Description: Rabbi Amram the Pious is mentioned a total of six times in the entire Talmud. But is it possible that there is more to his story? This sheet reviews past profiles of this Talmudic character and offers direction toward a more expansive approach.
Introduction
This sheet explores the Talmudic character known as "Rabbi Amram the Pious" (Rav Amram Chasida). In the past, scholars have provided a summarised profile in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906). A slightly more detailed analysis is provided in the Encyclopedia Judaica (2006 edition, p. 105). These profiles, reproduced below, contain a general portrait of a pious man who lived within the circle of Talmudic sages. The original passages are reproduced at the start of the sheet, including an additional citation not mentioned in either profile. I have ordered the sources by the length of the passage, the largest being 80 words (in the Aramaic), the smallest being 15 words. The exception is the tale from tractate Avodah Zarah as it only mentions Rabbi Amram's wife.
The Sources
- Kiddushin 81a - This tale of Rabbi Amram and the captive women (80 words).
- Gittin 67b - The tale of Rabbi Amram and the House of the Exilarch (67 words).
- Bava Batra 151a - The inheritance dispute involving Rabbi Amram and his brothers (33 words)
- Sukkah 11a - The extreme position of Rabbi Amram on the matter of tzitzit (garment fringes) (31 words)
- Shabbat 139a - The extreme position of Rabbi Amram on matter of kilayim (forbidden mixtures) (15 words)
- Avodah Zarah 39a - The sale of tzitzit by Rabbi Amram's wife (64 words)
Total word count: 290
Source #1 - Rabbi Amram & the Captives
הָנָךְ שְׁבוּיָיתָא דַּאֲתַאי לִנְהַרְדְּעָא אַסְּקִינְהוּ לְבֵי רַב עַמְרָם חֲסִידָא אַשְׁקוּלוּ דַּרְגָּא מִקַּמַּיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָא חָלְפָה חֲדָא מִנַּיְיהוּ נְפַל נְהוֹרָא בְּאִיפּוּמָּא שַׁקְלֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם לְדַרְגָּא דְּלָא הֲווֹ יָכְלִין בֵּי עַשְׂרָה לְמִדְלְיֵיהּ דַּלְיֵיהּ לְחוֹדֵיהּ סָלֵיק וְאָזֵיל כִּי מְטָא לְפַלְגָא [דְּ]דַרְגָּא אִיפְּשַׁח רְמָא קָלָא נוּרָא בֵּי עַמְרָם אֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ כַּסֵּיפְתִּינַן אֲמַר לְהוּ מוּטָב תִּיכַּסְפוּ בֵּי עַמְרָם בְּעָלְמָא הָדֵין וְלָא תִּיכַּסְפוּ מִינֵּיהּ לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי אַשְׁבְּעֵיהּ דְּיִנְפַּק מִינֵּיהּ נְפַק מִינֵּיהּ כִּי עַמּוּדָא דְנוּרָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ חֲזִי דְּאַתְּ נוּרָא וַאֲנָא בִּישְׂרָא וַאֲנָא עֲדִיפְנָא מִינָּךְ
Those captive women, who were brought to Neharde’a to be redeemed, were brought up to the house of Rav Amram the Pious. They removed the ladder from before them to prevent men from climbing up after them to the attic where they were to sleep. When one of them [i.e., the captive women] passed by the entrance of the upper chamber, it was as though a light shone in the aperture due to her great beauty. Out of his desire for her, Rav Amram grabbed a ladder that ten men together could not lift, lifted it on his own and began climbing. When he was halfway up the ladder, he strengthened his legs against the ladder to stop himself from climbing further, raised his voice, and cried: "There is a fire in the house of Amram." Upon hearing this, the Sages came and found him in that position. They said to him: You have embarrassed us, since everyone sees what you had intended to do. Rav Amram said to them: It is better that you be shamed in Amram’s house in this world, and not be ashamed of him in the World-to-Come. He took an oath that his inclination should emerge from him, and an apparition similar to a pillar of fire emerged from him. He said to his inclination: "See, as you are fire and I am mere flesh, and yet, I am still superior to you, as I was able to overcome you."
Source #2 - Rabbi Amram & Yalta
רַב עַמְרָם חֲסִידָא כִּי הֲוָה מְצַעֲרִין לֵיהּ בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא הֲווֹ מַגְנוּ לֵיהּ אַתַּלְגָא לִמְחַר אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ מַאי נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְמָר דְּלַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ אָמַר הָנֵי כֹּל דְּאָמֵינָא לְהוּ מֵיפָךְ אָפְכִי אֲמַר לְהוּ בִּישְׂרָא סוּמָּקָא אַגּוּמְרֵי וְחַמְרָא מַרְקָא אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ אִינְהוּ בִּישְׂרָא שַׁמִּינָא אַגּוּמְרֵי וְחַמְרָא חַיָּיא שָׁמְעָה יַלְתָּא וּמְעַיְּילָה לֵיהּ לְבֵי מַסּוּתָא וּמוֹקְמִי לֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא דְּבֵי מַסּוּתָא עַד דִּמְהַפְכִי מַיָּא דְּבֵי מַסּוּתָא וְהָווּ דְּמָא וְקָאֵי בִּישְׂרֵיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי
When the members of the Exilarch’s house would afflict Rav Amram the pious they would make him lie down to sleep all night on the snow. The next day they would say to him: What is preferable for the Master [i.e., Rav Amram] for us to bring him to eat? Rav Amram said to himself: Anything I say to them, they will do the opposite. He said to them: Bring me red meat roasted over coals and diluted wine. Instead, they brought him fatty meat roasted over coals and undiluted wine, which is what Rav Amram had intended for this is the stated remedy for one who suffers from the chills. Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife and daughter of the Exilarch, heard of Rav Amram's illness, and she brought him to the bathhouse, and placed him in the water of the bathhouse until the water of the bathhouse turned red like blood. And his flesh became covered with spots shaped like coins.
Source #3 - Rabbi Amram's Inheritance
אִימֵּיהּ דְּרַב עַמְרָם חֲסִידָא הֲוָה לַהּ מְלוּגָא דִּשְׁטָרֵאי כִּי קָא שָׁכְבָא אָמְרָה לֶיהֱוֵי לְעַמְרָם בְּרִי אֲתוֹ אֲחוֹהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ וְהָא לָא מְשַׁךְ אֲמַר לְהוּ דִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כִּכְתוּבִין וְכִמְסוּרִין דָּמוּ
The mother of Rav Amram the Pious had a bundle of promissory notes. When she was dying, she said: Let these promissory notes be for Amram, my son. His brothers came before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: But Rav Amram did not pull the bundle of notes which is the act of acquisition. Therefore he did not acquire them. Rav Naḥman said to them: The standard acquisition was not required because the statement of a person on his deathbed is considered as written and as delivered and thus acquired by the recipient.
Source #4 - Rabbi Amram's Custom of Tzitzit
... כִּי הָא דְּרַב עַמְרָם חֲסִידָא רְמָא תְּכֵלְתָּא לְפַרְזוּמָא דְּאִינָשֵׁי בֵּיתֵיהּ. תְּלָאָן, וְלֹא פָּסַק רָאשֵׁי חוּטִין שֶׁלָּהֶן. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב: מְפַסְּקָן וְהֵן כְּשֵׁרִין.
... as in that incident where Rav Amram the Pious cast the sky-blue dye, i.e., for the ritual fringes, upon the garment of the people of his household [i.e., his wife?]. However, he attached them but did not cut the ends of their strands prior to tying them [i.e., he took a single string, folded it a number of times, and inserted it into the hole in the garment]. Rav Amram was uncertain whether they were fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva if produced in this way. Rav Amram came before Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi to judge the ritual status of the fringes. He said to him that this is what Rav said: One cuts them into separate strands and they are fit for use.
Source #5 - Rabbi Amram's Custom of Kilayim
מַכְרִיז רַב: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיזְרַע כְּשׁוּתָא בְּכַרְמָא — לִיזְרַע. רַב עַמְרָם חֲסִידָא מְנַגֵּיד עִילָּוֵיהּ.
With regard to the matter of hops in a vineyard, Rav would announce: One who seeks to sow hops in a vineyard, let him sow. In contrast, Rav Amram Ḥasida would administer lashes for such action.
Source #6 - Rabbi Amram's Wife and the Sale of Tzitzit
רב הונא בר מניומי זבן תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרב עמרם חסידא אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף לא הוה בידיה פגע ביה חנן חייטא א"ל יוסף עניא מנא ליה בדידי הוה עובדא דזביני תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרבנאה אחוה דר' חייא בר אבא ואתאי לקמיה דרב מתנא לא הוה בידיה אתאי לקמיה דרב יהודה מהגרוניא אמר לי נפלת ליד הכי אמר שמואל אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר
Rav Huna bar Minyumi purchased sky-blue dye from the people of the household of Rav Amram the Pious [i.e., his wife]. As such items are suspected to be counterfeit, Rav Huna came before Rav Yosef to ask if he could rely on her assurance that these were authentic and usable for the mitzva. The answer was not available to Rav Yosef. Later, Ḥanan the tailor happened to meet Rav Huna, and he said to him: From where could poor Rav Yosef have known the answer to this question? Ḥanan continued: There was an incident in which I was involved, as I purchased sky-blue dye from the people of the household of Rabena’a [i.e., his wife], the brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before Rav Mattana to ask him the same question, and the answer was not available to him either. I then came before Rav Yehuda of Hagronya who said to me: You have fallen into my hand [i.e., I am the only one who can answer your question]. This is what Shmuel says: The wife of a ḥaver is herself considered like a ḥaver, and you may therefore rely on her statement.
The Profiles
Profile #1 - Rabbi Amram the Pious (1906 Profile)
AMRAM ḤASIDA (The Pious):
By: S. Mendelsohn
A Babylonian amora of the third generation (fourth century), a contemporary of R. NaḦman (B. B. 151a). In addition to his scrupulousness in ritualistic observances (Suk. 11a), he owes his surname to his action at a moment of great temptation, when, to save himself from sin, he called for help by giving an alarm of fire. When his colleagues complained that he had exposed them to shame, he replied, "It is better that you be put to shame on my account in this world than that you be ashamed of me in the world to come." Legend adds that Amram conjured the tempter within him to depart; whereupon something like a pillar of fire came forth, and Amram, glorying in his victory, exclaimed, "Behold, thou art of fire, and I am of flesh, yet I am stronger than thou art" (Ḳid. 81a). His extreme piety made him the target of sport for members of the household of the exilarch; and their brutal treatment made him seriously ill; but Yalta, NaḦman's wife, herself a member of the exilarch's family, cured him (Giṭ. 67b).
The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), p. 534.
Profile #2 - Rabbi Amram the Pious (2006 Profile)
AMRAM ḤASIDA (Aram. “the Pious”; c. third century), a prominent member of the Jewish community in Nehardea. It is reported that he applied the punishment of lashes to anyone who followed lenient opinions regarding the sowing of kilayim (“mixed seeds”) in a vineyard, even outside the Land of Israel (Shab. 130a). He attached ẓiẓit to a garment worn by his wife (Suk. 11a). He was physically maltreated by the house of the exilarch (because according to Rashi, “he was pious and strict and therefore imposed numerous restrictions upon them”) and he became ill. (Git. 67b). The Talmud tells of his struggle against temptation in which he publicly admitted his weakness. When the sages said to him, “You have shamed us”, he replied, “It is better that you be ashamed of the house of Amram in this world, than that you be ashamed of it in the world to come” (Kid. 81a). For the phenomenon of talmudic stories concerning saintly figures who live on the periphery of established rabbinic circles, see Kalmin (2004).
Encyclopedia Judaica (2006, 2nd edition), vol 2, p. 105.
Assessment of the Two Profiles
- The sources above indicate a mixed portrait of a pious man, drawn from both legalistic and narrative passages. There is a point of difference in the dating of Rabbi Amram to either the 3rd or 4th century. Also, the first profile draws more heavily on the tale of the captives than any of the other tales.
- A fundamental limitation facing the construction of these profiles is the reliance on these few short references in the Talmud where the name Rabbi Amram is followed by the honourific "Chasida" ("the Pious"). As will be explored below, this might be an unjustified assumption.
- Between the two encyclopedia profiles, five citations are used (each uses four sources, three shared, one unique), however, an additional citation may be found in the Talmud (the tale that mentions Rabbi Amram's wife). Given the brevity and ambiguity of these citations, the difficult task of developing a portrait of this Talmudic character would be improved if all six sources are used. Furthermore, the original source material is not equally developed. As noted above, the length of the passages vary (from 15 words to 80 words). The well-developed passages imply that much material is lacking from the shorter passages. The difference in length might also imply that different authors or redactors (perhaps from different generations) were involved in the writing of these passages.
- While this effort seems fairly straightforward, there is a fundamental problem with the construction of the profile of Rabbi Amram as there are references elsewhere in the Talmud to a "Rabbi Amram" (minus the honourific). It is not clear if these passages refer to the same person or if they necessarily refer to a different sage. The Encyclopedia Judaica (p. 103) provides a separate profile for a (plain) "Rabbi Amram", but due to the various passages relating to other sages, and given the generally understood timeline of Talmudic rabbis, these citations are understood to refer to two distinct people, Amram I (3rd century) and Amram II (4th century). The evidence essentially amounts to who this (plain) Rabbi Amram cites as an authority of Jewish law. In some passages, Rabbi Amram cites the earlier opinion of Rav (3rd century), and elsewhere he cites the opinion of Rabbi Sheshet (4th century). Given that at least one of these profiles may overlap in time with the life of Rabbi Amram the Pious, it is not unlikely that one of these "plain Amrams" is actually Amram the Pious. Alternatively, certain statements associated with a "plain Amram" may have been authored by Amram the Pious.
- To complicate matters further, the name "Rabbi Amram" appears elsewhere in Talmud who fits the general timeline of the Amrams cited above. In tractate Shabbat (119b) and Sanhedrin (70a) there is a mention of "Rabbi Amram son of Rabbi Shimon son of Abba". This Rabbi Shimon is understood to be a Kohen and sage living in Israel during the 3rd century but who ended up settling in Syria (Yerushalmi Bikkurim 3:3 & Moed Katan 3:1). How likely is it that Rabbi Amram son of Rabbi Shimon is the same person as one of the other Rabbi Amrams?
- In any event, this entire discussion relies on the assumption that the names in the Talmud are extremely precise. That if a Rabbi Amram is cited in one instance with an honourific, and elsewhere without, then these must refer to two different people. Similarly, if the name of a father is mentioned in one instance, and elsewhere without, then these must refer to two different people. But this methodology seems fairly weak. Is it not possible for a sage to gain an honourific later in life, and for certain statements to be said in his name without the honourific? And is it not possible that different Talmudic authors or redactors wrote in different styles. Similarly, the distinction between Amram I and Amram II may not be a settled conclusion beyond any doubt. Ultimately, some admission to the doubt involved in the construction of this Talmudic profile should be included into any material on the subject.
The "Other" Rav Amram (2006 Profile)
AMRAM, name of two Babylonian amoraim. AMRAM I (third century). His preceptors were Rav and R. Assi, whom Amram quotes both in halakhah and aggadah (Pes. 105a; Ned. 28a; et al.). He was once requested by his colleagues to relate “those excellent sayings that you once told us in the name of R. Assi” (Er. 102a). Among his aggadic statements are “[There are] three transgressions which no man escapes for a single day: sinful thought, calculation on [the results of] prayer, and slander” (BB 164b). On Psalms 112:1 (“Happy is the man that feareth the Lord”) he comments, “happy is he who repents while he is still a man,” i.e., while he is still in the prime of life (Av. Zar. 19a). AMRAM II (early fourth century) was a pupil of R. Sheshet, whose halakhic rulings he quotes (Yev. 35a, et al.). Sheshet affectionately called him “My son Amram” (Av. Zar. 76a). Once when Amram was guilty of hairsplitting, Sheshet remarked: “Perhaps you are from Pumbedita where they try to make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle?” (BM 38b). Only a few sayings are transmitted in his own name (e.g., Nid. 25b), as he generally quotes halakhah in the name of others such as R. Isaac (Zev. 6b); R. Naḥman (Ber. 49b); Ulla (Git. 26b); and Rabbah b. Bar Ḥana (Yoma 78a). He engaged in discussions on halakhah with Rabbah and R. Joseph(Sot. 6a). According to the aggadah, in one of these, Rabbah expressed himself so sharply when opposing Amram that a pillar in the academy cracked (BM 20b).
Bibliography: Hyman, Toledot, 983.
[Yitzhak Dov Gilat]
Encyclopedia Judaica (2006, 2nd edition), vol 2, p. 103.
Further Notes
- Notwithstanding the doubt described above that involves the construction of a Talmudic profile, it is worth considering an expanded profile of Rabbi Amram. This section will be centred on the selected passages that specifically refer to Rabbi Amram the Pious, but a few other citations will also be included.
- Before addressing the major passages that describe Rabbi Amram the Pious, it may be useful to assess the brief mentions of this man, and to see if these possibly link with some of the mentions of the "plain" Rabbi Amram. In two passages, the religious behaviour of Rabbi Amram the Pious is compared or contrasted with Rav. In one account (Shabbat 139a), he goes beyond the ruling of Rav by insisting on administering lashes to anyone sowing hops in a vineyard (Rav permitted this activity). This action technically violates the prohibition of kilayim (forbidden mixtures), but there appears to have been a dispute about the forms of mixtures permitted outside of the Land of Israel. In another passage (Sukkah 11a), he insisted on placing techelet/tzitzit (ritual garment fringes) on the garments of the members of his household (i.e., his wife). He later was not certain if he had tied them correctly and a consulting sage tells him that Rav would find this situation acceptable. Relatedly, in another passage (Avodah Zarah 39a), his wife sells the fringes to another sage which may suggest that she was also active in tying them. Alternatively, perhaps the sale took place after Rabbi Amram's death and his wife decided to stop wearing the ritual fringes, a stringency imposed on her. In general, these positions on forbidden mixtures and garment fringes may be the reason why he is known as "Amram the Pious." And the fact that (plain) "Rabbi Amram" often cites the opinion of Rav may be evidence that these people were the one and the same.
- Of all the passages involving Rabbi Amram the Pious, the most well-developed is a bizarre incident described in Tractate Kiddushin (81a). This incident seems to occur in the following context: Some young Jewish women are kidnapped but are swiftly ransomed by the Jewish community. The captives are perhaps still at risk of harm and are placed in the home of Rabbi Amram (perhaps he helped ransom them). For their safety, they are placed in seclusion, but Rabbi Amram cannot resist pursuing them, intending to assault them. Before he fully acts on his desires he sounds the fire alarm. The sages soon accuse him of shaming them on account of Rabbi Amram's near-sin. Rabbi Amram replies that it would be better to be shamed in this world than in the afterlife. The story gets stranger still. In a brief mysterious scene, Rabbi Amram summons his desire to materialise before him, appearing in the form of a pillar of fire, and Rabbi Amram declares his victory over desire (Kiddushin 81a). Perhaps this tale is the one to explain why he was known as "Amram the Pious".
- In terms of Talmudic tales, there is nothing farfetched in this account. And it is not uncharacteristic for a Talmudic sage to admit feeling compromised and later declaring victory over his sexual desires. It should be noted that (plain) "Rabbi Amram" is cited as for teachings relating to sexual desire and repentance. Sexual desire is described by (plain) "Rabbi Amram" as one of three daily transgressions from which no man may escape (Bava Batra 164b). On repentance, he paraphrases a verse from Psalms and declares: “Happy is he who repents while he is still a man.” Meaning, happy is the person who can repent while he is still in the prime of life (Avodah Zarah 19a). The thematic similarity between these "Rabbi Amram" statements and the tale of Rabbi Amram the Pious may be evidence that these people were one and the same.
- So far we have seen how three of the short passages (the kilayim and two tzitzit passages) all contribute to the profile of Rabbi Amram as a pious person.
- The other short anecdote that mentions "Rabbi Amram the Pious" is one that refers to a bequest from his dying mother. This deathbed bequest tale seems to contain some important information overlooked in the two encyclopedia profiles. In this tale, Rabbi Amram's brothers contest the inheritance instructions issued by their mother. The dying mother stated that Rabbi Amram is to receive a bundle of promissory notes. One can only imagine the value of such a stack of paper. Does this mean Rabbi Amram's mother was very wealthy that she could have loaned to enough people that she had in her possession a bundle of promissory notes?
- Are the brothers motivated by greed or are they perhaps concerned that Rabbi Amram will mismanage the enforcement of the loan repayments. Perhaps they are concerned that he will forgive the loans, thus forfeiting a good deal of money that the family would not want squandered.
- This story implies that Rabbi Amram came from wealth. By contrast, Shimon bar Abba (the father of a "different" (or possibly the same) Rabbi Amram, is described differently. Shimon bar Abba is said to know the value of diamonds but was so poor that a fellow rabbi "dropped" a coin in a way for him to "find" it, and accept the gift without feeling like he was the recipient of charity. If Shimon bar Abba was his father, perhaps the parents were divorced. Or else, Shimon bar Abba, after leaving the Land of Israel, finally gained some success in business.
- Rabbi Amram's relationship with the powerful House of the Exilarch seems unclear as the "Exilarch's household" (i.e., the wife of the Exilarch) mistreats him, but Yalta (the Exilarch's daughter) personally involves herself in healing him (Gittin 67b). The contrasting attitudes between Yalta and her mother is noteworthy. One mistreats Rabbi Amram and subverts his requests. The other is personally involved in his healing and protection. What accounts for this difference? In any case, what is Rav Amram doing in the home of the Exilarch? What makes him so prominent that he would be personally invited to the home of the political leader of the Jews?
- But perhaps there is much more to this story. This narrative places Rabbi Amram in a secluded setting (the bathhouse) with a woman. Yalta is described here in context of her father's home and is not described as the wife of Rabbi Nachman, this implies she may have still been a young unmarried woman. And based on the prior passage, we know Rabbi Amram has a certain degree of trouble containing himself around young women. We also know that in the future, Yalta, as the wife of Rabbi Nachman, has something of a contentious relationship with the sages, as evidenced by her violent reaction to the comments of Ulla, her dismissal of both established rabbinic rulings (she insists there must be a kosher alternative to mixing meat and milk), and her "gaming" the rabbinic legal system (she seeks an alternative ruling on a personal matter and manages to get an exemption to be carried in public on Shabbat). This may all lead one to suspect that Yalta's later attitude toward the rabbinic establishment was due to her witnessing some unethical activity performed by a prominent member of the rabbinic establishment. See further in Yalta: The Story Arc of a Rabbinic Woman.
- Is it possible that the authors of these passages were intending to do something more than merely describe the actions of a pious sage? Perhaps there is a hidden critique in this collection of work. Perhaps the authors wish to present their readers with a complicated character who is a person worthy of admiration and revulsion? Might the portrait of Rabbi Amram the Pious be an example of Talmudic reflexivity?