Rava said that Shiva for a delayed report is one day even for parents (we previously established Rebbe Akiva with this view & SHmuel saying the halacha goes by the lenient one). Rav Nassan Bar Ami questions Rava from a Braissa that for a parent a delayed report is 7 days. Rava Answers that this Braissa is an individual and he goes and identifies him. Part of his proof is something with Rebbe Achiya. The gemarah asks on this that R. Chiya says differently and we answer that R. Achiya and Rav Chiya are 2 different people.
(a) Who cares what the Braissa says if we follow the lenient one anyway? Rava should've answered this instead of that it's a Daas Yochid?
(b) In the Baraisa how is it an individual? They bring down more than one person with this view, R. Elisha, the Zkainim with him and R. Achiya?
(c) Why would anyone confuse R. Chiya an amora with R. Achiya? R. never appears in Baraisos I thought (even though he is a talmud of Rebbe)?
Thanks
Moshe Klass
Reb Moshe,
(a) The question of the Gemara is not that there exists a third opinion. Rather, the Gemara is suggesting that the new Beraisa may be qualifying the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. The Beraisa seems to imply ("ba'Meh Devarim Amurim") that even Rebbi Akiva, who stated that Shemu'ah Rechokah is mourned for one day, limited his ruling to other relatives. For a father or mother, even a Shemu'ah Rechokah requires seven days of mourning. If so, no Tana will allow a single day of mourning for a Shemu'ah Rechokah of a father or mother.
(b) Your question is discussed in the Rishonim. The Ritva writes that "Yechida'a" simply means that it is not a Halachic opinion (it is like a Da'as Yachid), since we rule like Rebbi Akiva. That is, the Beraisa is not qualifying the opinion of Rebbi, but rather it is qualifying the opinion of the Rabanan.
The Tosfos Rosh suggests that although the opinion of Rebbi Elisha ben Avuyah was shared by the five Zekeinim that accompanied him, many more elders opposed it (i.e. Rebbi Akiva, the Rabanan). It is called Da'as Yachid relative to the many who argued with it.
The Rashash and Sefas Emes suggest a different approach to the Gemara entirely. Certainly Rebbi Elisha ben Avuyah's opinion was not a Da'as Yachid, since the elders who accompanied him ruled along with him. However, the Beraisa which distinguished - according to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva - between mother, father and other relatives, is a Da'as Yachid. According to everyone else, Rebbi Akiva's opinion does not distinguish between a mother or father and other relatives. The proof for this is the story of Rebbi Elisha ben Avuyah, which is part of the Beraisa in Semachos (ch. 12) which explains the opinion of the Rabanan . It is clear from the ruling of Rebbi Elisha ben Avuyah that the Rabanan were arguing with Rebbi Akiva over the practice of mourning for a mother or father. Rebbi Akiva required only a single day of mourning for the Shemu'ah Rechokah of a mother or father. The Beraisa, then, which distinguished (according to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva) between a mother or father and other relatives, must be a Da'as Yachid.
(c) The story of Rebbi Achiyah is not part of the Beraisa (see Semachos 12:1). It is a separate Sugya.
But I disagree with your basic premise in either case. All of the students of Rebbi appear in Beraisos (Rav Chaim Kanievsky, in b'Sha'ar ha'Melech, p. 41). See, for example, the Beraisos in Shabbos 20a, 53b, Moed Katan 7b, etc., which quote Rebbi Chiya. The leading Alef was often dropped from Arameic names, as the Aruch writes (Erech Abaya). Hence, Rebbi Abba became Rabah, etc. Besides, Achiyah may have been the Hebrew version of his name after he came to Israel (Chulin 86a, see Berachos, top of 63b). It is possible that he dropped the Alef since he pronounced the Ches like an Ayin or Heh (see Megilah 24b, Moed Katan 16b), which makes it very difficult to pronounce the two consecutive guttural consonants.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld