Last week’s column (“Plain Rav Nachman,” December 5, 2024) presented several opinions as to plain Rav Nachman’s identity. Tosafot argue (A), that he was third-generation Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. Rashi purportedly maintains (B), that he was fourth- and fifth-generation Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. More likely, even Rashi agrees that it’s (A). I also suggested (C), that localized sugyot referred to plain Rav Nachman as the third-generation bar Yaakov or the fourth- and fifth-generation bar Yitzchak. A unified Talmud could then have merged the two without disambiguating.

Proper identification is important, as there are many downstream effects. To build a consistent picture of Rav Nachman bar (Yaakov / Yitzchak)’s halachic philosophy, we must know how to associate plain Rav Nachman statements. Since there is a decisive principle of ruling like the later Amora, to which generation does plain Rav Nachman belong? In this article, we’ll explore one downstream effect.

Naming Names

In his treatise “Lechaker Shemot veChinuyim baTalmud,” Rav Reuven Margolios discusses the phenomenon of eponymous attributions, where the Sage’s name matches his halacha. For instance, Rabbi Yizchak Migdala’a discusses coins arranged in towers, migdalot. Rav Margolios restricts these instances, for example, by discounting cases where it’s a place name (like Migdol). He still maintains some attributions are eponymous, especially where the Sage doesn’t say much else and could be famous for this singular halacha.

My own position is there are few if any Talmudic eponymous attributions, as I’ve discussed in previous articles, such as, “It’s the Eponymy, Stupid” (August 25, 2022). Random chance, a Sage’s preference to discuss eponymous subjects and scribal errors can account for names matching statements, rather than, as some academic Talmudic scholars suggest, the redactors fabricating names.

Rav Margolios (chapter five) identifies Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (henceforth “RNbY”) as someone whose unique style (signon) is to devise appellations for people, so he came up with these names, such as the appellations in Sanhedrin 17b. Rav Margolios surveys the Talmud to demonstrate this. However, eight examples concern RNbY, while nine concern plain Rav Nachman. While acknowledging that plain Rav Nachman is usually someone else (chapter four, footnote 2), he argues that, given the matching style, we should disambiguate these instances as RNbY. This seems somewhat circular — if separate Amoraim display this unique style, perhaps it’s not so unique.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak

Instances of RNbY playing with people’s names follow. In Berachot 39b, he puns on someone named Shalman, who is shalom and whose teaching is shalem. In Eruvin 30a, he refers to Rav Yosef as “Sinai,” thus using a nickname.¹ In Taanit 21b, speaking to Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda, he says it’s better for a maneh (100 dinar) son of a peras (50 dinar) to come than a maneh son of a maneh, thus using colorful terms to describe the two of them.

In Ketubot 104a, RNbY quotes Rav Yehuda bar Kaza who taught a brayta of the bar Kaza academy. Rav Margolios notes that we don’t find Kaza elsewhere, so he suggests it’s an eponymous nickname. Thus, in Shabbat 21a, Rav Yitzchak bar Rav Yehuda discusses מִשְׁחָא דְּקָאזָא, cotton oil.²

In Yevamot 21a, Rav and Ze’eri list off secondary forbidden relationships. RNbY devises a mnemonic for who said what, דְּעִילַּאי דְּרַב, and Rav Margolios explains how this is actually based on their height attributes. In Gittin 41a, RNbY plays on attributes of Ami Shapir Na’eh (Ami the Beautiful), saying “Because Ami is beautiful, does he say halachot that are not beautiful and correct?” In Niddah 45b, RNbY makes a mnemonic based on the Amoraim’s relative ages (as per Rav Margolios’ explanation).

Finally, in Kiddushin 54b, RNbY says that we rule like Rabbi Meir, since in Bechirata, the preferred tractate, meaning Eduyot, the Mishna teaches like him. Rav Margolios compares this with Berachot 27a, where the same language appears. Rav Nachman speaks to Rav Yitzchak, that we rule like Rabbi Yehuda, because the Mishna in Bechirata states like him. Rav Margolios emends “Rav Kahana” to “Rav Nachman” based on speculation. I’d counter that, based on relative generations, I don’t expect third-generation Rav Chisda to cite RNbY! Instead, see Munich 95 and Paris 671, where Rav Chisda says this to RNbY, citing Rav Kahana. So the appellation predates Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

Rav Margolios also cites Bechorot 26a where plain Rav Nachman uses the same pattern, involving Rabbi Yehuda and Bechirata. Perhaps. However, it seems like RNbY reacts to that very statement, adding מתניתין נמי דיקא. Would he react this way to his own statement?

Plain Rav Nachman

Meanwhile, several other instances have plain Rav Nachman using this unique style. In Rosh Hashanah 21a, after Rav Nachman fasted all Yom Kippur, a man from Damihareya informed him that the next day was actually Yom Kippur. Then, Rav Nachman interpreted / punned on the location name. However, I’ll add that all the manuscripts have “Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.” Similarly, in Megillah 28b, Rav Nachman wonders: Could I possibly eulogize someone by saying “We have lost a basket of sefarim?” thus showing him devising appellations. There, as well, I’ll add that all the manuscripts have “Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.”

In Beitza 25b, Rav Nachman spoke to Chama bar Adda, “Emissary of Tzion,” requesting he visit Rabbi Yaakov bar Iddi on his way to Israel. Rav Margolios assumes that Rav Nachman gave him that title. Even if this is the case, Rabbi Yaakov bar Iddi was a second-generation Amora, so it seems this is the earlier Rav Nachman. Indeed, the same Gemara continues to discuss plain Rav Nachman and his wife Yalta!

In Megillah 14b, Rav Eina Sava objects to plain Rav Nachman, and he either replies while calling him Eina Sava or “Blackened Pot.” However, if this is the same as plain Rav Eina of the Elders (Savei) of Pumbedita in the time of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Aharon Hyman suggests. If so, I’d say that Rav Nachman has to be the earlier Rav Nachman.

In Sanhedrin 96b, Rav Nachman asks Rabbi Yitzchak if he knows when בר נפלי will come, where בר נפלי refers to Mashiach. However, that is Rav Nachman to Rabbi Yitzchak, not RNbY. Finally, in Taanit 24b. Rav Pappa prayed for rain which didn’t come. Rav Nachman (bar Ushpazti) speaks to Rav Pappa. Rav Margolios interprets “bar Ushpazti” as a nickname for Rav Pappa, rather than a patronymic for this particular Rav Nachman.

With Rav Huna

Other examples involve plain Rav Nachman speaking to Rav Huna, a second-generation Amora. Thus, in Ketubot 19a, Rav Nachman tells Rav Huna, “Why do you need to conceal your opinion like a thief?” In Bava Kama 96b, he calls Shmuel “King Shapur,” telling Rava, “When I sit in judgement, don’t question my rulings, for our colleague Huna has said about me that King Shapur and I are brothers in regard to monetary laws.”

I’d say that this is clearly the standard plain Rav Nachman bar Yaakov who is Rava’s teacher. Indeed, there’s a principle that הלכה כרב נחמן בדיני, that we rule like Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov) in monetary law over Rav Huna and Rav Sheshet. “Huna our Colleague” also implies this is the older Amora.

Finally, in Kiddushin 70a, Rav Yehuda repeatedly criticizes Rav Nachman for not using Biblical or Rabbinic language, which Rav Margoliot ascribes to RNbY’s regular use of bituyim melitziim. But this is the famous scenario where Rav Yehuda takes advice from Rav Huna and goes from Pumbedita to Nehardea to answer Rav Nachman’s summons. Yalta advises her husband to finish his business with Rav Yehuda to avoid shame. RNbY is associated with Pumbedita; why should Rav Yehuda travel to Nehardea?

My own sense, without innovating, is that RNbY is a fourth and fifth-generation Amora. Yes, he’s in the presence of Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman (bar Yaakov), but as a student. We saw last week that he didn’t speak to Rav Nachman or Rav Chisda, relying on Rava in the first row to interpret. He is either a student or colleague of fourth-generation Rava, but he generally interacts as a colleague with fifth-generation Amoraim like Rav Pappa and Rav Huna b. Rav Yehoshua. That is a far cry from interacting with second-generation Rav Huna as a colleague!

Meanwhile, Rav Nachman bar Yaakov’s father was Shmuel’s scribe in Nehardea. His teacher was Rabba bar Avuah from Nehardea. Although he is a third-generation Amora, his interactions are that of a colleague with second-generation Amoraim such as Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda and third-generation Amoraim such as Rav Chisda and Rav Sheshet. It is strange to conflate the two.

Rav Margolios is a creative genius, and he himself discusses “Huna Our Colleague” in chapter 11, where he describes Rav Huna interacting with RNbY. I think he’s wrong because the scholastic generations and interactions don’t work out. Still, I should review more of Rav Margolios’ writings to develop a fuller picture.

Ultimately, I believe plain Rav Nachman is “bar Yaakov,” making half the instances irrelevant. If so, perhaps ascribing a unique style involves creative kvetching of sources; alternatively, the style isn’t that unique. We cannot prove RNbY is the Name-Giver.

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 We see others earlier comparing Rav Yosef as Sinai vs. Rabba as Uprooter of Mountains in Berachot 64b, which I believe precedes Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

2 However, some manuscripts have Yehuda bar Barka and bei bar Gaza. Further, would an academy also be invented, instead of just the name?