The Mishna (Ketubot 52b) describes a specific rabbinic institution called כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין, an interesting use of lengthy Aramaic wording, citing words in a contract, in an otherwise Hebrew Mishna. This clause in the marriage contract stipulates that any male heirs he has with his wife will inherit her ketubah money aside from their regular share of the inheritance they receive with brothers from other mothers. In the Gemara, Rabbi Yochanan, an Israeli second-generation Amora, cites Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, a fifth-generation Tanna, as to the impetus for this rabbinic enactment—to motivate the father-in-law to give a large dowry to his daughter, knowing that her male heirs would inherit it. Note the large time gap between these Sages.
This citation pattern of אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי is quite regular, appearing 50 times, sometimes without the words בֶּן יוֹחַאי, in the Babylonian Talmud. Their respective concern with the reasoning behind rabbinic enactments also repeats. Besides כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין, these two Sages discuss the reason for instituting silent Shemoneh Esrei (Sotah 32a; avoiding embarrassing transgressors who confess their sins). In Gittin 17a, Rabbi Yochanan (alone) argues with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish as to the reason for instituting writing a date in bills of divorce. Further afield, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai (alone) asserts that all the things the Romans established was for the Roman’s own benefit (Shabbat 33b).
Thirteen other times, the citation pattern is instead אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak was from the transitional generation of Tannaim and Amoraim. Rav Aharon Hyman, in Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, thinks there were two Sages by that name. The former, a late Tanna, appears in a brayta (Sukkah 11b). He is Rabbi Yochanan’s teacher. This is based on Yoma 43b, and Rosh Hashanah 34b, where in context of אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק, the Talmudic Narrator refers to him as רַבֵּיהּ (but see below.) Rabbi Yochanan attended his1 funeral and asked Rabbi Yannai a halachic question there (Yerushalmi Nazir 7:1). Masechet Smachot (4:11) also describes this funeral. Elsewhere (Sanhedrin 26a), Rabbi Chiya bar Zorniki and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak travel to intercalate the year in Asia Minor, contend with Reish Lakish, who calls them shepherds (disqualified from serving as witnesses or judges). They ascend to the roof to intercalate, but pull the ladder up so Reish Lakish cannot join them. They complain to Rabbi Yochanan, who sides with Reish Lakish. Hyman sees a contradiction with this referring to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak I, who predeceased Rabbi Yannai; since Rabbi Yannai yet lived during Resh Lakish’s lifetime. I’m not sure I see the impossibility. Regardless, I wonder how many of Rabbi Yochanan’s citations of Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai could be sound or contraction / expansion errors for Rabbi Shimon ben Yohotzadak.
Mishum
What does משום mean in the citation pattern, and why employ it instead of אמר? It could mean “in the name of,” or it could mean “in the place of.” (It hardly ever means “from garlic.”) Rishonim offer conflicting explanations for its usage in place of אמר.
Rashbam (Bava Batra 114b, on אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי יהודה בן ר’ שמעון) explains that this is because the mentioned Sage wasn’t Rabbi Yochanan’s primary teacher (rabbo muvhak). In contrast, when Rabbi Yochanan cites his primary teacher, Rabbi Yannai, אמר is employed. Rashbam would have to contend with Bava Metzia 10b, Chullin 137b, and Kiddushin 67b, where Rabbi Yochanan speaks mishum Rabbi Yannai.
Some2 note a contrasting option to the Rambam, that משום implies that he is the teacher, perhaps (as I’ve seen thirdhand) his primary teacher. See Peirush HaMishnayot, Introduction to the Mishnah 24: “Anytime you find, in the Mishna, Rabbi Ploni in the name of (בשם) Rabbi Ploni, know that he’s his student, and therefore he received from him.” Now, בשם doesn’t occur in the Mishnah, but משום does, including for Symmachus quoting Rabbi Meir (who Rambam discusses shortly thereafter). Also, while immediately before, Rambam discusses primary teachers, here he just says דע שהוא תלמידו ולפיכך קבל ממנו. Rambam might also intend Mishnaic as opposed to Talmudic usage. Rambam would have to contend with משום with large time gaps (e.g. Rabbi Yochanan citing Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai), or (if intending primary teacher) where most quotes are from other Sages yet משום is used (e.g. Rabbi Yochanan citing Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak).
Tosafot (Niddah 10b, on א”ר יוחנן משום ר”ש בן יהוצדק) are bothered with the implication of citation/משום, that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak is Rabbi Yochanan’s teacher. After all, in Sanhedrin 26a, Rabbi Yochanan didn’t stand up for his honor against Reish Lakish’s insult. Rabbenu Tam suggests that there were two Sages by that name.
Rashi (Chullin 113b, on אמר שמואל משום ר’ אלעזר, taken as the Tanna, Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat), explains that mishum means that he heard indirectly, from others who said it in his name. This can work for the local Shmuel, as well as for Rabbi Yochanan who cites several Tannaim like Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yossi and other fifth-generation Tannaim he never directly encountered. Rashi would have to contend with Rashbam’s case, for on Bava Batra 115a, Rabbi Yochanan objects to his mishum, to Rabbi Yehuda beRabbi Shimon, and the latter responds!
Threshold and Non-Support
After reviewing instances of משום, two patterns emerge as alternatives to those proffered by Rishonim for משום in Talmudic citation. I’m not considering usage in Mishna/Brayta (thus, Rambam’s focus), because this seems like a regular citation pattern. Only in Talmud, where chains of אמר are common, does משום stand out.
Firstly, משום occurs when a citation crosses the threshold from Amora to Tanna. Thus, in Berakhot 60b, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר. Rav Huna and Rav get “amar” but once we reach Rabbi Meir, it is “mishum”. Rabbi Yochanan will often cite Tannaim, so משום is utilized. Rashi, saying they didn’t encounter each other, was influenced by the subset in which the Tanna was temporally distant. However, משום will also appear for late Tannaim with direct interaction, such as Bava Batra 114b; and for Sages from the transitional Tanna/Amora period, such as Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak and thrice Rabbi Yannai. This subset influenced Tosafot and perhaps Rambam. Rabbi Yannai most often is quoted by Rabbi Yochanan as אמר because he’s transitional and lived to a later period, plus (as I’ve discussed elsewhere) Rabbi Yochanan himself has ambiguous status as Amora or transitional. This last subset influenced Rashbam.
Secondly, among Amoraim, citation often means support. When X cites Y saying A, this often means that both X and Y propound A. Then, Z can attack either X or Y to argue not A. This brings earlier arguments to later scholastic generations. However, משום can indicate “on behalf of,” meaning citation without necessarily support. Fourteen times, the Talmudic Narrator employs the phrase הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דְרַבֵּיהּ, “this is his position, while that is his teacher’s position,” when resolving inconsistencies between something a Sage said vs. what he cited from another. (Berachot 15a,b; Shabbat 103a; Eruvin 11b, 35b, 36a; Rosh Hashanah 34b; Megillah 20a; Bava Kamma 30a; Bava Batra 116a; Makkot 16a; Zevachim 79a; Chullin 113b, 137b.) In every instance, the citation verb is משום. Many instances are Tannaim citing Tannaim, but some are Amoraim citing Tannaim. These reasons may overlap, since an Amora might cross the threshold and cite a Tanna specifically to bring his position into conversation, rather than to propound the idea himself. And, an Amora might cite and support (אמר) his primary teacher but merely cite (משום) his non-primary.
Finally, Rav Hyman surmised Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak was Rabbi Yochanan’s direct teacher. His evidence firstly is Rosh Hashanah 34b, one of the 15 aforementioned instances. Secondly, from Yoma 43b. The Talmudic Narrator observes how convinced Rabbi Yochanan was of his own position and in rejecting a brayta, saying to teach it outside, that אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבֵּיהּ לָא צָיֵית, he didn’t even listen to his teacher. It then has Rabbi Yochanan citing the position mishum Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. Given our suggestions, רַבֵּיהּ might not indicate a direct teacher, but any Tanna or transitional Sage cited using mishum.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
1. Also, Yerushalmi Berachot 3:1. Our printed texts (which Hyman notes as erroneous) / Leiden manuscript have this as Rabbi Shmuel ben Yotzadak, while the Rome manuscript has Shimon. Perhaps this could resolve the contradiction.
2. See the introduction to Seder Hadorot by Rav Yechiel Heilprin, quoting She’erit Yosef, Netiv HaShemua (Netiv #7) by Rav Yosef Virga.
