I agree that by identifying to whom these pseudonyms refer we accomplish "Omer Davar b'Shem Omro."

In fact, such descriptive pseudonyms might be a better way of accomplishing "Omer Davar b'Shem Omro" than mentioning the author's name. Names are more prone to error and transposition than descriptions of the Tana'im or Amora'im, such as those in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 17b.

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld

1) I have not yet seen anyone who discusses the Gemara in Sanhedrin explicitly but I want to suggest, for the time being, that the Chidushei ha'Ritva (Makos 5b, DH Shamata) can help us understand why there is no problem here of not saying Davar b'Shem Omro.

2) The Gemara (Makos 5b; see Rashi there, DH Hadar Chazyei) relates an incident where Resh Lakish took issue with Rebbi Elazar for not saying a Halachah in the name of Rebbi Yochanan. The Ritva explains the conduct of Rebbi Elazar. Possibly, he did not take care to say it in the name of Rebbi Yochanan because everyone knew that whatever he said, he had heard from his teacher Rebbi Yochanan.

3) The Ritva cites as his source the Gemara in Yevamos 96b which explains the verse, "So did Yehoshua; he left nothing undone of all that Hash-m commanded Moshe" (Yehoshua 11:15). Did Yehoshua indeed say continuously, "this is what Moshe told me"? No, certainly he did not need to say this. Yehoshua spoke without mentioning who he had heard it from, and everyone knew automatically that this was the Torah of Moshe.

4) Therefore, since the Gemara in Sanhedrin "nicknames" clearly every Tana or Amora that is cited, it follows that we are in no doubt as to the source of what is being said.

5) I had another idea to try to clarify this topic. This may be somewhat complicated, possibly more complicated than is actually necessaary in order to explain the issue, but anyway I will float out the idea.

This is based on what the Rambam writes in his Introduction to the Mishnah, to Seder Zera'im. It is very near the end of the Introduction, in chapter 7. He discusses the question of what titles the Chachamim were given and writes that the very greatest Tana'im were not given the title "Rebbi," for instance Hillel and Shamai. Because they were so great, it is not possible to find a sufficient title to describe them, so they are called merely by their names, and this way we understand that Hillel and Shamai are totally unique. The Chachamim who were on a slightly lower level are called "Raban," "our teacher" (this siginifies that they are the Rebbi of all of us). Raban Gamliel and Raban Yochanan ben Zakai fall into this category. The Chachamim who were slightly lower than this were merely called "Rebbi," for example, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah.

I want to try to extend slightly this idea of the Rambam. The Chachamim mentioned in Sanhedrin 17b were on a slightly lower level than Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehuda (and possibly did not receive Semichah), so it would not be appropriate to call them merely "Rebbi." Instead, the Gemara gives them very specific titles which describe what was unique about each one. As we learn from the Rambam, the idea of a title is to praise and define the person more clearly, and this is exactly what our Gemara does.

6) The Me'iri also does not use the actual names of the Rishonim that he cites.

a) Anyone who learns the Sefer Beis ha'Bechirah of the Me'iri on Shas notices that he does not use the names of the Mefarshim that he cites. For example, instead of writing "Rashi," he writes, "Gedolei ha'Rabanim" ("the great ones of the sages"). Instead of writing "Rambam," he writes, "Gedolei ha'Mechabrim" ("the great ones of the authors"). Again, I have not yet managed to find anyone who explains why the Me'iri adopts this approach, but I think that based on some of the above ideas we can understand a bit more.

b) By mentioning a description of the Mefaresh, rather than merely his name, this tells us more about them. By calling Rashi "Gedolei ha'Rabanim," we learn that Rashi was not merely a great Mefaresh but also one of the great sages of his time. Similarly, the greatness of the Rambam was his book, which stood on its own, not just as a commentary on the Gemara.

c) In fact, I saw in the introduction of the edition of the Me'iri on Yevamos that the editor wrote that sometimes this approach actually makes it easier to know the identity of the Mefarshim. For example, the name "Ra'avad" can mean either the Rishon that we usually refer to as the Ra'avad, who wrote the comments on the Rambam, or it can refer to the father-in-law of the Ra'avad. From the Me'iri it is clearer, because he always refers to him as the "Gedolei ha'Mefarshim" ("the great ones of the commentators"). By giving the Chacham a title, this can often tell us more about him than a mere name.

7) I found, bs'd, a source that confirms what I have been suggesting that the titles mentioned in our Gemara are titles of honor. This is from the Metzudas Tziyon on Iyov 32:21. He writes:

"The way is that if one wishes to hide someone's name because of his honor, or for a similar reason, then one mentions him with a Kinuy."

Up until now, I think that I had a misunderstanding that a "Kinuy" must be translated as a "nickname." However, it seems that this is not necesarily the case. A bad Kinuy is a very negative practice, as the Gemara in Bava Metzia 58b tells us, but an honorable Kinuy is not a nickname but, on the contrary, is an honorable title as we learn from our Gemara. For example, when we say that "the Elders of Sura" are Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, this teaches that these two Amora'im were the greatest in Sura, which is an honor both for Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, and also for Sura.

8) I once saw that Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit'a was asked about Peshat in the Gemara in Nidah 26b which relates: "Shmuel, the Talmidim of Rav, and Rav Yehudah were once sitting together when Rav Yosef the son of Rav Menashya passed by in a hurry in front of them. He (Shmuel) said, 'Here comes a man whom we we can refute with a few questions.'"

The question is, how is it that they spoke with seeming disrespect about the scholar that they met? Rav Chaim answered in the name of the Chazon Ish that must know that the Chachamim are not all on the same level, so one should know who the greatest Chachamim are and who are the ones of a lesser level.

a) I want to show a different Gemara which also seems to teach us this idea. This is in Berachos 38b, where the Gemara cites a dispute between Rebbi Chiya bar Aba and Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefet concerning what Rebbi Yochanan said on a certain Halachah. The Gemara says that Rebbi Zeira commented about this dispute, "How is it possible to mention Rebbi Chiya bar Aba together with Rav Binyamin bar Yefet, since Rebbi Chiya was greater than Rebbi Binyamin, and Rebbi Binyamin was not on a level to be capable of disagreeing with Rebbi Chiya?" I suggest that we see in this Gemara that one has to be aware that there are different levels of Chachamim, so that one can know who is capable of arguing with whom.

c) The above examples are on the negative side of things, but I want to suggest that Sanhedrin 17b is focusing on the positive side of knowing the greatness of the different Tana'im and Amora'im mentioned here. For example, the Gemara states that the Dayanim of Eretz Yisrael were Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi. We now know that these were the two greatest Dayanim of their generation in Eretz Yisrael.

9) I found, bs'd, a practical Halachah that is learned from the first expression cited in the Gemara here;, that Levi is called "Lemeidin Lifnei Chachamim" -- he studied in front of the wise. Rashi writes that he learned before Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi.

a) At the end of Sefer Shemiras ha'Lashon, the Chafetz Chayim published some responsa which deal with issues in Hilchos Lashon ha'Ra. One of these Teshuvos is from the Teshuvos Chavos Ya'ir, #152, which discusses the question of how we sometimes find in Shas that the Tana'im and Amora'im used very sharp phrases when speaking to each other, which often seem to show lack of respect and belittle each other. An example is in Yevamos 9a, where Rebbi said to Levi, "It seems to me that he has no brain in his head!" How could Rebbi so deride his Talmid, Levi? The Chavos Ya'ir answers that a teacher is allowed to administer severe rebuke to his student in order to cajole him into looking more carefully and thoroughly at what he is learning so that he will avoid making mistakes in his studies. Levi was a Talmid of Rebbi as we see here in Sanhedrin 17b.

b) The Chavos Ya'ir adds that these words of Rebbi seem to be the source for the Rambam's statement (Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:5) that if the Rav observes that the students are being lax and lazy in their Torah learning, and that is why they did not understand, he must get angry with them and embarrass them verbally in order to motivate them and sharpen them. Rebbi knew that Levi was a great, outstanding man. He would not have made such a mistake in the learning if not for the fact that he was not putting forth his best effort. This is why Rebbi spoke harshly to him, not out of anger, G-d forbid, or pride.

c) We may add that, on the contrary, the fact that Rebbi spoke this way to Levi was in reality a compliment to Levi because it showed that Rebbi believed that Levi was mature enough to take such harsh criticism and that he was so great that much more was expected from him. In fact, nowadays, it would not be wise to speak in such a way to pupils as they would very likely be offended, and might lose their love of learning. At any rate, the great Sages of the Talmud were capable of giving and receving such rebuke. We can understand the phrase "Lemeidin Lifnei Chachamim" to be a praise of Levi since this shows us the special relationship that Levi had with his teacher, Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, which led him to appreciate that being rebuked by the teacher is also part of learning.

B'Chavod,

Dovid Bloom