RAV DIMI of NEHARDEA 1. His Era and Location According to The

CHAPTER SIX

RAV DIMI OF NEHARDEA

1. His Era and Location

According to the geonic chronologies, R. Dimi of Nehardea headed the academy in Pumbedita for three years after the death of R. Zebid until his own death in 388.1 This fact, as well as the two instances in which Amemar2 quotes one of his sayings, conclusively lead to dating R. Dimi of Nehardea to the ﬁfth generation of Babylonian amoraim.3 His connection with Nehardea is evident from the appellation attached to his name.4 Analysis of sages with names of places attached to their names demonstrates that rather than these places signifying where the sage originally came from, they denote the ﬁxed center of the sage’s activity during his lifetime (for instance: Rava of Parziqiya, Rava of Barneš, R. Ukba of Mešan, R. Jacob of Nehar Peqod, R. Kahana

1 See Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 5; Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, 90. 2 b. Gittin 19b: “Ravina said: Meremar said to me: Amemar said in the name of R. Dimi of Nehardea [hakhi amar amemar mishme de-rav dimi minehardea]” (according to Mss. Munich 95, St. Petersburg RNL Evr. 1 187, Vatican 130 and Vatican 140); b. Hullin 51b: “Amemar said in the name of R. Dimi of Nehardea [amar amemar mishme de-rav dimi minehardea].” In statements phrased in this manner a younger sage quotes an older sage. See above, chapter four, section 1.1.2(a), pp. 133–134. 3 See: A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [Heb.], 231 n. 73 and compare Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud [Heb.], 361 who dates him to the fourth generation. Albeck’s dating is based on a source in which the identity of R. Dimi of Nehardea is doubtful, due to a problem with the chronology reﬂected in the passage. See: A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [Heb.], 210 n. 137. 4 That R. Dimi of Nehardea and R. Dimi without an appellation are different sages can be proven from a passage found on b. Avodah Zarah 11b, where R. Dimi of Nehardea trans- mits an opposite version of a statement attributed to R. Dimi (“matni ipkha” [see below, p. 192 n. 85]). See: Hyman, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 1:333; Yaavetz, Toldot Yisrael, 8:122–123 n. 11. Concerning the appellations that the talmudic editors use to distinguish between amoraim with the same name, see above, chapter four, section 1.1.1, pp. 131–132. R. Abraham Zekhut, Filipowski, ed., Yuhasin ha-Shalem, 123–124, identiﬁed R. Dimi (without an appellation) in b. Shabbat 63b as being R. Dimi of Nehardea. However, the phrase, “When R. Dimi came” [ki ata rav dimi], which notes the arrival of a sage in Babylonia from Palestine makes it certain that this is not R. Dimi of Nehardea. As for the meaning of the term ki ata X, see: Goodblatt, “The Babylonian Talmud”, 288; Safrai and Maeir, “An Epistle Came from the West,” 505. Concerning the identity of R. Dimi in this passage, see: Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud [Heb.], 360. 178 chapter six of Pum Nahara, R. Aha of Difte).5 This conclusion also holds true with regard to Palestinian amoraim.6 This fact strengthens the gen- eral claim by scholars that the appellation “of Nehardea” attached to R. Dimi’s name is evidence that he was a resident in Nehardea, except for the short period of time during which he served as academy head in Pumbedita.7

2. His Halakhic Methodology

2.1. Previous Research R. Dimi of Nehardea’s methodology has never been systematically analyzed, although Louis Ginzberg and Ze’ev Yaavetz did make two brief remarks concerning the subject. According to Ginzberg, R. Dimi of Nehardea exhibits “creativity and openness” in his halakhic rulings.8 Yaavetz noted that R. Dimi of Nehardea’s halakhic statements focus on matters of practical halakhah and attempt to derive actual halakhic rulings from the dialectical discourse taking place in the bet ha-midrash.9 Yaavetz presented three pieces of evidence to support this charac- terization: 1) Two halakhic rulings phrased using the term, “and the

5 This conclusion is based on an examination of the location of amoraim who have place names attached to their ﬁrst names in the talmudic record. For an expanded discussion of the issue see: A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [Heb.], 208. The conclusion is true even in cases where a sage has one place-appellation despite the fact that it is known from the geonic chronologies that he headed an academy in a different location (for instance: R. Gebiha from Be Katil, who was academy head in Pumbedita, or Raba Tosfa’ah who was academy head in Mata Mehasya). See: ibid., 208 n. 129. 6 See: Rosenfeld, “Places of Rabbinic Settlements” [Heb.], 102–103. His conclu- sions are based on both talmudic and epigraphical evidence. 7 See: Bacher, “Nehardea,” 9:208; Zuri, Rav Ashi [Heb.], 13; Yaavetz, Toldot Yisrael, 8:122; Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, 290 n. 40. Compare: Yudolowitz, Nehardea [Heb.], 81. A ruling issued by R. Dimi of Nehardea in a case that occurred in Be Hadya (b. Yevamot 121a) served as a source for Hyman to conclude that R. Dimi of Nehardea served as “the head” in Be Hadya (Hyman, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 1:333). This source tells of a man who drowned in Karme, and whose body was removed from the water three days later in Be Hadya. R. Dimi of Nehardea allowed his wife to marry another man. Without relating to Hyman’s conclusion, which does not seem to me to be necessary, the location of these two cities is unknown, and it does not contribute to our discussion here. See: Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, 470, 478–479. 8 Ginzberg, “Dimi of Nehardea,” 4:604 (“Dimi seems to have conﬁned himself to the cultivation of the Halakah”). 9 Yaavetz, Toldot Yisrael, 8:123.