Talk:Yochanan bar Nafcha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] category: Mishnah/Talmud rabbis

See the recent history of the page for a discussion between myself (as IP 24.107.23.85) and IZAK regarding the category this article should be in. It had been in Category:Talmud rabbis until IZAK put it into Category:Mishnah rabbis instead, later explaining that he'd done so because:

The title "Rabbi" or "Rebbi" denotes a Tanna=someone from the ERA of the Mishnah, regardless that he is mentioned by the Gemora he is a Rabbi from the times of the Mishnah.

I beg to differ. If I'm not mistaken, IZAK is in good company in that he is under a under a misapprehension shared by many. In fact, though, the title Rabbi (as distinct from Rav) was used not for tanaim but for Israelis. So the category should be reverted to Talmud rabbis. Unless there are objections, I'll revert it. —msh210 01:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

True. Since the tana'im were "Israelis", they were referred to as Rabbi. Most amora'im were in Babylonia, so most were called Rav. HKT ^talk 01:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, when did Rabbi Yochanan live in time, i.e. chronologically? Does this now mean that anyone "mentioned" in a braysa or an agada is now a "Talmud rabbi" even though they lived in the era (i.e. the times) of the Mishnah or perhaps even earlier? Talmud is a very broad subject and category, it includes many things: Mishnahs, Gemoras, pesukim from Chumash and Tanach, braysas, and agadetas from multiple ages. So let's say Avraham, Moshe, or David Hamelech are quoted in the Talmud, does that then make them "Talmud rabbis" too, or do we stick to chronological criteria for the sake of simplification of Wikipedia's category system? IZAK 07:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about this, perhaps, because Rabbi Yochanan lived on the "cusp" in terms of the time between the two eras of Mishnah and Gemora, he may be considered as belonging to both eras (a late Tana and an early Amora at the same time) since there is never a clear-cut "cut-off point" between two eras in Torah development or in history for that matter. Is there any literature on this? IZAK 08:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that someone can be a "Mishna-era rabbi" without being inthe Mishna. My impression has always been that Rabbi Yochanan lived after the "close" of the Mishna, though. But perhaps I'm wrong. —msh210 22:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The article itself says that he was a disciple of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, so does that not link them in terms of time? My understanding has always been that certain individuals living during a "change-over" from one era to another can be considered as being part of both eras, depending on how they are viewed. So this probably applies here too. IZAK 13:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He is not mentioned in the Mishnah. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

But when did he live, during which time-frame? IZAK 10:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This Rabbi Yochanan lived shortly after the end of the Mishanaic era. He died in 279 CE. He was a disciple of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Oshaya, so he clearly wasn't a tanna. He was the one to compile the Talmud Yerushalmi. HKT ^talk 01:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If he lived at the same time as Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was a Tanna, then why is he not a Tanna or equal to a Tanna then? IZAK 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

By that logic, I'm a tanna. —msh210 16:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; let me explain. I think Rabbi Yochanan was not a tanna. He was a student of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, so was at least a half generation later in time than him. Thus, although Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi was a tanna, Rabbi Yochanan wasn't necessarily -- and he wasn't. According to the logic that any rabbi who lived the same time as a tanna was a tanna -- even if their lifespans only coincided in part -- Rabbi Yochanan was a tanna, and, thus, so were his students, and their students, and their students, and so on ad infinitum. That's why I said I'm a tanna: any rabbi living now is a tanna by that logic. (I'm not a rabbi, so I' not actually a tanna even by that logic; I just put that to make that point.) —msh210 22:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Your joke and logic are faulty. The process of someone living during the lifetime of another does not in itself continue ad infinitum, and you know that. At some point there is a halt and one can safely say that the era of Tannaim is over and the era of Ammoraim has begun. Retroactively one cannot say what you are saying here, albeit in jest, rather there is both an obvious demarcation between eras, yet at the same time, some of the rabbis living on the "cusp of time" between two eras can in fact be part of both what came before and and after them, but this cannot be said about later students/rabbis who are only part of the later, latter, era. So, no, you are about as much a Tanna as you are a Tuna. IZAK 08:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

True that he lived "on the cusp," but only two rabbis from the time of Rabbi Yehuda haNasi's students were considered tanna'im. There were other qualifications for recognition of tanna'itic authority aside from living during that time. HKT ^talk 03:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So I think I'll change the category back — unless IZAK (or anyone else) wants to call for a formal vote. —msh210 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The above conversation concludes with User:Msh210 saying he's going correct the category, but I don't see the change ever happening. I'll change it now. Nmagedman 19:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)