Revisiting Sugyot with the Phrase “Ini Veha”

Ini veha sugyot are composed of two strands: amoraic materials and stam (anonymous) comments. If we accept the view that the amoraic strand is older and that the stam was later interpolated into the sugya, it is possible to look at the sugya in two distinct ways: first as the sugya now reads, an amalgam of memra and stam, and second as an amoraic proto-sugya, with stam removed.

We will first read the sugya with the stam: an ini veha sugya usually opens with a memra. The stam then asks, “Is this so? Didn’t an amora teach (or act) otherwise?” A second memra or amoraic anecdote follows. The stam resolves the apparent conflict between the two, suggesting that the second memra was merely creating a few exceptions to the first. The first thus stands.

If we then read the same sugya without the stam, we notice that the amoraic proto-sugya is generally composed of two amoraic statements. The amora in the first statement lived earlier than the amora in the second. By juxtaposing these two amoraic texts, the editor is suggesting that the statement of the first amora was regarded as acceptable until a second amora came along and modified it. The editor, thus, is of the opinion that if a later amora senses that an adjustment needs to be made to an earlier stated halakhah, he may go ahead and make it. He may either restate the halakhah in his own terms or behave according to his own view of the matter.

Upon comparing the two versions of the same sugya, we see that the stam reinterpreted the amoraic sugya. Whereas the amoraic version of the sugya suggested that halakhic modification is a feature of amoraic thinking, the stam pulled back, suggesting that a later amora may only create exceptions to an earlier rule, but not modify it. Analysis of several ini veha sugyot will provide the basis for these observations.