How Many R. Hamnunas in the Babylonian Talmud? a Study in Talmudic Chronology

RRJ 10,1_f5_95-113IIIII 5/21/07 1:07 PM Page 95

HOW MANY R. HAMNUNAS IN THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD? A STUDY IN TALMUDIC CHRONOLOGY

Barak S. Cohen Bar-Ilan University

The identity, time, standing, and geographical location of the Amora R. Hamnuna have not been determined by scholarly research.1 Indeed, different, sometimes opposing, proposals have been raised in the Rabbinic and scholarly literatures regarding the question of how many Amoraim were named “Hamnuna” in Babylonia in the Talmudic period.2 A considerable percentage of these studies make assump- tions that should be reconsidered, especially in light of the progress made in research on the terminology of the Babylonian Talmud and the hierarchical relationship among Babylonian Amoraim. This explo- ration of these questions will extend to other sages in the first gen- erations of Amoraim in Babylonia. At the end of the discussion we will suggest the broader implications ensuing from our study. The first and most basic question is, How many Amoraim by the name of R. Hamnuna lived in Babylonia during the Talmudic period?

1 On R. Hamnuna’s geographical location, see M. Beer, Amorai Bavel: Perakim be- Hayei ha-Kalkalah (Ramat Gan, 1975), p. 235, n. 42. See also J. Joël, “Beiträge zur Geographie des Talmud,” in MGWJ 16 (1972), pp. 386–387. On the various proposals concerning the standing of R. Hamnuna in the academy of Sura, see esp. S.K. Mirsky, “Le-Sidrei ha-Yeshivot be-Bavel be-Tekufat ha-Amora’im,” in Horeb 3 (1937), p. 121; I. Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim (Berlin and Vienna, 1920), p. 410; J.S. Zuri, Shilton Reshut ha-Golah ve-ha-Yeshivot (Tel Aviv, 1939), pp. 84–87; idem, Rav ( Jerusalem, 1925), pp. 198, 252 ; Z. Yavetz, Toldot Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1938), vol. 7, p. 113 and n. 14. See also, below, n. 2. Our discussion does not include the Tanna named “R. Hamnuna of Babylonia,” the teacher of R. Hanina (Y. Ta. 4:2, 68a; see Z. Frankel, Mavo ha-Yerushalmi [Breslau, 1870 (reprint ed.: Jerusalem, 1967)], p. 76; A. Hyman, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim [ Jerusalem, 1964], vol. 1, p. 376; Yavetz, Toldot Yisrael, 20), or Amoraim who bore additional names (“R. Hamnuna Saba,” “R. Hamnuna Zuta”), who are not identical with the sages who are the subject of our inquiry. See Ch. Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel Aviv, 1969), pp. 283, 363. 2 We devoted an extensive discussion elsewhere to the problems related to R. Hamnuna’s geographical location and his standing in the academy of Sura after Rav’s death. See B. Cohen, “Yeshivot Mekomiyot be-Bavel be-Tekufat ha-Talmud (Rav Ada bar Ahavah, Rav Sheshet, ve-Rav Hamnuna),” in Zion 70 (2005), pp. 447–471.

96 barak s. cohen

R. Samuel ben Hophni Gaon,3 W. Bacher,4 and M.D. Yudelevich5 identify only a single Amora by this name, active in Sura during the entire course of the third and early fourth centuries. In contrast, R. Judah ben Kalonymus of Speyer,6 R. Abraham Zacuto,7 Ch. Albeck,8 and M. Beer9 all subscribe to the view that two sages by this name were active in Babylonia during this time span: one was a pupil of Rav and a member of the second generation; and the other was a young sage who was subordinate to two sages of the second generation (R. Judah and R. Huna) and two of the third generation (Ulla and R. Hisda). J.S. Zuri suggests an indecisive approach that wavers between these two opinions.10 Dissenting from all these views, Z. Yavetz,11 A. Hyman,12 and Z. Kaplan13 present a more extreme proposition, that at least four sages by this name were active during this period. Our discussion examines these diﬀering views.

1. R. Hamnuna I

It is accepted both by the medieval authors of the Talmudic chronicles and historiography and by modern scholarship that the earliest R. Hamnuna among the Babylonian Amoraim is the one presented in the Talmud as young and subordinate to his teacher, Rav.14 Various testimonies in the Talmuds15 indicate that R. Hamnuna, a second-

3 S. Abramson, ed., Samuel ben Hophni (Gaon of Sura), Perakim min Sefer Mavo ha-Talmud ( Jerusalem, 1990), p. 96. 4 W. Bacher, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoräer (Hildesheim, 1967), pp. 73–75. 5 See, e.g., M.D. Yudelevich, “Ha-Ir Sura” (chap. 3), in Sinai 1 (1937–1938), pp. 272, 274–275; idem, chap. 7, p. 318; idem, chap. 9, Sinai 2 (1939), p. 131. 6 Judah ben Kalonymus of Speyer, Yihusei Tannaim ve-Amoraim, ed. J.L. Maimon ( Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 56–65. 7 A. Zacuto, Yuhasin ha-Shalem, ed. H. Filipowski ( Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 130–131. 8 Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, pp. 195–196, 281–283. 9 Beer, Amorai Bavel, p. 234, n. 41. 10 Zuri, Shilton Reshut ha-Golah, p. 84. 11 Yavetz, Toldot Yisrael, p. 113, n. 3. 12 Hyman, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim, pp. 376–378. 13 Z. Kaplan, “Hamnuna,” in Encyclopedia Judaica ( Jerusalem, 1978), vol. 7, col. 1248. 14 See mainly Abramson, Perakim min Sefer Mavo ha-Talmud, p. 96; Judah ben Kalonymus, Yihusei Tannaim ve-Amoraim, p. 56; Zacuto, Yuhasin ha-Shalem, p. 130; Yavetz, Toldot Yisrael, p. 113 and n. 3; Zuri, Rav, p. 198; Hyman, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim, p. 376; Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim, pp. 195–196; Kaplan, “Hamnuna,” col. 1248. 15 Some scholars cast doubt on the attribution of dicta to Amoraim in the Talmud.