Notes Regarding A Critical Lexicon of Names in the Talmud - Pt.2
Names and Number of Sages; Order of Generations; Can ascriptions be trusted?; Biographical Details; Manuscripts
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)”. Pt.1 of this post included an intro; a survey of previous efforts; and patterns within individual Sages. Pt. 2 is about Names of Sages; Number of Sages; Order of Generations; Methodological considerations; Can ascriptions be trusted?; Figuring out biographical details; Manuscripts. This piece (pt.1 and pt.2) was mostly written in 2014.
Names of Sages
Zechariah Frankel in his Mavo Hayerushalmi already pointed out the Greek and Latin source of many Sages' names. Already the second Rabbinic (Pharisaic) Sage mentioned in Rabbinic sources has a Greek name (Antigonus Ish Sokho).[1]
Number of Sages
The number of Sages is an important question.[2] Lee, in his “Rabbinic Sages”, quotes Albeck as saying that there were 1,000 Amoraim. Albeck was clearly not providing an exhaustive list, but quoting the main Amoraim, and not the ones that are only mentioned a few times.
Order of Generations
There are conflicting order of generations between Iggeret Rav Sherira, Sefer Hakabbalah, and Meiri.[3] I hope to explore this topic further, in a future post.
Methodological considerations
Can ascriptions be trusted?
On this, see also my previous post: "On the historical accuracy of Talmudic biographical details and stories"
In the last few decades, scholars have begun to doubt the reliability of ascriptions of statements made in Talmudic literature. In other words, they have begun to feel that the name attached to a saying may not be trustworthy.[4]
A few reasons are given for this. The most obvious reason for doubt, is that the tradition ascribing a statement to a sage may be corrupt. The rabbinic writings are notorious for not caring about historical accuracy[5].
However, it must be pointed out that in contradistinction to their usual indifference for historical accuracy, the Sages seem to have felt the preservation of the correct ascription of statements to be very important. The Talmud discusses the proper pronunciation of names in a few places (Kvutal, Kfutal). In addition sometimes the Talmud will bring an additional statement of a Sage which simply points out that he ascribes the statement to a different person! There would seem to be a few reasons for this uncharacteristic interest in something that seems to be of only historical interest. First of all, the importance of a statement depended greatly on who was saying it. A statement of a Tanna is obviously more powerful than the statement by an Amora, and (less-obviously) a statement by an earlier Tanna or Amora is more powerful than that of a later Tanna or Amora. In addition, there is a maxim that האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם. (However, it is possible that this maxim was said because of the importance of knowing how seriously to take the statement, as in the first reason, and is therefore not an independent reason for the importance of correct ascription.)
In addition, a statement that was passed on anonymously may have had a name added to it at some point.[6] Another possibility is that a Sage wanted a statement of his to be accepted, and therefore ascribed it to an earlier authority. In fact, the Talmud itself brings stories of just such a thing happening.[7]
Even according to Neusner that a historical reconstruction is not possible, it is still important to understand what a Sage is represented to have done by the redactors of the Talmud.
Figuring out when a Sage lived; his rebbe, peers, students
The commentators, when faced with contradictions as to when a Sage lived, will often posit the existence of two Sages with the same name. The critical scholar will obviously be open to the possibility that, in fact, one historical personality is behind the sources, but over time, mistakes were made about when the Sage lived and with whom he interacted.[8]
Sages (or, in this case, very often non-Sages) who are mentioned in non-Jewish sources, are only discussed in terms of their impact on our understanding of the Talmudic sources. The external sources will not be discussed on their own terms.
Inferring from words used by the Talmud who was a student, a Rebbe, a friend, whether he saw him, etc., are all methodological issues that must be dealt with. Discussions about this are already found in the Rishonim, especially by Yechusai Tannaim etc. See at great length Halpern, Atlas Etz Chaim, vol. 4?.
Manuscripts
We also have a great advantage over our predecessors in having many manuscripts easily available to us. Names are especially prone to textual variants. Yechusei Tannaim already deals with variants in manuscripts, and clearly had a few manuscripts in front of him. Surprisingly Halevy in his Dorot Harishonim, never uses Dikdukei Soferim, even though it was available to him.[9] Heiman does use Dikdukei Soferim, as well as variants found in Rishonim, fairly often.
[1] Seemingly, there were some Sages opposed to the practice of adopting foreign names. See the Midrash that the one of the reasons that God caused the Jews to be redeemed from Egypt was because they refused to use Egyptian names.
[2] See Lee.
[3] Pointed out by Havlin in a footnote to his edition of Meiri's introduction to Avot.
[4] See the bibliography in Kalmin, Between Palestine. See Encyclopeida Judaica, second edition, entry “Amoraim”.
[5] See Gafni in Cambridge Handbook.
[6] Green says that it is possible that a name was “made up”. While not impossible, I find this to be unlikely. I find it more likely that an anonymous statement would be ascribed to a well-known sage rather than to a made-up one. It is well-known that stories or statements made by lesser-known people are often in oral transmission ascribed to greater-known personalities, thereby lending the story or statement greater force. I would assume, therefore, when a story or statement is ascribed to a lesser-known personality in the Talmud, the ascription is more likely to be correct than if it is ascribed to a greater-known personality.
[7] The traditional commentators also grapple with the fact that the Talmud sometimes describes a halacha as a Halacha L'moshe Misinai, when it is clear that it is a later Rabbinic enactment. See Reuven Margoliot, Yesod Hamishnah Va'arichata
[8] This would seem to be the case, for example, in the case of Shimon Hatzadik, Shmuel Hakatan, and The Daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion. Ssee also the great difficulty Heiman has in creating a biography for Yehoshua ben Gamla.
[9] See Eliezer Brodt, Yeshurun, vol. 25.