Students of Rav Huna who became infertile or sick due to his long lectures; Story of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Four Sisters in Tzipori; Story of R’ Yohanan; Story of Abaye and Huma
fascinating stuff. two questions. in the second story, the conclusion is inferred not obvious. the mother comes to rav yitzchak and asks her shaila. the commentary may conclude that there's significance that three of her sisters lost children to circumcision, but what if the second or third sister had come to rav yitzchak? would he have said no, wait and see?
in the third story, it is not parallel to the teaching of the second, which is that three instances are needed to prove a pattern. abaye is the third instance. so why does his decision need any justification at all? the story should be about the next rabbi who marries her (or doesn't)!
1) "what if the second or third sister had come to rav yitzchak? would he have said no, wait and see?"
I assume you mean the story of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Four Sisters in Tzipori? The talmud itself asks this question (I elided this part in my piece):
"
ודלמא אי אתיא שלישית נמי הוה אמר לה?
אם כן, מאי אסהדותיה דרבי חייא בר אבא?
ודלמא הא קא משמע לן דאחיות מחזקות.
The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps if the third sister had come before him he would also have said to her the same ruling.
The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s testimony? Why would he have related this incident if it does not teach us anything?
The Gemara answers: Perhaps he comes to teach us that sisters establish a presumption in a case like this even though the children who died were not from the same mother.
2) "in the third story, it is not parallel to the teaching of the second, which is that three instances are needed to prove a pattern. abaye is the third instance. so why does his decision need any justification at all? the story should be about the next rabbi who marries her (or doesn't)!"
True, the two stories that I quote in the piece about the decisions of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and R’ Yohanan, are to show that a a presumption (chazaka) is established only after three occurrences.
But this is as opposed to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (which I elided in the piece, and I quote at the end of this comment), who holds that two occurrences is sufficeint to set a pattern. So Rava is surprised that Abaye would rely on R' Yitzchak's testimony about R' Yochanan, that we pasken that three occurrences are needed, and not two.
"
מתניתין מני?
רבי היא.
דתניא: מלה הראשון ומת, שני ומת, שלישי — לא תמול, דברי רבי.
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: שלישי תמול, רביעי — לא תמול.
The Gemara comments: Who is the tanna of the mishna?
It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a legal presumption [ḥazaka] is established after two occurrences.
As it is taught in a baraita: If a woman circumcised her first son and he died as a result of the circumcision, and she circumcised her second son and he also died, she should not circumcise her third son, as the deaths of the first two produce a presumption that this woman’s sons die as a result of circumcision. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She should circumcise her third son, as there is not considered to be a legal presumption that her sons die from circumcision, but she should not circumcise her fourth son if her first three sons died from circumcision.
fascinating stuff. two questions. in the second story, the conclusion is inferred not obvious. the mother comes to rav yitzchak and asks her shaila. the commentary may conclude that there's significance that three of her sisters lost children to circumcision, but what if the second or third sister had come to rav yitzchak? would he have said no, wait and see?
in the third story, it is not parallel to the teaching of the second, which is that three instances are needed to prove a pattern. abaye is the third instance. so why does his decision need any justification at all? the story should be about the next rabbi who marries her (or doesn't)!
1) "what if the second or third sister had come to rav yitzchak? would he have said no, wait and see?"
I assume you mean the story of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Four Sisters in Tzipori? The talmud itself asks this question (I elided this part in my piece):
"
ודלמא אי אתיא שלישית נמי הוה אמר לה?
אם כן, מאי אסהדותיה דרבי חייא בר אבא?
ודלמא הא קא משמע לן דאחיות מחזקות.
The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps if the third sister had come before him he would also have said to her the same ruling.
The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s testimony? Why would he have related this incident if it does not teach us anything?
The Gemara answers: Perhaps he comes to teach us that sisters establish a presumption in a case like this even though the children who died were not from the same mother.
"
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Yevamot.64b.12
2) "in the third story, it is not parallel to the teaching of the second, which is that three instances are needed to prove a pattern. abaye is the third instance. so why does his decision need any justification at all? the story should be about the next rabbi who marries her (or doesn't)!"
True, the two stories that I quote in the piece about the decisions of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and R’ Yohanan, are to show that a a presumption (chazaka) is established only after three occurrences.
But this is as opposed to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (which I elided in the piece, and I quote at the end of this comment), who holds that two occurrences is sufficeint to set a pattern. So Rava is surprised that Abaye would rely on R' Yitzchak's testimony about R' Yochanan, that we pasken that three occurrences are needed, and not two.
"
מתניתין מני?
רבי היא.
דתניא: מלה הראשון ומת, שני ומת, שלישי — לא תמול, דברי רבי.
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: שלישי תמול, רביעי — לא תמול.
The Gemara comments: Who is the tanna of the mishna?
It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a legal presumption [ḥazaka] is established after two occurrences.
As it is taught in a baraita: If a woman circumcised her first son and he died as a result of the circumcision, and she circumcised her second son and he also died, she should not circumcise her third son, as the deaths of the first two produce a presumption that this woman’s sons die as a result of circumcision. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She should circumcise her third son, as there is not considered to be a legal presumption that her sons die from circumcision, but she should not circumcise her fourth son if her first three sons died from circumcision.
"
https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.64b.9