Daf Yomi Ketubot 60: How Long Must a Nursing Widow Wait Before Remarriage?

A conflict in what people say, betwen Bavli and Yerushalmi.
From my Rif blog:

{Ketubot 60a}

תנו רבנן מניקה שמת בעלה בתוך כ"ד חדש הרי זו לא תנשא ולא תתארס עד כ"ד חדש דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה מתיר בשמונה עשר חדש
וקי"ל בהא כר"מ
דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו צריכה להמתין כ"ד חדש חוץ מיום שנולד בו וחוץ מיום שנתארסה בו ואפילו נתנה בנה למניקה או גומלתו אסורה לינשא עד כ"ד חדש אבל אם מת מותר
מר בר רב אשי אמר אפילו מת נמי אסור דילמא קטלא ליה ואזלא ומינסבא
הוה עובדא וחנקתיה ולא היא ההיא שוטה הות דלא חנקי נשי לבניהם:

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A nursing mother whose husband died within the 24 months, she may not remarry or become betrothed
{Ketubot 60b}
until 24 months. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda permits at 18 months.

And we establish in this like Rabbi Meir. For Rav and Shmuel both say that she needs to wait 24 months excluding the day in which he was born and excluding the day she is betrothed thereon.

And even if she gives her son to a nurse or weans him, she is forbidden to remarry until 24 months. But if he {=the child} dies, she is permitted.
Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even if he dies also she is forbidden, lest she kill him and go and remarry.
There was an incident in which a woman strangled her infant. And it is not so, for she was an imbecile, for women do not strangle their infants.

I do not take issue with the conclusion here, but there is much to speak of in terms of the opinions mentioned and not mentioned. The Rif was actually excerpting the gemara, which reads in full:

תנו רבנן מינקת שמת בעלה בתוך עשרים וארבעה חדש הרי זו לא תתארס ולא תינשא עד עשרים וארבעה חדש דברי רבי מאיר ור' יהודה מתיר בשמונה עשר חדש אמר רבי נתן בר יוסף הן הן דברי בית שמאי הן הן דברי בית הלל שבית שמאי אומרים עשרים וארבעה חדש ובית הלל אומרים שמונה עשר חדש אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אני אכריע לדברי האומר עשרים וארבעה חדש מותרת לינשא בעשרים ואחד חדש לדברי האומר בשמונה עשר חדש מותרת להנשא בחמשה עשר חדש לפי שאין החלב נעכר אלא לאחר שלשה חדשים

אמר עולא הלכה כרבי יהודה ואמר מר עוקבא לי התיר רבי חנינא לשאת לאחר חמשה עשר חדש

אריסיה דאביי אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה מהו ליארס בחמשה עשר חדש אמר ליה חדא דר"מ ורבי יהודה הלכה כרבי יהודה ועוד בית שמאי ובית הלל הלכה כבית הלל ואמר עולא הלכה כרבי יהודה ואמר מר עוקבא לי התיר רבי חנינא לשאת לאחר חמשה עשר חדש כל שכן דאת ליארס כי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו צריכה להמתין עשרים וארבעה חדש חוץ מיום שנולד בו וחוץ מיום שנתארסה בו רהט בתריה תלתא פרסי ואמרי לה פרסא בחלא ולא אדרכיה

Our Rabbis taught: A nursing mother whose husband died within twenty-four months [of the birth of their child] shall neither be betrothed nor married again until [the completion of the] twenty-four months; so R. Meir. R. Judah however, permits [remarriage] after eighteen months. Said R. Nathan b. Joseph: Those surely, are the very words of Beth Shammai and these are the very words of Beth Hillel; for Beth Shammai ruled: Twenty four months, while Beth Hillel ruled: Eighteen months! R. Simeon b. Gamaliel replied, I will explain: According to the view [that a child must be breast fed for] twenty-four months [a nursing mother] is permitted to marry again after twenty-one months, and according to the view [that it is to be breast fed for] eighteen months she may marry again after fifteen months; because a [nursing mother's] milk deteriorates only three months after [her conception].

'Ulla stated: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of R. Judah; and Mar 'Ukba stated: R. Hanina permitted me to marry [a nursing woman] fifteen months after [the birth of her child].

Abaye's metayer once came to Abaye and asked him: Is it permissible to betroth [a nursing woman] fifteen months after [her child's birth]? — The other answered him: In the first place [whenever there is disagreement] between R. Meir and R. Judah the halachah is in agreement with the view of R. Judah; and, furthermore, [in a dispute between] Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel the halachah is in agreement with the view of Beth Hillel; and while 'Ulla said, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah', Mar 'Ukba stated, 'R. Hanina permitted me to marry [a nursing woman] fifteen months after [the birth of her child]', how much more then [is there no need for you to wait the longer period] since you only intend betrothal. When he came to R. Joseph the latter told him, 'Both Rab and Samuel ruled that [a nursing woman] must wait twenty-four months exclusive of the day on which her child was born and exclusive of the day on which she is betrothed'. Thereupon he ran three parasangs after him, (some say, one parasang along sand mounds), but failed to overtake him.

To summarize these opinions, we have:
Rabbi Meir: 24 months.
Rabbi Yehuda: Permits to 18 months.
Bet Shammai: 24 months.
Bet Hillel: 18 months.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: 24 months becomes 21 months, 18 months become 15 months.
Ulla: Like Rabbi Yehuda.
Mar Ukba: Cites Rabbi Chanina that = 15 months.
Abaye: Based on all the above, tries to say 15 months.
Yet, Rav Yosef: Cites Rav and Shmuel that we rule like Rabbi Meir = 24 months.
And so the Rif rules like Rav Yosef.

However, when I see Ulla, I get a tip off to check the Eretz Yisrael tradition. And sure enough, there is gold to mine in the Yerushalmi, in Yerushalmi Sotah 19b:

תני מניקה שמת בעלה לא תינשא עד עשרים וארבעה חדשים דברי ר' מאיר רבי יהודה אומר שמונה עשר חדש. רבי יונתן בן יוסי אומר בית שמאי אומרים עשרים וארבעה חדשים. ובית הלל אומרים שמונה עשר חדש. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אם כדברי האומר עשרים וארבעה חדש מותרת להינשא לאחר עשרים ואחד חדש ואם כדברי האומר שמונה עשר חדש מותרת להינשא לאחר חמשה עשר חדש לפי שאין החלב נעכר אלא לאחר שלשה חדשים. ר' יעקב בר אחא אמר עקביה שאל את רבי שמעון בן לקיש והורי ליה עשרים וארבעה חדשים ר' ירמיה עקביה שאל לרבי חנינא והורי ליה עשרים וארבעה חדשים. מה. תרין עובדין הוון. חד בשם רבי חנינא וחד בשם רשב"ל. רבי מנא הורי שמונה עשר חדש וצם כל ההוא יומא. רבי מר עוקבא הורי בארבלי עשרים וארבעה חדש ואפי' מת התינוק.

According to this, there is once again this dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Though it just says Rabbi Yehuda "says" rather than "permits."
Once again, we attach their respective positions to Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.
And again, we have Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Thus, once again:
Rabbi Meir: 24 months.
Rabbi Yehuda: Permits to 18 months.
Bet Shammai: 24 months.
Bet Hillel: 18 months.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: 24 months becomes 21 months, 18 months become 15 months.

Here is where we have the divergence.
Rav Yaakov bar Acha: Cites that Akavia asked Resh Lakish, who rules 24 months.
Rabbi Yirmiya: Cites that Akavia asked Rabbi Chanina, who rules 24 months.

How can this be? Two separate incidents, answers up the Yerushalmi.
Rabbi Mana ruled 18 months and fasted all that day.
Rabbi Mar Ukva ruled 24 months, even when the infant died.

End translation and summary.
It seems that all Amoraic opinions in the Yerushalmi believe in the 24 month rule, and this matches the conclusion in the Yerushalmi, of Rav and Shmuel.

And here is where we have the divergence between Bavli and Yerushalmi.

Let us assume for a moment that Akavia is the same as Mar Ukva. Why assume this? Because in Yerushalmi he asks Rabbi Chanina, and in Bavli he cites Rabbi Chanina. Of course, Mar Ukva is a more important personage. He is the exilarch.

If so, in Bavli Mar Ukva cites Rabbi Chanina and rules 15 months {=Rabbi Yehuda minus 3 months}. And in Yerushalmi, Akavia asks Rabbi Chanina, and he is of same mind as Resh Lakish and rules 24 months.

Even if we do not equate Akavia with Mar Ukva, we have a conflict between Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Chanina.

And furthermore, we have a conflict between an explicit Mar Ukva in Bavli (15 months) and Rabbi Mar Ukva in Yerushalmi (24 months).

Perhaps there are girsological issues at play here. For example, perhaps Akavia did not separately ask Rabbi Chanina, but only asked Resh Lakish, and this harmonization of the setama of the Yerushalmi should not be. Then, there would not be a conflict between Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Chanina. Perhaps the text of the Yerushalmi is munged and some of those 24s should read 18. And so on. I would need to examine manuscript evidence.

Or perhaps there is a game of broken telephone in play here.

A bit of background is in order, in terms of where they are from and who they are. Perhaps this would lead to different decisions of whether to trust Yerushalmi or Bavli, or certain Amoraim, when they cite various statements.

In Bavli, we have a bunch of Amoraim from Israel mentioned. We have:
Ullah (=like Rabbi Yehuda)
Rabbi Chanina (permitted in 15 months, like Rabbi Yehuda)

In line with this, in Yerushalmi, we have one Palestinian Amora who agrees with the above, but then appears to repent:
Rabbi Mana (=15 months).
But there are a bunch of other Amoraim from Eretz Yisrael who argue and say 24 months:
Resh Lakish
Rabbi Chanina
Akavia?
Rabbi Yirmiyah who says that Akavia consulted with Rabbi Chanina.

In terms of Babylonian Amoraim, in Bavli, we have:
Rav and Shmuel, who say 24 months, though they studied in Eretz Yisrael.
Abaye, who tries to rule 15 months.
Rav Yosef, who cites Rav and Shmuel.
Mar Ukva, who is an Exilarch, who says he asked Rabbi Chanina, who ruled for him 15 months.
This is personal knowledge, for it is a ruling for him, permitting him to marry. This should certainly carry more weight than second hand reports of what Rabbi Chanina allowed (if indeed it was he and not Resh Lakish.) And especially if when referring to Akavia in Yerushalmi, they are actually referring to Mar Ukva who asked a question.

Meanwhile, in Yerushalmi, we have two Babylonian Amoraim:
Rav Yaakov bar Acha, a Babylonian Amora who says that Akavia asked Resh Lakish, who ruled 24 months. According to the Babylonians, this all works out consistently with what Rabbi Chanina ruled for Mar Ukva, since Rav Yaakov bar Acha holds that Rabbi Chanina was never in play.
Rabbi Mar Ukva, who is presumably the exilarch, ruling 24 months. This would be in line with what may have been ruled for him in Yerushalmi, but not Bavli.

Perhaps there is an application of adam chashuv shani here.

At the end of the day, I have no resolution, nor am I really confident which source to believe about whom. However, I am leaning towards trusting Mar Ukva's statement in Bavli about what Rabbi Chanina ruled for him, over second hand reports in Yerushalmi in which Rabbi Chanina may not have been involved. There is also an aligning of opinions in Yerushalmi vs. Bavli, and of Babylonian and Palestinian Amoraim.

One final thing I would really like to understand is the reasoning of Rav and Shmuel. After all, Abaye's logic is quite good, in terms of Bet Shammai vs. Bet Hillel, and of Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yehuda. And while he cites Ulla (from E"Y) and Mar Ukva, who got a ruling from Rabbi Chanina (from E"Y), and these might fall by the wayside given contrary reports as to Mar Ukva and Rabbi Chanina's opinion, the base argument still seems good. Shmuel and Rav studied in Eretz Yisrael, so this might well be bringing over a specific Eretz Yisrael tradition, rather than logical reasoning, where for some unknown reason they overwhelmingly ruled like Rabbi Meir.

Tzarich Iyyun Gadol.