא סילק ודעתו עוד לאכול אע"פ שישן עומד ואוכל
והאי מימרא דיליה אתי כלישנא קמא

And there is among the {post-Talmudic} Sages one who writes as follows, that we establish that by a fast in which he ate ate night and stopped, if he finished {his meal} and removed {the table} he may not eat, but if he did not remove and his thoughts are still to eat, even though he slept {entirely, not merely dozed}, he may arise and eat. And this statement of his goes according to the first phrasing.

So ends my citation of Rif.

There are slight girsological differences between the text in our gemara and the text in the Rif in terms of the disputants in the first lashon of the gemara. While our printed text has Abaye saying and Rava objecting, Rif here has Rava saying and Abaye objecting, just as in the second lashon. And Masoret haShas on the side of our gemara notes that old seforim have this text like the Rif, and so does the Rosh. (Bach also notes a change from ישן ועמד in the second lashon to אכל ועמד.) Etcetera.

I am not sure that I am persuaded by Rif's proof that we rule in accordance with the second lashon, based on the fact that Rav Ashi's took the trouble to define dozing. This is a twist on the general deciding principle (kelal horaah) that where the Amoraim have a give and take (shakla vetarya) within one opinion in a dispute, it is strong evidence that they felt the halacha is in accordance with that opinion, for otherwise they would not have gone to the bother. This instance is not really a give and take, but rather merely a definition of the term, but the proof follows the same general idea.

The reason I am not entirely persuaded is that a) I am not certain that Rav Ashi actually made his statement defining mitnamnem in this gemara, but rather there is strong reason to believe it was transferred from elsewhere and b) if the Savoraim indeed transferred it, their opinion does not carry the full halachic weight of the Amoraim, since Ravina/Rav Ashi were sof horaah, and c) it truly seems that the reason for this transfer is not because of specific halachic ruling in accordance with this opinion, but rather is a regular feature of the gemara in which it defines this term.

On to the details of what I set out above.

Our gemara defines dozing as follows: היכי דאמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר כגון דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר. If Rav Ashi set out to define it here, then one might effectively argue that this was because the halacha was in accordance with this particular lashon. However, this exact phrase actually occurs exactly five times in Bavli (see this Google search). In each case, it begins היכי דמי מתנמנם and proceeds to cite Rav Ashi for this exact definition.

When the exact same gemara occurs in more then one place, we usually assume that one of these places was the original location, the original context for the statement within a discussion amongst Amoraim, and then there was a transfer to the other sugya or sugyot. (I could see an argument to be made about Rav Ashi, as a redactor, that he placed his statement initially in each of these contexts. However, we claim transfer in so many other cases that it is safe to assume the same here as well.)

Let us then examine the statement in its various contexts throughout Shas.

1) One instance is in the 9th perek of Nidda, Nidda 63a:

איזהו רוק תפל: תנא כל שלא טעם כלום מבערב סבר רב פפא קמיה דרבא למימר כמאן דאמר לא טעם מידי באורתא אמר ליה רבא מי קתני בערב מבערב קתני לאפוקי היכא דקדים ואכיל
אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן איזהו רוק תפל כל שעבר עליו חצות לילה ובשינה
למימרא דבשינה תליא מילתא
והתנן ישן כל היום אין זה רוק תפל ניעור כל הלילה הרי זה רוק תפל
התם במתנמנם
היכי דמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר

Thus, the context is an apparent contradiction in defining rok tafel between a statement by Rabba bar bar Chana citing Rabbi Yochanan and a Mishna. (Perhaps we can say that the first generation Amora from Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yochanan, has a competing tradition, or perhaps we can harmonize as the gemara does.)

Note that the contradiction between these sources is done anonymously, by the setama digmara. The harmonizing detail proposed by the setama is mitnamnem, dozing. Then, perhaps it is Rav Ashi who pipes up, helpfully defining the term, or more likely it is the setama bringing from elsewhere Rav Ashi's statement defining the term. Since the context is not a discussion between Amoraim, I would interpret it as the latter.

2) A second occurrence is in the second perek of Megillah, Megillah 18b. The Mishna said that if one reads the megillah with long pauses, dozing in between, one fulfills the obligation. In the gemara, Rav Ashi defines dozing.

דף יז,א משנה הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא קראה על פה קראה תרגום בכל לשון לא יצא אבל קורין אותה ללועזות בלעז והלועז ששמע אשורית יצא קראה סירוגין ומתנמנם יצא היה כותבה דורשה ומגיהה אם כוון לבו יצא ואם לאו לא יצא היתה כתובה בסם ובסיקרא ובקומוס ובקנקנתום על הנייר ועל הדפתרא לא יצא עד שתהא כתובה אשורית על הספר ובדיו:

דף יח,ב גמרא

מתנמנם יצא וכו': היכי דמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מידכר:

This is not in the context of a discussion of Amoraim, though of course Rav Ashi is an Amora. It is quite plausible that Rav Ashi is directly defining the term in the Mishna, and the reason no other Amora discusses this with him is that this is not a matter of dispute.

However, one curious feature here that we must pay heed to is the introduction of the statement with היכי דמי. In fact, היכי דמי occurs systematically within this gemara in Megillah, in the analysis of this Mishna. Thus, on Megillah 18a:

קראה תרגום לא יצא וכו': היכי דמי אילימא דכתיבה מקרא וקרי לה תרגום היינו על פה לא צריכא דכתיבה תרגום וקרי לה תרגום:

which is an anonymous (and thus likely stamaitic) analysis of the Mishna.

Again on Megillah 18a, immediately following the above:

אבל קורין אותה ללועזות בלעז וכו':
והא אמרת קראה בכל לשון לא יצא
רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו בלעז יווני
היכי דמי אילימא דכתיבה אשורית וקרי לה יוונית היינו על פה
א"ר אחא א"ר אלעזר שכתובה בלעז יוונית

In this instance, it is an anonymous analysis of Rav and Shmuel's analysis of the Mishna, which then leads into a named Amora's elaboration.

The next instance is on Megillah 18b, in the section we have seen already:

מתנמנם יצא וכו': היכי דמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מידכר

which is Rav Ashi's definition of the term mitnamnem, a term which occurs in the Mishna. It could well be that Rav Ashi stated this on this Mishna, and the setama adds the connective introductory glue of היכי דמי מתנמנם. It could also be that the setama wishes to define this term, just as it systematically defines other terms, and copies Rav Ashi's definitional statement from elsewhere.

The next instance immediately follows on Megillah 18b:

היה כותבה דורשה ומגיהה אם כוון לבו יצא וכו':
היכי דמי אי דקא מסדר פסוקא פסוקא וכתב לה כי כוון לבו מאי הוי על פה הוא אלא דכתב פסוקא פסוקא וקרי ליה
ומי יצא
והאמר רבי חלבו אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלכה כדברי האומר כולה ואפי' למ"ד מאיש יהודי צריכה שתהא כתובה כולה
אלא דמנחה מגילה קמיה וקרי לה מינה פסוקא פסוקא וכתב לה

This is once again a clearly anonymous, and thus stamaitic section, though the analysis is based on known statements of known Amoraim. And once again it is analysis of the Mishna.

Thus, it seems clear that the היכי דמי is part of the setama's systematic analysis of the Mishna. At first glance, this would seem to be disappointing. It would seem that this gemara in Megillah can not be our source text.

However, in fact the opposite seems the case. We have seen that the setama can be the connective glue introducing named Amoraim who are local to this gemara. Thus the setama analyzed Shmuel and Rav's statement in order to introduce Rav Acha's citatation of Rabbi Eleazar, which is clearly a local statement and analysis of the Mishna. So too, even if Rav Ashi actually defined it here as an analysis of the Mishna, the setama could introduce it with היכי דמי.

Why should it introduce it with היכי דמי? Simply put, the setama favors regularity and systematic approaches in analysis, and presents a systematic definition of the terms in the Mishna, introduced each time by היכי דמי, at times introducing the Amoraic statements already present and at times introducing its own analysis.

Indeed, the fact that the word היכי דמי occurs is good evidence that this gemara in Megillah is the source text for all. That is, the context of multiple היכי דמיs in analyzing the Mishna shows that this is a local feature, and thus it is a feature expected here. It is not out of place in any other gemara, such that we should ask why the words היכי דמי occur, but it stands to reason that its genesis was in this local gemara in Megillah. That it occurs in those other locations implies that it was transferred from this location, together with the phrase היכי דמי.

This is not to say that this is the only location where we have היכי דמי in context. Indeed, the next occurrence, in Yavamot, also has היכי דמי in proximity (though there are other reasons for thinking it did not originate there). However, the first instance, in Niddah, does not have היכי דמי in context, nor does the fourth occurrence, the gemara in Taanit, nor does the fifth occurrence, the gemara in Pesachim.

3) A third occurrence of the segment היכי דמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מידכר occurs in the sixth perek of Yevamot, in Yevamot 54a:

גופא אמר רב יהודה ישן לא קנה ביבמתו דאמר קרא יבמה יבא עליה עד דמכוין לה לשם ביאה
והתניא בין ער [בין ישן אימא בין ערה בין ישנה והתניא בין ער] הוא בין ישן הוא בין ערה היא בין ישנה היא
הכא במאי עסקינן במתנמנם
ה"ד מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר כגון דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר גופא

As I frequently note, the word גופא at the end of a segment is evidence that the analysis that preceded it was stamaitic. It signifies a return to the actual original Amoraic text of the gemara. Here, Rav Yehuda had a statement that a yavam cannot acquire a yevama in levirate marriage while asleep. The setama raises the issue that this appears to contradict a brayta, and they resolve and harmonize this (a common stamaitic approach) by saying that the brayta refers to a case of mintamnem. Then, Rav Ashi defines mitnamnem. If we accept that the setama is post-Rav Ashi, then this definition must have been brought in from elsewhere.

4) A fourth occurrence occurs in the gemara intially under discussion, in the first perek of Taanit, on Taanit 12b:

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא לא שנו אלא כשלא ישן אבל ישן אינו אוכל
איתיביה אביי ישן ועמד הרי זה אוכל
התם במתנמנם
היכי דמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע אהדורי סברא וכי מדכרי ליה מדכר

Once again, this is an anonymous harmonization of Rava's statement with that of a brayta cited by Abaye. (Perhaps one can say that Abaye's was an effective disproof, or that this is a correct harmonization.) That this statement of Rav Ashi defines a term in the setama's harmonization implies that this is the setama transferring the definitional statement from elsewhere.

Perhaps we could say that it is not the setama harmonizing here but rather Rava answering Abaye, and Rav Ashi is giving a helpful definition. However, the fact that it is not preceded by אמר ליה, and all the more so because we have better candidate source texts, it is quite likely that this is indeed the setama transferring from elsewhere.

5) The final, fifth occurrence is in the tenth perek of Pesachim, on Pesachim 120a:

דף קכ,א משנה ישנו מקצתן יאכלו כולן לא יאכלו

דף קכ,ב משנה רבי יוסי אומר נתנמנמו יאכלו נרדמו לא יאכלו הפסח אחר חצות מטמא את הידים הפגול והנותר מטמאין את הידים:

דף קכ,ב גמרא ר' יוסי אומר נתנמנמו יאכלו נרדמו לא יאכלו
ה"ד נתנמנם
אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר כגון דקרי ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר
אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזא דקא נמנם
א"ל מינם קא נאים מר
א"ל מינומי קא מנמנם
ותנן נתנמנמו יאכלו נרדמו לא יאכלו

Here, the Mishna sets out sleeping as an impediment to continuing the meal. Rabbi Yossi makes a distinction between nitnamnemu and nirdemu, which then would then prompt a definition of the terms.

To that end, there are two perhaps-identical definitions offered in the gemara. The first is offered in a direct manner by Rav Ashi, that it is נים ולא נים, "dozing but not dozing, etc." The second may be deduced from the anecdote related in the gemara about Abaye and Rabba:

אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזא דקא נמנם
א"ל מינם קא נאים מר
א"ל מינומי קא מנמנם

"Abaye was sitting before Rabba. He saw that he was dozing (namnem). He said to him: Master is sleeping (na`im). He said to him: I am (merely) dozing (menamnem)."

Thus, this anecdote in its way shows the meaning of the terms na`im and mitnamnem, which is then of great utility in understanding the Mishna. The gemara makes this clear by stating immediately thereafter ותנן נתנמנמו יאכלו נרדמו לא יאכלו.

Could this be the source text of the transfer, and all other sugyot destinations? Perhaps. Rav Ashi is giving his definition directly on a Mishna, just as he was in Megillah. And this particular gemara seems a vortex for defining mitnamnem, so Rav Ashi's statement would be quite at home here.

On the other hand, while the gemara in Megillah gives ample basis to expect the words היכי דמי, such that the statement looks quite local there, this gemara in Pesachim does not have other examples of היכי דמי in immediate context.

Furthermore, Rav Ashi is later than Abaye and Rabba. If his statement were local to Pesachim, why lead off with his statement? Better to begin with the earlier statement of Abaye and Rabba, which might well even serve as a basis for his statement.

Finally, what is the need for two definitions here. Abaye and Rabba, with this incident, gave an excellent definition of mitnamnem, and Rav Ashi's statement really just echoes it. It is dozing but not entirely dozing. Certainly it is true that Rav Ashi's statement gives more detail than that, but it really seems that Abaye and Rabba's definition should suffice, and indeed, initially did suffice, to define mitnamnem in Pesachim.

I wrote above that this gemara in Pesachim seemed a vortex for definitions of mitnamnem. A vortex is "a place or situation regarded as drawing into its center all that surrounds it." Indeed, once we have one definition in Pesachim, that of Abaye and Rabba, it is possible that the setama saw fit to engage in inter-sugya borrowing to transfer Rav Ashi's statement from Megillah, in order to shed further light on the topic at hand.

In sum, of the five sources, only Megillah and Pesachim seem likely candidates for the original location of the source-text. The gemara in Taanit appears to be a transfer, and a transfer by the setama digmara, and so I am unconvinced by Rif's argument that the fact that Rav Ashi or the gemara bothered to define mitnamnem, we rule in accordance with the second lashon.

And what of the fact that the setama digmara troubled itself to bring this definition here? I am still not persuaded, firstly because the setama is post-Talmudic and thus not necessarily binding halachically, but secondly and more importantly, I am not convinced that the reason for troubling to bring a definition here is that they held conclusively like the second lashon.

Rather, it seems to me that the gemara is consistent in bringing Rav Ashi's definitional statement wherever the word mitnamnem occurs. Thus, Rav Ashi's statement occurs five times in Shas, and the word mitnamnem occurs in 6 different locations: the five we mentioned (though in Pesachim the word is nitnamnemu/nitnamnem, leading with a nun rather than a mem) plus one instance in Berachot 3b:

ודוד בפלגא דליליא הוה קאי מאורתא הוה קאי דכתיב (תהילים קיט) קדמתי בנשף ואשועה וממאי דהאי נשף אורתא הוא דכתיב (משלי ז) בנשף בערב יום באישון לילה ואפילה אמר רב אושעיא אמר רבי אחא הכי קאמר <דוד> מעולם לא עבר עלי חצות לילה בשינה. רבי זירא אמר עד חצות לילה היה מתנמנם כסוס מכאן ואילך היה מתגבר כארי רב אשי אמר עד חצות לילה היה עוסק בדברי תורה מכאן ואילך בשירות ותשבחות.

Why does the gemara not give Rav Ashi's definition here? There are a few possible reasons. Firstly, it is clear that David did not entirely sleep from context. Second, it gives its own definition here of היה מתנמנם כסוס. Thirdly, in this instance Rav Ashi himself holds that he was not mitnamnem but rather was learning Torah, so it might appear awkward to offer Rav Ashi's definition immediately before Rav Ashi's denial. Finally, an exact definition is not required here since this is narrative aggada rather than halachic material that might (but might not) require technical definition if we were to rule in accordance with it.

In all other contexts, though, mitnamnem is defined by Rav Ashi's statement. This suggests to me that the motivating factor is simply to transfer and apply a known Amoraic statement consistently to other sugyot because of the ambiguity of the word mitnamnem, rather than a concern prompted by a knowledge that we rule in accordance with a specific opinion.

Should It Be *Rov* HaHodaot or *Kel* HaHodaot?

I'm going to start by asking a bunch of vicious questions of the gemara, in order to break it down, in order to be able to build it up again. As we say in the beginning of Yirmiyahu:

ט וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוָה אֶת-יָדוֹ, וַיַּגַּע עַל-פִּי; וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי, הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי דְבָרַי בְּפִיךָ.	9 Then the LORD put forth His hand, and touched my mouth; and the LORD said unto me: Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth;
י רְאֵה הִפְקַדְתִּיךָ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, עַל-הַגּוֹיִם וְעַל-הַמַּמְלָכוֹת, לִנְתוֹשׁ וְלִנְתוֹץ, וּלְהַאֲבִיד וְלַהֲרוֹס--לִבְנוֹת, וְלִנְטוֹעַ. {פ}	10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to overthrow; to build, and to plant.

I - Girsaot of the Gemara

The gemara in question is as regards the closing of the blessing on rain.
Berachot 59b, also Taanit 6b-7a:

מה מברכים?

אמר רב יהודה: מודים אנחנו לך על כל טפה וטפה שהורדת לנו,
ורבי יוחנן מסיים בה הכי: אילו פינו מלא שירה כים... אין אנו מספיקין להודות לך ה' אלהינו... תשתחוה, ברוך אתה ה' רוב ההודאות.
רוב ההודאות ולא כל ההודאות? - אמר רבא: אימא האל ההודאות.
אמר רב פפא: הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו רוב ההודאות והאל ההודאות

We find a slightly different girsa of this cited by the Rif in Taanit (Rif Taanit 2a):

א"ר אבהו מאימתי מברכין על הגשמים משיצא חתן לקראת כלה
מאי מברך
אמר רב יהודה מודים אנחנו לך על כל טיפה וטיפה שהורדת לנו
ר' יוחנן מסיים בה הכי ואילו פינו מלא שירה כים עד הן הם יודו ויברכו את שמך מלכנו וכו' ברוך רוב ההודאות
רוב ההודאות ולא כל ההודאות
אלא אימא אל ההודאות
אמר רב פפא הילכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו ברוך רוב ההודאות ואל ההודאות:

My translation of the Rif:

Rabbi Abahu said: From when do we bless on the rains? When the groom goes out to greet the bride.
What does he bless? Rav Yehuda said {Bach: cited Rav}: We are thankful to You for each and every drop which you cause to descend for us.
Rabbi Yochanan would conclude it as follows: And if our mouths were as full of song as the sea ... they would praise and bless Your Name, our King ... Blessed is the with the Majority/Multitude of Praises.
{The stama:} The majority of praises and not all the praises? Rather, say "God of Praises."

{Taanit 7a}
Rav Pappa said: Therefore, we should say both of there. Baruch *Rov* HaHodaot and *Kel* HaHodaot.

The major difference between these two girsaot is that in the first one, it is Rava who states אימא האל ההודאות. In the Rif's version of this, it is introduced with אלא אימא, and thus is a continuation of the setama digmara.

This makes a big difference, in terms of who is answering the question posed by the setama digmara. (In general, we assume that the setama digmara is post-Ravina/Rav Ashi, which means well post-Rava and well post-Rav Pappa.) It also makes a difference in whether we looking at an emendation or an argument with Rabbi Yochanan's position.

II - The First Girsa

According to the first version, Rabbi Yochanan says we end Baruch Rov HaHodaot, which is understood to mean "Blessed with the Majority of Praises." The setama digmara then objects: How can we say that God is Blessed with the Majority, which implies not all! This consideration apparently inspires the earlier Rava to give a different nusach, Kel HaHodaot, "God of Praises." Which means that this particular setama is either not as late as we thought, or else is elaborating Rava's thought process in giving this alternate nusach.

Rav Pappa then sees these two different nuschaot, and suggests the nusach kilayim, a hybrid of the two nuschaot. Say both Rov HaHodaot and Kel HaHodaot.

Say what?!?!

How in the world does this fix anything? If Rava, or the setama, is truly bothered by Rov implying the Majority but not All, then mentioning the word Rov would be objectionable even in the presence of Kel HaHodaot! Kel was proposed as an alternative to, not as a supplement to Rov!

It is hard to see what Rav Pappa is accomplishing here.

III - The Second Girsa

We are faced with a similar problem with the second girsa, that of the Rif. According to this second version, Rabbi Yochanan says we end Baruch Rov HaHodaot, which is understood to mean "Blessed with the Majority of Praises." The setama digmara then objects: How can we say that God is Blessed with the Majority, which implies not all! Therefore, the setama digmara (rather than Rava) concludes that we should rather say Kel HaHodaot.

As is typical of setama digmara suggestions, it would seem that they are saying that Rabbi Yochanan must not have said Rov HaHodaot, but rather, in reporting his statement, we should say that Rabbi Yochanan said we should say Kel HaHodaot. (We do not have the issue of Rava dealing with the setama.)

Rav Pappa then sees both nuschaot and says, "therefore we should say both Rov haHodaot and Kel haHodaot. How can Rav Pappa deal with the setama. This is an issue here, but in many many other sugyot as well. Rav Pappa consistently deals with the setama, and so this interaction, or perhaps the identity of this Rav Pappa, is a standard issue. We might actually get a resolution in this analysis (so stay tuned).

But once again, Say What?!?!?

If the setama's objection was that Rov implies the Majority and not All, and even emended the text of Rabbi Yochanan's statement, or else suggested its own alternative, how can Rav Pappa propose to treat it as a supplement? If Rov is objectionable, it is objectionable! Indeed, it almost seems as if Rav Pappa did not read, or react to, this objection. (Hint, hint.)

IV - Which Girsa Is Preferable?
My first inclination is to choose the Rif's girsa over the standard gemara, as it is often the girsa of the geonim. Furthermore, the אלא אימא is what I would expect rather than אמר רבא אימא. And Rav Pappa's interaction with the setama is what I would prefer.

Yet Rava as the one offering a different nusach, rather than the setama offering a different version of Rabbi Yochanan's statement, makes slightly more sense in terms of Rav Pappa harmonizing the two nuschaot (of two different, earlier Amoraim). Though of course we have the objection that a harmonious girsa would not resolve the setama's objections.

At this point, I favor the Rif's girsa, but perhaps that will change.

V - The Problem With The Setama's Objection
There is a major problem with the setama's objection that Rov implies the Majority and not All. This is a misunderstanding of the word Rov. Rov can either mean "myriad, multitude," or else it can mean "majority." In all likelihood, Rabbi Yochanan meant it in the former sense rather than the latter sense, and that is why he was not troubled by the issue.

Then, if this is what is bothering Rava, then Rava is only bothered because he misunderstood the word. If it is the setama digmara who makes this emendation, then he is explicitly bothered by, and emends Rabbi Yochanan's statement (or proposes his own version) on the basis of a misunderstanding of the word. We need not concern ourselves at the moment with how Rav Pappa understood this word, since his nusach is a harmonious nusach.

Indeed, we see a similar happenstance in the nusach of Nishmat. As I wrote here in this post on parshablog, regarding lectio difficilior:

In Nishmat, which we say on Shabbat and Yom Tov after Az Yashir, there are two versions of the text. One has HaMehulal BeRov HaTishbachot {Who is extolled through a multitude of praises}, and the other has HaMehulal BeChol HaTishbachot {Who is extolled through all of the praises}. Of the two, which is the more original, and thus, more likely correct?

There is a principle often used to determine this called lectio difficilior - the difficult word. That is, the seemingly more difficult word is the more original. This is because one would have an inclination to emend the text to correct it from a more difficult reading to an easier one, but one would not have an inclination in the opposite direction.

Probably, what happened here is that the original was HaMehulal BeRov HaTishbachot. Someone objected, saying: How can you say that Hashem is extolled only through the majority of praises. He is God, so he should be praised through all praises. To say otherwise is heresy! As a result, they corrected the text to HaMehulal BeChol HaTishbachot.

In answer to why Hashem is only praised with the majority of praises, He is actually praised with the multitude of praises.

(In that same post, I give the example from the end of Megillat Esther, וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו, "and accepted of the multitude of his brethren;")

Now we see what inspired this. It is, after all, the exact same objection as brought up by the setama digmara!

Of course, some proof that this is the intended meaning of Rov in this instance would be nice. I shall present this in the next section.

VI - Evidence That Rov Means Multitude/Myriad Rather Than Majority

Rabbi Yochanan is an Amora from Eretz Yisrael, so we might find evidence as to the intended meaning of Rov in the Talmud Yerushalmi. Indeed, there is a parallel gemara there:

The Yerushalmi:

רבי יהודה בר יחזקאל אמר אבא מברך על ירידת גשמים יתגדל ויתקדש ויתברך ויתרומם שמך מלכינו על כל טיפה וטיפה שאת מוריד לנו שאת ממניען זו מזו.

...

רבי יוסי בר יעקב סלק מבקרא רבי יודן מגדליא. עד דהוא תמן נחת מיטרא ושמע קליה אמר אלף אלפין וריבי ריבוון חייבין להודות לשמך מלכינו על כל טיפה וטיפה שאת מוריד לנו שאת גומל טובה לחייבים. אמר ליה הדא מנא לך. אמר ליה הכין הוה רבי סימון מברך על ירידת גשמים.

To translate the portion above marked in red, as part of the nusach of the blessing, he said: "A thousand thousands (= 1 million) and a myriad (=10 thousand) myriads (=100 million) are we obligated to praise Your Name, our King, on each and every drop that you cause to descend for us..."

Note that the word myriad used here is Rov, multitude. And this is the nusach of the blessing. And it refers to the number of praises. It makes a lot of sense that when Rabbi Yochanan closed the blessing, "Blessed with Rov Praises," he meant this myriad of praises, as mentioned in Talmud Yerushalmi.

VI - Apparent Halachic Fallout

If we were to stop here, then we would have to consider the appropriate halachic fallout. Should it matter that the impetus was a mistaken understanding of the word Rov? Should we say that the Savoraim were Batrai, later, yet part of the gemara, and so we rule in accordance with them, even if we are convinced that they are wrong? Or does correctness matter? Do we say that Ravina/Rav Ashi were sof horaah, and the Savoraim were after that, so we can rule in accordance with the Amoraim over the Savoraim? What about Rav Pappa? He is Batrai, after both Rabbi Yochanan and Rava (if Rava indeed occurs in the gemara), and he is an Amora, so we should rule in accordance with him. But does he base himself on the same objection of the setama? We might assume so, but on the other hand, what are we to make of his harmonizing nusach, which does not work to resolve the setama's objection. Furthermore, which girsa should we chose - the one in which the setama makes the suggestion, or the one with Rava?

I could say what my inclinations are here (that the girsa without Rava is correct, and that we should rule only like Rabbi Yochanan's original nusach, discarding the usual klalei horaah), but it is irrelevant, because the analysis is not over. There are two further things to point out that will change the battlefield topology entirely.

VII - Rava Argues, But For A Different Reason
One thing to realize when dealing with the setama digmara is that even though it sometimes is situated in the text before some statement, chronologically it may well have been added later.

If so, it is useful to strip out all setamas, and see what the gemara looks like beforehand, and then see what the setama added. In this analysis, we assume the first girsa of the gemara, in which Rava suggests Kel HaHodaot, rather than the girsa of the Rif.

מה מברכים?

אמר רב יהודה: מודים אנחנו לך על כל טפה וטפה שהורדת לנו,

ורבי יוחנן מסיים בה הכי: אילו פינו מלא שירה כים... אין אנו מספיקין להודות לך ה' אלהינו... תשתחוה, ברוך אתה ה' רוב ההודאות.

אמר רבא: אימא האל ההודאות.

אמר רב פפא: הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו רוב ההודאות והאל ההודאות

Thus, the objection that Rov implies Majority rather than All is not initially present in the gemara. What else can account for the dispute between Rava and Rabbi Yochanan?

A straightforward answer would be geography. Rabbi Yochanan was an Amora from Eretz Yisrael while Rava was from Bavel. Each area would naturally develop its own customs and own nusach. Thus, the gemara records nusach Eretz Yisrael and nusach Bavel.

Rav Pappa then adds what he adds elsewhere in Shas - the hybrid nusach. In other instances, when faced with two nuschaot, Rav Pappa says to say both. And this is just what he says here.

Thus, the problem was never that Rov implied Majority rather than All. It was a nusach that differed by area, and Rav Pappa suggested to combine the nuschaot. Then, the setama digmara wanted to supplement the gemara. It assumed that Rava actively rejected Rabbi Yochanan's nusach for a specific reason. It searched for a reason and came up with the implication of Majority vs. All, and inserted that explanation into the text of the gemara. This caused two problems - first, this was not the reason for the difference in nusach, and second, is rendered Rav Pappa's harmonization opinion nonsensical, for Rov would still be present in the nusach.

If this is so, there is no problem maintaining Rav Pappa's nusach.

VIII - Perhaps Rav Pappa Never Said It
The other thing to point out is that it is quite possible that Rav Pappa never actually suggested this hybrid nusach. This will work out both with the standard girsa and the Rif's girsa.

When a segment of gemara occurs in more than one sugya, it is usually safe to assume that it originated in one of the two locations. In this instance, I believe it originated in masechet Berachot and was transferred over to masechet Taanit.

So let us turn to Berachot, and see what Rav Pappa says there. Something to realize is that "Therefore let us say both" is an extremely Pappaitic statement, and those words, followed by the hybrid nusach or practice occurs elsewhere in Shas. Indeed, in its immediate proximity in masechet Brachot, we see Rav Pappa say just this several times.

In Berachot 60b {text drawn from my translation and commentary on Rif Berachot 44a}:

On entering a privy one should say: Be honoured, ye honoured and holy ones that minister to the Most High. Give honour to the God of Israel. Preserve me, preserve me, help me, help me, support me, support me, till I have entered and come forth, for this is the way of human beings.
{This is a combined saying, as per the usual suggestion of Rav Pappa.}

When he comes out he says: Blessed is He who has formed man in wisdom and created in him many orifices and many cavities. It is fully known before the throne of Thy glory that if one of them should be [improperly] opened or one of them closed it would be impossible for a man to stand before Thee, even one hour. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who healest all flesh and doest wonderfully.
{again, the conclusion is a combined saying, due to Rav Pappa.}

In each case, Rav Pappa created a hybrid nusach, but Rif just cites the hybrid nusach rather than the nusach in development as well.

In Berachot 59a {again drawing from my translation, Rif Berachot 43b}:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who sees the rainbow in the clouds should say 'Blessed is He who remembers the Covenant.'
{our gemara: One who sees the rainbow in the clouds should fall on his face... what blessing does he say? 'Blessed is He who remembers the Covenant.'}
In a brayta they taught: {he should say} Who is faithful with his Covenant and fulfils his word.

Rav Papa said: Therefore let us say both: Blessed is He who remembers the Covenant, Who is faithful with his Covenant and fulfils his word.

Another example is in Megillah 21b, though of course this is not local to Berachot.

מאי מברך רב ששת מקטרזיא איקלע לקמיה דרב אשי ובריך מנ"ח לאחריה מאי מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם <האל> הרב את ריבנו והדן את דיננו והנוקם את נקמתנו והנפרע לנו מצרינו והמשלם גמול לכל אויבי נפשנו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם רבא אמר האל המושיע אמר רב פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו ברוך אתה ה' הנפרע לישראל מכל צריהם האל המושיע

Interestingly enough, here we have Rav Pappa's harmonization, and the latter of the two being harmonized is Rava saying HaKel ha-X, in this case haMoshia'. This brings credence to the idea that the standard girsa, with Rava offering the alternate nusach, is the correct one.

This is then Rav Pappa being consistent in his position, Rav Pappa leshitato.

The possibility exists, though, that this is a known Pappaitic statement, and the setama is just applying Rav Pappa's statement, which occurs often enough in close proximity, to this statement in the Berachot--Taanit gemara as well (detailing, as is always done, what the hybrid nusach would be), even though a hybrid nusach does not in fact solve the problem raised by the setama and possibly motivating Rava. The order in which this would occur is up in the air.

IX - Conclusion
If so, it is quite possible that Rava (and not the setama) said to say this nusach, but not for the reason given by the gemara. And it is possible that I was wrong in my analysis, and the setama's objection is in fact a valid objection. And it is possible that Rav Pappa said to say this hybrid nusach, lishitato, whatever Rava's reason was. And even if Rav Pappa did not say here to say a hybrid nusach, both initial nuschaot were extant, and we might consider the hybrid to be matbea' shetav'u bah Chachamim. Further, this has become the accepted nusach.

(Perhaps. See this post at Yeranen Yaakov about the correct nusach, and the issue of whether we should say anything nowadays (which he links to).

He notes that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel is telling people to say this blessing. He notes that the article he links to has the nusach:

"ברוך אתה ה' קל ההודאות".

which is Rava/initial stama, omitting the word rov.

that the Chief Rabbinate's nusach is actually different:

"ברוך אתה ה' קל רוב ההודאות".

which is in turn different from that of our gemara:

רוב ההודאות והאל ההודאות

which is in turn different than Rambam (who presumably had a different girsa of the gemara:

ברוך אתה ה', רוב ההודיות אל התושבחות
)

Please note: This is not intended as a discussion halacha lemaaseh. Ask your local orthodox rabbi.