Rav Aha b. Rav Ika

Fifth Generation of Amoraim. Rav Ika, his father, married the sister of Rav Aha bar Yaakov, and she bore him Rav Aha. As the Gemara states: Rav Aha bar Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If one betroths conditionally and then cohabits, everyone agrees that she does not require a divorce from him, since his cohabitation is based on his initial condition. Rav Aha, the son of Rav Ika and his sister's son, raised an objection against him. [כתובות עד.] He lived in a place called "Pupanai," where his uncle also resided, and he undoubtedly learned Torah from him. (See the incident with Rav Aha bar Tahalifa) In the academy of Rav Ashi, he was a leading scholar and disagreed with Rav Ashi. He spoke in the name of Rav Bivi bar Abaye and was a companion of Rav Papa. His halakhic rulings have been preserved for us through his student, Rav Huna bar Manuah, who always quoted him.

His Father in Abaye's Generation

Rav Ika, Rav Aha's father, used to sell wine to non-Jews. He would pour the wine from barrels into leather wineskins that they brought with them. In exchange for the barrels, he would transport them across the river and retrieve his empty barrels. They came and asked Abaye: Is it permissible for Rav Ika to benefit from the payment for the wine? Abaye told them: The wine is not forbidden as 'yayin nesekh' (libation wine) until it reaches the bottom of the non-Jew's wineskin. Therefore, Rav Ika exerted himself permissibly, and the payment for the wine is permissible for enjoyment. They further objected to Abaye: But Rav Ika wants the wine to be preserved and that the wineskins should not burst, so that they would need the barrels and not return them to him! Abaye replied: Rav Ika made a condition with them that they would give him the barrels even if the wineskins broke. From this, we see that he does not desire the preservation of the wine, therefore his payment is permissible. Or it can be said: The non-Jews brought alternative vessels in case the wineskins broke, and there is no concern that these alternative vessels would also break, therefore his payment is permissible. They further asked Abaye: But Rav Ika transported them across the river and exerted effort in transporting 'yayin nesekh', so why is his payment permissible? Abaye replied: Rav Ika is responsible for the boats on the river, and it is understood that he told the ferryman who transported them across the river to do so for free. Or it can be said: Rav Ika gave a sign to the ferryman, and thus the ferryman knew to transport them for free, and he did not exert any effort in their transport, therefore his payment is permissible. [ע"ז סה:]

His Sayings

Rav Huna bar Manuah said in the name of Rav Aha b. Rav Ika: It is permissible for an Israelite to say to an idol worshipper: "Take your idol and place it in your 'shin tav' (buttocks)," meaning, place it on your private parts, from the expression in [מגילה כה:] – the verse: "…and the naked buttocks, the nakedness of Egypt." [ישעיה כ, ד]

Illustrating the Halakha

We learned in the Mishnah: If one was dressed in a garment of mixed wool and linen (kilayim) and was warned by two witnesses that it is a Torah prohibition! Each time he was warned, he would remove the garment and put it on again, making him liable for each instance of the prohibition of kilayim. Rav Bivi said in the name of Rav Assi: If he was warned, he does not actually need to remove and put on the garment. Rather, even if he merely inserted and removed his hand from the sleeve of the garment, he transgresses an additional prohibition of wearing kilayim. Rav Aha b. Rav Ika demonstrated how to illustrate actual wearing and removing, and this is the form of the prohibition of wearing kilayim to be liable each and every time. Rav Ashi disagrees and says: Even if he does not actually remove and put on the garment, if he was warned and paused for the duration it takes to remove and put on, he is liable for each instance. [מכות כא:]

His Acumen

Rav Aha b. Rav Ika said: Regarding matters of admissions and loans, from a Torah perspective, a single judge is fit to rule, as it is stated in the Torah: "With righteousness shall you judge your fellow," [ויקרא יט, טו] which is in the singular form. However, the Sages ordained that a single individual should not judge, due to 'yoshvei karnot' (those who sit at street corners, i.e., unqualified individuals), meaning: An individual who is not proficient in halakhot and their reasons might declare the liable party innocent and the innocent party liable. The Gemara asks: What is the benefit of the Sages' ordinance! For three 'yoshvei karnot' might gather and render an unjust judgment? The Gemara answers: It is impossible that among these three, there would not be one who has heard the halakhot of monetary laws from the Sages and judges. The Gemara objects to Rav Aha b. Rav Ika: If these three are fit to judge even from a Torah perspective, if they erred in their judgment, would they not pay like expert judges who do not pay? The Gemara replies: If the law were that they would not pay from their own pockets when they erred in their judgment, then many 'yoshvei karnot' judges would proliferate. But when they have to pay if they err, they will be motivated to learn the laws of the Torah so that they will know how to render a true judgment. [סנהדרין ג.]

His Opinion Among the Sages

We learned that one of the commandments for which a person is obligated to give up his life rather than transgress is illicit sexual relations. An incident recounted by Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rav: There was a man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and his soul yearned to cohabit with her. From the intensity of his desire and the frustration of not achieving his wish, he became ill at heart. They came to consult with doctors. The doctors said: He has no remedy for his illness and will not be cured until she cohabits with him! They came and asked the Sages, who said: Let him die, but she shall not cohabit with him! The doctors said: At least let her stand naked before him! The Sages said: Let him die, but she shall not stand naked before him! The doctors said: At least let her converse with him from behind a fence, and he will not see her, and his pain will be relieved! The Sages said: Let him die, but she shall not converse with him from behind the fence! Regarding this incident, two Amoraim disagreed: Rav Yaakov bar Iddi and Rav Shmuel bar Nahmani. One said: This woman was a married woman, and therefore the Sages forbade doing anything. The other said: She was an unmarried woman, and nevertheless, the Sages forbade everything. For the one who held she was a married woman, it is clear and simple why the Sages forbade her to do so, for the prohibition of illicit sexual relations requires one to die rather than transgress! But according to the one who held she was unmarried, why were the Sages so stringent? Rav Papa replied: The Sages were stringent due to the blemish to the family, meaning, the woman's family would be ashamed by it. Rav Aha b. Rav Ika replied: The Sages were so stringent so that the daughters of Israel would not become promiscuous in illicit relations to do such ugly things. The one who held she was unmarried, let them give her to him permissibly and let him marry her, and there would be no fear of promiscuity among the daughters of Israel! And in general, would we not save one soul from Israel? The Sages replied: It would not help, he would not be cured, and that man's mind would not be settled! Because his lust to commit a transgression is so great that he became ill, and the cure for his illness is only if he cohabits with her illicitly! The proof is like the words of Rav Yitzhak who said: From the day the Temple was destroyed, strength has diminished due to many troubles and worries, and no man desires his wife who is permissible to him. Therefore, the pleasure of cohabitation was taken away and given to those who commit transgressions, whom the evil inclination attacks and increases their lust, as it is stated: "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant," [משלי ט, יז] the verse means to say: "Bread" is a metaphor for a woman, as it is said concerning Potiphar: "And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and he did not know anything he had except for the bread that he ate," [בראשית לט, ו] and when the act is done illicitly and in secret, then it is pleasant. [סנהדרין עה.]