1)

a. Chanan ha'Mitzri was born a Jew, and was not a Ger Tzedek. The proof for this is from Tosfos 105a, DH d'Chashiv, who writes that Chanan ha'Mitzri was "Meyuchas."

b. I have another proof that one can be called a "Mitzri" even though he is a Meyuchas Jew. The Mishnah in Parah (3:55) tells us that one of the 7 (or 9) Kohanim Gedolim in the history of the world who performed the Parah Adumah was Chanamel ha'Mitzri. If he was a Kohen, he obviously could not have been a Ger, and even so he was called a "Mitzri." Presumably they originated from Mitzrayim. Since the Gemara in Sukah 51b tells us that there was a very large Jewish population in Alexandria, that may have been where Chanan and Chanamel came from.

2)

a. I found in a Sefer called "Milei d'Avos" (pages 92-93) that Nachum ha'Madi was indeed from the country of Mede.

b. I also found a bigger Chidush along these lines printed in the standard edition of the Mishnayos, in Ta'anis 3:7, where Shimon ha'Timni is cited. The Rishon l'Tziyon, printed in the margin of the Mishnah, cites Rashi in Beitzah 21a, DH ha'Timni, who says that this refers to Timnas, a place in Eretz Yisrael, or more specifically Eretz Pelishti. (However, there is an asterisk on the Mishnah there which refers us to the Sefer Lechem Shamayim (by Rav Yakov Emden) who vowelizes the word as "ha'Teimani," indicating that Shimon was from Teiman (i.e. Yemen). I looked up the Lechem Shamayim and he writes that it is not unusual to say that he was from Yemen, even though this is outside Eretz Yisrael, because we find several Tana'im who were from Chutz la'Aretz.

3) More about these names:

a. Nachum ha'Madi was indeed a Jew who came from Mede. In fact, some texts refer to him as Nachum Ish Madi -- Nachum the man of Mede -- which seems to stress slightly more that Mede was merely his place of origin, not his people. This text can be found in the Mishnah in Nazir 32b, where we learn about the mistake that Nachum ha'Madi made concerning the Nazirim who came to Eretz Yisrael to find that the Beis ha'Mikdash had been destroyed. In the Kapach edition of the Perush ha'Mishnayos of the Rambam, the text reads "Nachum Ish Madi," and this text is also cited by the Me'iri in his introduction to Pirkei Avos where he discusees the fifth generation of Tana'im.

b. I did not find any proof that Chanan ha'Mitzri was from Alexandria, but I did find that the Talmud Yerushalmi at the beginning of the third chapter of Chagigah tells us that Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandler was from Alexandria, so again we see that there was a diverse geographical origin of the famous Tana'im.

c. There is also a Gemara in Avodah Zarah 7b which seems to hint at a somewhat different approach in learning adopted by the Tana'im and Amora'im who originated from distant places. There we learn that Nachum ha'Madi expressed a certain opinion but the Chachamim said to him that this Shitah should be supressed and never be mentioned. (This is, of course, in addition to the Mishnah in Nazir mentioned above which says that Nachum ha'Madi made a mistake.) The Gemara in Avodah Zarah also mentions other Halachos where no one agreed with Nachum ha'Madi. The Gemara then reports that Rav Acha bar Minyomi said to Abaye that a great man who came from "our place" (this suggests that Rav Acha was also from Mede) always met up with the reaction that one must not say as he does. Rav Acha tried to show that sometimes we do rule like Nachum ha'Madi. I found this Gemara via a Sefer called "Ha'er Einenu" by Rav Eliyahu Roth (found on Otzar ha'Chochmah) who suggests that Rav Acha was defending his country's Gadol even though he had suffered criticism. However, it should be pointed out that we (Ashkenazim) do mention Nachum ha'Madi every Friday night when we say "Bameh Madlikin," the second chapter of Mishnayos Shabbos, as part of the prayer service of Kabalas Shabbos.

4) I am now going to discuss Do'eg ha'Edomi and Aravna ha'Yevusi.

a. Do'eg ha'Edomi was a Jew. Chazal give various reasons for his name, but the simple explanation is that his place of origin was Edom.

The Yalkut Shimoni to Shmuel I 21:8 asks, "Why was his name Edomi?" and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi answers that he was named after his city (it appears, according to this, that Edom was not only the name of the country but also the name of a city). However, the Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez to Tehilim (chapter 52, page 13, DH v'Nikra) says that he was called Do'eg ha'Edomi because he lived in the Land of Edom; it says nothing there about a city.

There is also another explanation there, "according to the Derash," that he was called Do'eg ha'Edomi because he came from Ma'aleh Adumim, as mentioned in Yehoshua 15:7 (as part of the territory of the tribe of Yehudah). I personally do not understand why one has to say that this is a "Derash." It seems to be able to be Peshat -- that Do'eg ha'Edomi came from Ma'aleh Adumim (literally, "the ascent to Edom") which was close to Edom but was actually in Eretz Yisrael.

b. Now let us look at the question of Aravna ha'Yevusi. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah 24b states in the name of Rav Nachman that Aravna was a Ger Toshav. Rashi (DH Ger) writes that he observed the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach.

However, it appears from the Talmud Yerushalmi, also in the second chapter of Avodah Zarah, that Aravna did not even observe those seven Mitzvos. The issue under discussion there is how could Aravna have said to David ha'Melech (Shmuel II 24:22) that David should receive a gift of animals from him and offer them up to Hash-m as a Korban? The Halachah is that a Jew may not accept an animal from a Nochri to offer as a Korban, because Nochrim are suspected of performing Revi'ah with their animals which disqualifies them from being offered as Korbanos (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 22a)! The answer of the Yerushalmi to this question is not the same as the Bavli's answer that Aravna observed the Mitzvah of Revi'ah, but rather the Yerushalmi asserts that David did not actually offer them as a Korban because he suspected they were invalid because of the transgression Aravna may have done with them; David merely accepted the gift and when Aravna said, "Hash-m your G-d will find favor with you" (24:23), this meant through the prayers of David and not through the Korban. So we see that there is a dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi whether Aravna was a Ger Toshav or not.

I also found in Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez to Shmuel II 24:23 (DH Yesh) that he cites a commentary that afterwards Aravna became a full Ger Tzedek.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

I found some more interesting sources concerning Nachum ha'Madi, and I think this might also shed further light on the Tana'im who lived outside Eretz Yisrael.

1) We start from the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah at the end of his long introduction to Seder Zera'im. The Rambam there lists 73 Tana'im who are mentioned only once in the Mishnah. One of these is Nachum ha'Madi, who is mentioned in the second chapter of Shabbos. The Me'iri, in his introduction to Pirkei Avos, in the section dealing with the fifth generation of Tana'im, challenges the Rambam on the basis of the Mishnah in Nazir 32b, where we also find Nachum ha'Madi mentioned, so how can the Rambam say that he appears only once? The Me'iri does mention that some texts in Nazir 32b read Nachum Ish ha'Madi (and, as we saw in a previous reply, this is the text in the Kapach edition of the Rambam), but the Me'iri writes that it appears that Nachum ha'Madi is identical to Nachum Ish ha'Madi, so the Rambam remains difficult.

2) In order to asnwer the Me'iri's question on the Rambam, I wish to suggest that in fact the Rambam does fit with the Peshat that the Me'iri rejected. I contend that by saying this, we gain two points: first, we can say that there was only one Nachum ha'Madi in the Mishnah; second, the chronology might be more feasible. This is because if we look at the Mishnah in Kesuvos 104b-105a it seems that the Dayanim of the Gezeiros mentioned by the Mishnah lived before the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, rather than at the time of the Churban, while the Mishnah in Nazir 32b is clearly from the time of the destruction, discussing the Nazirim who came to Eretz Yisrael and discovered that the Beis ha'Mikdash had been destroyed. The proof that the Mishnah in Kesuvos 104b is from before the Churban is the fact that, at the end of the Mishnah, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai says that Chanan said a beautiful thing. This suggests that Rebbi Yochanan lived after Chanan and was summarizing conclusions of Chachamim of previous generations.

We now turn to Rashi in Rosh Hashanah, end of 31b, DH u'Tenan, who writes that Rebbi Yochanan lived a year or two after the Churban, and this is also the opinion of Tosfos in Shabbos 54b, DH Haveh. This suggests that the vast majority of Rebbi Yochanan's years were lived when the Beis ha'Mikdash was still standing. Now, since Rebbi Nasan said in Kesuvos 105a that Nachum ha'Madi was also one of the judges (and this is also stated in Tosefta Bava Basra 9:1), it would seem likely that Nachum ha'Madi lived close to the times of the other judges mentioned in the Mishnah. If our assumptions are correct, this would mean that Nachum ha'Madi lived when the Beis ha'Mikdash was standing while the Tana mentioned in Nazir 32b lived later at the time of the Churban. Therefore, my suggestion is that the Tana mentioned in Nazir is not the same one as Nachum ha'Madi mentioned in Kesuvos 105a, so this can be the source of the text ascribed to the Rambam in Nazir 32b that he was Nachum Ish ha'Madi and not identical with Nachum ha'Madi.

3) However, there is still a problem with the Mishnah in Bava Basra 78a, where Nachum ha'Madi is mentioned, and I have not found any text there that reads Nachum Ish ha'Madi. This presents a problem to the Rambam in his commentary on Zera'im, because he wrote that Nachum ha'Madi is mentioned only once in the Mishnah and now even if we say that in Nazir 32b we read Nachum Ish ha'Madi, we still have two mentions of Nachum ha'Madi. Therefore, I suggest that we must alter the text in Bava Basra 78a to Nachum Ish ha'Madi and we now have two mentions of Nachum Ish ha'Madi in the Mishnah which explains why the Rambam did not list Nachum Ish ha'Madi as one of the Tana'im who occurs only once in the Mishnah.

4) Just one more short comment: I think that if you check you will find that the Halachah never follows Nachum ha'Madi or Nachum Ish ha'Madi. Possibly this shows us that the Halachic authority of the Tana'im who were born outside Eretz Yisrael was somewhat less than that of their counterparts who grew up in Eretz Yisrael.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

I found some more interesting sources concerning Nachum ha'Madi, and I think this might also shed further light on the Tana'im who lived outside Eretz Yisrael.

1) We start from the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah at the end of his long introduction to Seder Zera'im. The Rambam there lists 73 Tana'im who are mentioned only once in the Mishnah. One of these is Nachum ha'Madi, who is mentioned in the second chapter of Shabbos. The Me'iri, in his introduction to Pirkei Avos, in the section dealing with the fifth generation of Tana'im, challenges the Rambam on the basis of the Mishnah in Nazir 32b, where we also find Nachum ha'Madi mentioned, so how can the Rambam say that he appears only once? The Me'iri does mention that some texts in Nazir 32b read Nachum Ish ha'Madi (and, as we saw in a previous reply, this is the text in the Kapach edition of the Rambam), but the Me'iri writes that it appears that Nachum ha'Madi is identical to Nachum Ish ha'Madi, so the Rambam remains difficult.

2) In order to asnwer the Me'iri's question on the Rambam, I wish to suggest that in fact the Rambam does fit with the Peshat that the Me'iri rejected. I contend that by saying this, we gain two points: first, we can say that there was only one Nachum ha'Madi in the Mishnah; second, the chronology might be more feasible. This is because if we look at the Mishnah in Kesuvos 104b-105a it seems that the Dayanim of the Gezeiros mentioned by the Mishnah lived before the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, rather than at the time of the Churban, while the Mishnah in Nazir 32b is clearly from the time of the destruction, discussing the Nazirim who came to Eretz Yisrael and discovered that the Beis ha'Mikdash had been destroyed. The proof that the Mishnah in Kesuvos 104b is from before the Churban is the fact that, at the end of the Mishnah, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai says that Chanan said a beautiful thing. This suggests that Rebbi Yochanan lived after Chanan and was summarizing conclusions of Chachamim of previous generations.

We now turn to Rashi in Rosh Hashanah, end of 31b, DH u'Tenan, who writes that Rebbi Yochanan lived a year or two after the Churban, and this is also the opinion of Tosfos in Shabbos 54b, DH Haveh. This suggests that the vast majority of Rebbi Yochanan's years were lived when the Beis ha'Mikdash was still standing. Now, since Rebbi Nasan said in Kesuvos 105a that Nachum ha'Madi was also one of the judges (and this is also stated in Tosefta Bava Basra 9:1), it would seem likely that Nachum ha'Madi lived close to the times of the other judges mentioned in the Mishnah. If our assumptions are correct, this would mean that Nachum ha'Madi lived when the Beis ha'Mikdash was standing while the Tana mentioned in Nazir 32b lived later at the time of the Churban. Therefore, my suggestion is that the Tana mentioned in Nazir is not the same one as Nachum ha'Madi mentioned in Kesuvos 105a, so this can be the source of the text ascribed to the Rambam in Nazir 32b that he was Nachum Ish ha'Madi and not identical with Nachum ha'Madi.

3) However, there is still a problem with the Mishnah in Bava Basra 78a, where Nachum ha'Madi is mentioned, and I have not found any text there that reads Nachum Ish ha'Madi. This presents a problem to the Rambam in his commentary on Zera'im, because he wrote that Nachum ha'Madi is mentioned only once in the Mishnah and now even if we say that in Nazir 32b we read Nachum Ish ha'Madi, we still have two mentions of Nachum ha'Madi. Therefore, I suggest that we must alter the text in Bava Basra 78a to Nachum Ish ha'Madi and we now have two mentions of Nachum Ish ha'Madi in the Mishnah which explains why the Rambam did not list Nachum Ish ha'Madi as one of the Tana'im who occurs only once in the Mishnah.

4) Just one more short comment: I think that if you check you will find that the Halachah never follows Nachum ha'Madi or Nachum Ish ha'Madi. Possibly this shows us that the Halachic authority of the Tana'im who were born outside Eretz Yisrael was somewhat less than that of their counterparts who grew up in Eretz Yisrael.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom