Ulla’s fellows

An interesting Tosafot from last Monday’s daf (Chullin 34). First, the gemara writes:

אמר עולא חבריא אמרין בחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש ודלא כרבי יהושע

Ulla said: My colleagues say that the mishna is referring to the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificialfood, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, but non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.

ואנא אמינא רבי יהושע היא ולא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא חולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש דחמירי דאית בהו שלישי אלא אפילו חולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה נמי אית בהו שלישי

Ulla continues: And I say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and when he said that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma assume third-degree impurity, he is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food, which is stringent, that they have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity. Rather, even non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma also have the capacity of assuming third-degree impurity.

מאן חבריא רבה בר בר חנה היא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מאי אהדרי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע להדדי

The Gemara asks: Who are the colleagues to whom Ulla referred? It is Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua reply to each other? The differences between their opinions are twofold. First, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with first-degree impurity assumes first-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity. Second, Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity, while according to Rabbi Yehoshua he assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food but not vis-à-vis teruma.

Tosafot wonders why not say that the “colleagues” refers to Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat, who said this very think on the previous amud. And answers that Rabbi Eleazar is Ulla’s teacher, not a colleague, giving two examples of Ulla citing Rabbi Eleazar.

 מאן חבריא רבה בר בר חנה - לא ר"ל רבי אלעזר דלעיל דלא הוה קרי ליה חבריא דרבו הוה כדאמר בפ"ק דב"ק (דף יא:) וביש נוחלין (ב"ב דף קכח.) דאמר עולא אמר רבי אלעזר הלכה גובין מן העבדים אבל קשיא אמאי לא קאמר עולא רבותי אומרים ונראה דרבי אלעזר לא קאמר לעיל יותר אלא הכא בחולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש עסקינן והש"ס הוא דמסיים ודלא כרבי יהושע: 

While mi vami hasn’t explicitly recorded R’ Eleazar as Ulla’s teacher, we do have the citation relationships when looking globally across the Talmud.

Chavraya implies to me multiple people, rather than just one. And interestingly, in both cases of this position, these are people citing a previous generation. It is Rabbi Eleazar citing Rabbi Oshaya, and Rabba bar bar Chana citing Rabbi Yochanan.