Notes Regarding A Critical Lexicon of Names in the Talmud - A Survey of Previous Efforts; Patterns Within Individual Sages

Part of a series on names in the Talmud. See some previous entries in “Cataloging My Blogposts: An Organized Breakdown by Theme”, “Posts discussing the study of names (onomastics)”. See one of the previous entries here:

This part includes an intro; a survey of previous efforts; and patterns within individual Sages. Pt. 2 will be about Names of Sages; Number of Sages; Order of Generations; Methodological considerations; Can ascriptions be trusted?; Figuring out when a biographical details; Manuscripts

Knowledge of the names and biographies of the Tannaim and Amoraim is important for a proper understanding of the Talmud.^[1] Knowing when a Sage lived, where he lived, his surroundings, his personality all provide context for a proper understanding of his words.^[2] However, a critical lexicon of names in the Talmud has not yet been written. A likely reason for this is the difficulty of the task.

On the study of names in general, see The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming (2016), which points out broadly that “The study of names, known as ‘onomastics’, is both an old and a young discipline.”

Satlow et al., “Naming”: “[T]here are somewhere in the range of 5,000 individual rabbis named in the literature surveyed by [Heiman].”

This massive number is the first thing that makes the challenge.

Survey of previous efforts^[3]

Regarding works attempting to provide list the names of Sages, and to provide biographical details of  their lives, until the 19^th century, it is possible to divide the relevant works into two categories: Those that discuss the Sages in the context of the transmission of the Torah (i.e., in chronological order), and those that provide biographical dictionaries in non-chronological order (usually in alphabetical order).^[4]

The earliest lists of Sages were of the first category. The first list of this sort is Tractate Avot. Tractate Avot starts of that “the Torah was given to Moses, who gave it to Yehoshua, who gave it to the Elders (Zekeinim), who gave it to the Prohets (Nevi'im), who gave it to the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Kenesset Hagedolah).”

It then lists the main Sages of each generation, beginning from Shimon Hatzakid (“from the remnants of the K'nesset Hagedolah”, flourished 4^th century BCE), until R' Yehuda Hanassi (circa 200 CE). Next to each name is recorded what each Sage “used to say”.^[5]

Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon is meant to provide a history of the transmission.

The first post-Talmudic works in this genre are the anonymous Seder Tanna’im VeAmora’im, and Sherira’s Igeret, in the early medieval period.

Serious critical scholarship started in the early 19th century. Especially by Weis, Dor Dor Ve’Dorshav. Which prompted HaLevy, Dorot Harishonim. HaLevy’s work in turn prompted the monumental biographical dictionary by Heiman, which is still the definitive work, despite its many flaws.

The advent of computers, and the accompanying open-access digitalization of rabbinic collections, have paved the way for utilizing these resources to make significant progress in this subject. There are also now computerized projects, such as Otzar HaDemuyot. Some of which are open-access, crowd-sourced, and ongoing, such as Hebrew Wikipedia and Michlol.

Patterns within individual Sages

Important advances in modern scholarship have been made to identify the characteristics of particular sages. Recognizing the differences in personality as reflected in statements has been extensively developed over the past hundred years.^[6] These patterns are most obvious in the differences between Shammai and Hillel and their respective schools.^[7] Previously noted by the traditional commentators are the stylistic flourishes particular to specific Sages.^[8] Richard Kalmin especially discusses patterns to be found in individual Sages, as well as in a generation of Sages. In traditional sources, Heiman often points out patterns in statements. R’ Ahikam Kashet in his Kovetz Yesodot Vechakirot lists some of the patterns, calling them “leshitatam”.^[9] R' Reuven Margaliyot also often discusses these patterns. In recent biographies of individual Sages, patterns have been pointed out. The Mishnat Eretz Yisrael edition of Mishna also often points out patterns.

There are some methodological problems with knowing when something is a pattern. If a certain commonly quoted Sage seems to speak a lot about a certain topic, does not necessarily mean that he had a special interest or expertise in that topic. It may simply be that since that Sage is quoted more often, more of his sayings on that topic are preserved, and the seeming pattern are simply a coincidence.^[10] In order to prove a pattern, one would have to show that of all of that Sages sayings, a greater percentage of them discuss that certain topic, compared to other Sages who speak about it relatively less. Alternatively, one could show that of all the sayings on a certain topic, a larger percentage of them are said by that Sage than the percentage of all his sayings found in Talmudic literature. Of course, such empirical methods are very difficult, if not impossible, especially given the voluminous nature of the Talmud. However, the finding of true patterns seems to be valid in many cases, especially with less common Sages, and where the pattern is found in a relatively large number of cases.^[11] But caution must be exercised.

---

^[1] Most of this draft was written in 2014. Some of the references may be somewhat out of date. Heiman = Heiman, Toldot Tanai’m VeAmora’im.

^[2]    I say “he”, because the Sages were almost exclusively male. The only exception would appear to be Bruriah, the wife of R' Meir, a fourth generation Tanna. “Sages” in this article refers to post-Biblical sages mentioned in the Talmud (i.e., after the time of Nechemia). Practically, this covers a 900 year period, beginning with Shimon Hatzadik (ca. 4^th century BCE), until the last Amoraim (ca. 500 CE). However, in truth it mostly begins from the time of Hillel the Elder (ca. 30 BCE), as before then we know of very few people. When I write “Sages”, I do so only because a lexicon of the Talmud will naturally include mostly Sages. However, all people mentioned in the Talmud should be mentioned in a Lexicon, including non-Sages, women, and non-Jews.

^[3]    Cf. Shimeon Brisman, A History and Guide to Judaic Encyclopedias and Lexicons, vol. 2, Cincinnati 1987, pg. pg. 173-184. Brisman's overview was very helpful for me.

^[4]    The only one in this category not in alphabetical order is the Rambam's list in his introduction to Peirush Hamishnayot in this second category, see later on.

^[5]    Regarding the purpose of this “history” of the Torah, see Isaiah Gafni, who compares it to the Greek philosophers' pedigree. Incidentally, another chronological list of Tannim appears at the end of Sotah. Cf. also the brayta in Bava Kama, where a list of Tannaim and their attributes appears; see also the Brayta in Sanhedrin 32b, where a list of Tannaim and their respective places of residence appears.

^[6]    See C. Gafni, P'shuto, pg. 33, footnote 55, that until the end of the 19^th century, there was very little consciousness of  the different methodologies of individual sages. At the end of that century, scholars became more conscious of the individuality of the various Sages. Interestingly, this methodology was quickly adopted even by traditionalists, such as the Aderet (brought in R’ Kashet, Kovetz Yesodot Vechakirot), and Heiman in many places (e.g., by R' Yehuda)

^[7]    One can posit that the Mishnah already distinguished the propensity of Beis Shammai to be strict, when it lists the the kulot of Beis Shammai in Tractate Eduyot, clearly showing that this is the exception. However, this doesn't mean that the Mishnah felt that there was a significant pattern, rather it is possible that the Mishnah saw Beis Shammai being generally machmir a coincidence, and listed his Kulot because it was technically simpler.

The Talmud also will often point out a contradiction within the opinions of a certain Sage; that in one place he is meikel and one place machmir, but it would appear that questions of this sort only appear regarding opinions of a Sage within a certain topic. Clearly, the Talmud is assuming that the Sage is meikel or machmir for halachic reasons, and not because he is generally more meikil or machmir. Of course, even if we posit that a Sage is generally more strict or lenient, it is possible  that this is also for a halachic reason. For example, it could be that he does it because “lifnim mishurat hadin”.

However, it still must be explained why that Sage follows “lifnim mishurat hadin” more than any other Sage. Ultimately there must be one of two explanations: One, For social reasons. It could be that the Sage is generally more strict or lenient because his Rebbe is, or because the surrounding culture is (Jewish or non-Jewish), or because his family is, etc. Two, the Sage because of his personality is more conducive to being strict or lenient. (The Arizal seems to go with the second approach, when he writes that Beis Shammai's neshama comes from din. In the future, he says we will follow Beis Shammai, because we will live in a world of din. This is along the lines of the second reason mentioned.)

Another methodological consideration must be pointed out. When there is no pattern exhibited by a certain Sage to be either more strict or lenient, and a statement is explained on its own, it is obviously impossible to prove that the statement comes from the second reason, viz., that his personality causes him to tend towards one extreme. Since that sage's views sometimes fall in one camp and sometimes in the other, it is obviously impossible to decide whether his personality caused him to be strict or not. If anything, we see that personality-wise, the Sage is even-handed. Also possible is that the Sage ignored his personal feelings and emotions when deciding halacha.

Of course, it is possible that half the statements of a particular Sage represent his true personality, and the other half are cases where he ignored his feelings, but with no external evidence, it is impossible to know. However, if there is a clear story showing the Sage's personality, half the statements can be explained based on his personality. However, the essential fact that half the cases go against his personality would seem to imply that the explanation is possibly faulty. 

^[8]    For example, the expression “gadif” to R' Achai.

^[9]    I have not used the word leshitatam (“according to his opinion”), which implies a halachic opinion. I have instead used the word “pattern”, whose connotation, I feel, better includes social and personality factors.

^[10]  Cf. Green, “Problematics in biography”.

^[11]  A good example of this would be Moshe Beer's investigation of Achua bar Sala, where Achua bar Sala is mentioned twice.