Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,
I'm confused by the following exchange:
R. Kahana asked Rab: "What about a canopy?" "A bed too is forbidden." "What about a bed?" "A canopy too is permitted," he replied. "What about a canopy and a bed?" "A canopy is forbidden," he replied, "while a bed is permitted." Yet there are no contradictions: when he said, "A bed too is forbidden," [he meant one] like that used by the Carmanians.
* * * Why when asked about a canopy, does Rab answer about a bed, and why when asked about a bed, does he answer about a canopy?
I was wondering if there was a problem with the text, and discovered (it only took me a month to notice this) that your Girsa Section has been missing since Daf 106.
- Charles Stein
There does not seem to be any problem with the text and no changes are recorded in the commentaries. Rather, when Rav Kahana asked Rav about a canopy and he answered concerning a bed, and when Rav Kahana asked Rav about a bed and he answered concerning a canopy, perhaps he was alluding to the different laws concerning the different types of beds and canopies. Alternatively, by being confusing and not specific in his answer, Rav may have been teaching his student to ask his question in a less confusing manner (and to specify what type of canopy or bed he was inquiring about).
Also, Rashi in Chulin (110a) says that the teachers sometimes spoke in riddles in order to sharpen their students.
Y. Shaw