The third generation of Amoraim (the sages of the Gemara) in Bavel
רַב נַחְמָן
Rav Nachman
Rav Nachman was a sage of the Gemara in Bavel (Babylonia). When the Gemara writes only "Rav Nachman", Tosafot, a classic commentary on the Gemara, says it means Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, and this page follows Tosafot. Rashi, the main commentary on the Gemara, says he was the head in Nehardea and a judge for the Exilarch, the leader of the Jews of Bavel. A student meets his name most in money law: the Gemara says the law follows Rav Nachman in money cases, and the oath called shevuat hesset, which the Gemara calls an enactment, is taught in his name. Rava sat before him.
EraAmora
LandBavel
PlaceNehardea
Who he was
Who was Rav Nachman?
Two sages named Rav Nachman
The Mishnah is the collection of the Sages' laws that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi edited, and the Gemara is the later Sages' discussion of the Mishnah. In the tractate Gittin the Gemara tells a story with two sages named Rav Nachman, and gives each one his father's name. Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak were sitting together, and Rav Nachman bar Yaakov passed by, sitting in a golden guharka (a kind of carriage) with a leek-green cloak spread over it. Rava went to him. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak did not go at first. He said: maybe these are people of the house of the Exilarch (the Reish Galuta, the leader of the Jews of Bavel); Rava needs them, I do not need them. When he saw that it was Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, he went to him.
When the Gemara says only "Rav Nachman", which one does it mean? Tosafot, a classic commentary printed beside the Gemara, says it means Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. One of its proofs is the passage in Eruvin where Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sits behind Rava while Rava sits before "Rav Nachman". Tosafot says the Gemara writes the full name "bar Yaakov" only where another Rav Nachman is named next to him, either bar Yitzchak or Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda. Tosafot says all this against Rashi on the same line. As Tosafot quotes Rashi, it was Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak who was the son-in-law of the house of the Nasi, which would make him the plain "Rav Nachman". Tosafot answers: that does not seem right. Rashi's own line, as printed, says only "Rav Nachman". So the commentators do not agree here. This page follows Tosafot, and most of the passages on it write only "Rav Nachman".
אלא רב נחמן סתם הוא רב נחמן בר יעקב
"Rather, a plain "Rav Nachman" is Rav Nachman bar Yaakov."
Rashi, the main commentary on the Gemara, describes him in one line. He says that Rav Nachman was the head in Nehardea (a Jewish city in Bavel), a judge for the Exilarch, and the son-in-law of the house of the Nasi. Rashi says this on the words that Rav Huna, a leading sage of Bavel, said to Rav Yehuda: "you do not need to go". Rashi explains: you are greater than he is, and you are the head in Pumbedita. In his next comment Rashi explains "the honor of the house of the Nasi": he was the son-in-law of the Nasi. Rashi does not say here who the Nasi was.
ורב נחמן ראש בנהרדעא ודיין לראש גלותא וחתניה דבי נשיאה
"And Rav Nachman is the head in Nehardea, and a judge for the Exilarch, and the son-in-law of the house of the Nasi."
The Mishnah at the end of Sotah says that when Rabbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the editor of the Mishnah) died, humility and fear of sin came to an end. The Gemara tells that Rav Yosef, a sage of Bavel, said to the man who recited this teaching: do not teach "humility", for there is me. And Rav Nachman said to him: do not teach "fear of sin", for there is me. The Gemara here writes only "Rav Nachman", with no father's name, and Rashi on this line does not say which one. It is placed on this page by the rule of Tosafot (see "Tosafot: plain 'Rav Nachman' is bar Yaakov").
the Gemara says that Rava sat before Rav Nachman. It does not use the word student
Student
Nechemya son of Rav Chanilai
Rav Chisda calls him "your student" when speaking to Rav Nachman
Family
Yalta
his wife, according to Rashi
Family
The house of the Nasi
Rashi on Kiddushin calls him its son-in-law. Tosafot on Gittin reports a different reading of Rashi there; see the Tosafot claim
"Son-in-law of the house of the Nasi"
Ulla, a sage who brought teachings from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, reported a ruling of Rabbi Yochanan, the leading sage of Eretz Yisrael, on the first part of a Mishnah in the tractate Chullin. Rav Nachman asked Ulla how far the ruling goes, and then swore that even if Rabbi Yochanan had said it to him with his own mouth, he would not listen to him. Rav Oshaya told this to Rabbi Ami in Eretz Yisrael, who said: because Rav Nachman is the son-in-law of the house of the Nasi, he makes light of a teaching of Rabbi Yochanan? Another time Rav Oshaya found Rabbi Ami teaching Rabbi Yochanan's words on the last part of that Mishnah. When it came out that Ulla had taught them on the first part, the answer was the same kind of oath: even if Yehoshua bin Nun said it in his name, I would not listen. The segment says only "he said to him". Rashi on that line names Rabbi Ami as the one who asks about Ulla there, so the oath that follows the answer is Rabbi Ami's. The Gemara then adds that Ravin and all who came down from Eretz Yisrael taught it on the first part, as Ulla did, and goes on to answer the difficulty. The Gemara here writes only "Rav Nachman" and does not explain "the house of the Nasi".
Ulla came to Rav Nachman's house. He ate bread, said Birkat HaMazon (the blessing after a meal), and gave the cup of blessing to Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman asked him to send the cup to Yalta. Ulla answered with a teaching of Rabbi Yochanan: the fruit of a woman's body is blessed only through the fruit of the man's body. Yalta heard, got up in anger, went to the wine cellar and broke four hundred jars of wine. Rav Nachman asked Ulla to send her another cup. Ulla sent her a message instead. She sent back: from peddlers come words, and from rags come lice. This passage in Berakhot names Yalta but does not say who she was.
In the story of Rav Yehuda's visit (see "Rav Yehuda comes to his court"), Rav Nachman asks Rav Yehuda to send a greeting to Yalta, and then suggests sending it "through her husband". Rashi explains that Rav Nachman means himself: I will be the messenger. So according to Rashi, Yalta's husband is Rav Nachman.
אמר ליה רב נחמן ע"י בעלה - אהיה אני שליח לדבר
"Rav Nachman said to him, "through her husband": I will be the messenger for this."
The Gemara has Rav Nachman pass on teachings in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, with the words "Rav Nachman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said". This line in Bava Metzia, about a lost object, is one example. This passage does not call Rabbah bar Avuha his teacher.
Nechemya the son of Rav Chanilai was so drawn along by his learning that he walked out past the techum, the limit of how far a person may walk on Shabbat. Rav Chisda, a sage of Bavel, said to Rav Nachman: Nechemya your student is in distress. Rav Nachman answered: make a wall of people for him and let him come back in. The Gemara in Eruvin then says who was sitting there: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sat behind Rava, and Rava sat before Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asked Rava what Rav Chisda's question had been. So the two sages named Rav Nachman are in one scene, and Rava sits before the first one.
Each story is told from one book, named under the quote.
Rav Yehuda comes to his court
A man from Nehardea insulted Rav Yehuda in Pumbedita. Rav Yehuda put him under a ban (a ruling that people must keep away from him) and announced that he was a slave. The man summoned Rav Yehuda to court before Rav Nachman. Rav Huna told Rav Yehuda that he did not need to go, because he was a great man, but that he should go for the honor of the house of the Nasi. Rav Yehuda found Rav Nachman building a railing and asked him: do you not hold what Shmuel said, that once a person is appointed a leader of the community he may not do work in front of three people? Rav Nachman called the railing by a fancy name, and Rav Yehuda corrected him. Then Rav Nachman offered him a seat, a citron and a drink, and each time Rav Yehuda corrected the word he used. Rav Nachman asked him to send a greeting to Yalta. Rav Yehuda refused three times, and each time he began "so said Shmuel". In the end Rav Nachman's wife sent him a message: finish his case, so that he does not make you look like an ignorant person.
A man robbed another of a pair of oxen, plowed and planted with them, and in the end gave them back. He came before Rav Nachman, who said: go and work out the gain he made. Rava objected: did only the oxen make the gain, and not the land? Rav Nachman answered: did I say to charge him all of it? I said half. Rava objected again: in the end it is a robbed thing and it has come back as it was, and the Mishnah says that robbers pay according to the time of the robbery. Rav Nachman answered: did I not tell you that when I sit in judgment you should say nothing to me? He quoted what Huna, his colleague, had said about him: "I and King Shapur are brothers in law." Then he gave his reason: this man is an old robber, and I want to fine him.
Rashi explains the words "I and King Shapur are brothers in law": "King Shapur" here is a name for Shmuel. Rashi gives only the name. (The Gemara in Bekhorot says that where Rav and Shmuel disagree, the law follows Shmuel in money law; see Shmuel's page.)
Rava was sitting before Rav Nachman and saw that he was dozing. Rav Nachman said to him: let the master tell him not to cause me pain. Rava answered: is the master not an important person? Rav Nachman said: who is important? He added two more short phrases, which are not translated on this page. Rava said: let the master appear to me, and he appeared to him. Rava asked: did the master have pain? He answered: it was like pulling a hair out of milk. But if the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me, go back to that world as you were, I would not want to, because the fear of it is great.
The story just before this one, about Rava and his brother Rav Seorim, uses the same words. There Rashi explains them: "dozing" means he was close to death, "let the master tell him" means tell the Angel of Death, and "let the master appear to me" means after death.
The Gemara discusses a man who lent money on another person's field, on terms that the field would become his if the loan was not repaid in time. (The Mishnah's case is quoted in "He took that ruling back".) Rav Huna said the lender gets the whole field only if this was said when the money was given. Rav Nachman said he gets it even if it was said afterward. Rav Nachman ruled this way in a case that involved the Exilarch, and Rav Yehuda tore up the document. The Gemara gives two versions of what Rav Nachman said when the Exilarch told him. In the first: did a child tear it? A great man tore it; he saw a reason and tore it. In the second: a child tore it, because in law everyone is a child next to me.
The Mishnah says that at the Pesach Seder one begins with the shame and ends with the praise. The Gemara in Pesachim tells that Rav Nachman said to Daru, his slave: a slave whose master sets him free and gives him silver and gold, what should he say to him? Daru answered: he should thank and praise him. Rav Nachman said: you have freed us from saying Mah Nishtanah. He then began and said Avadim Hayinu, "We were slaves". The Gemara here writes only "Rav Nachman".
Every item says who is making the claim: the Gemara itself, a classical commentator, or a modern writer.
The Gemara says
He judged money cases alone
A baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishnah that is not in the Mishnah) says that money cases are judged by three judges, but a judge who is a known expert may judge even alone. Rav Nachman said: like me, I judge money cases alone. The Gemara in Sanhedrin adds that Rabbi Chiya, an earlier sage, said the same about himself. It then asks what "like me" means: someone who has learned, can reason, and has been given permission to judge, or even someone without that permission. It brings a case and concludes that even without that permission, his judgment is a valid judgment.
Two men shared a well and each drew water on his own day. One came to draw on a day that was not his, ignored the other's protest, and the other hit him with the handle of a hoe. Rav Chisda sent the case to Rav Nachman, who answered that he could have hit him a hundred times. The Gemara ties this to a dispute. Rav Yehuda said a person may not carry out the law for himself. Rav Nachman said he may. The Gemara explains that where waiting would cause a loss, all agree that he may. They disagree where there is no loss: Rav Yehuda says he should go to a judge, and Rav Nachman says that since he is acting according to the law, he does not have to go to that trouble.
The Gemara goes on to say that Rav Nachman later went back on what he had said: even if it was said when the money was given, the lender gets nothing of the field. Rava challenged him from the Mishnah, where a lender says "if you do not pay me within three years, it is mine" and the field is his, and Rav Nachman answered: I say that an asmakhta is binding, and Minyomi said that an asmakhta is not binding. (An asmakhta is a promise to forfeit something if a condition is not met. The Gemara does not say here who Minyomi was.) The Gemara asks how Minyomi would explain the Mishnah, and gives two answers: the Mishnah follows Rabbi Yose, who holds that an asmakhta is binding, or the borrower said "take it as yours from now".
Rashi explains Rav Nachman's answer, which in the Gemara's words is "I say": I used to say that the lender gets everything, but Minyomi disagreed with me and turned me back from my words.
אבל מניומי חלוק עלי והחזירני מדברי
"But Minyomi disagreed with me and turned me back from my words."
"He follows his own reasoning": the coin that fell
Rav Nachman said: if you saw a sela (a coin) fall from one of two people, you must return it. The owner has not given up hope, because he thinks: only that one person was with me, so I will hold him and say, you took it. If it fell from one of three people, you do not have to return it. The owner gives up hope, because each of the other two can say: I did not take it. The Gemara says Rav Nachman "follows his own reasoning" here, and links this ruling to what he said just before in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha. Rava then limits the second half: it applies only when the coin is too small for each of the three to have a share worth a peruta, the smallest coin. If each could have that much, he must return it, because the three may be partners who have not given up hope. The Gemara also brings a second version of Rava's words, in which he must return it even if the coin is worth only two perutot.
These are general rules. The Gemara itself lists exceptions.
The Gemara says
The law follows him in money cases
The Gemara in Ketubot uses a rule it takes as known: we hold that the law follows Rav Nachman in dinei, which means money law. It brings the rule in the middle of a proof. A ruling of Rav Nachman seemed to go against the view of Rabban Gamliel, and in the case under discussion the law follows Rabban Gamliel. The Gemara says that otherwise one accepted law would contradict another, so Rav Nachman's ruling must fit with Rabban Gamliel's, the way the Gemara had explained.
The Mishnah says that if one person claims "you have a hundred of mine" and the other answers "I have nothing of yours", the one who denies it is exempt. Rav Nachman said: and we make him swear a shevuat hesset, an oath. The Gemara in Shevuot gives the reason: there is a presumption that a person does not make a claim unless the other really owes him. The Gemara objects that there is an opposite presumption, that a person is not so bold as to deny a debt to the face of the one he owes. It answers that he may only be putting him off until he has money to pay.
"Rav Nachman said: and we make him swear an oath of hesset. What is the reason? There is a presumption that a person does not claim unless he has something owed to him by the other."
The Gemara in Bava Metzia quotes the same ruling of Rav Nachman and calls it a takkanta, an enactment. That is the Gemara's word for a rule that the Sages set up. The Gemara says this to explain why the oath cannot be used in the case it is discussing: we do not make an enactment on top of an enactment. The passage does not say who made the enactment.
דְּרַב נַחְמָן תַּקַּנְתָּא הִיא
"That of Rav Nachman is an enactment."
Speaking: The Gemara
Bava Metzia 5a-5bOpen the sourceA classical commentator says
Rashi: by Torah law there is no oath here
Rashi explains why the Gemara calls it an enactment: by Torah law, no oath falls on the person who denies the whole claim.
דהא מדאורייתא לא רמי שבועה עליה
"For by Torah law no oath is placed on him."
Speaking: Rashi
Rashi on Bava Metzia 5aOpen the sourceSame name, different person
Do not confuse him with
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. a different sage, named with his father's name. He sits behind Rava while Rava sits before Rav Nachman, and in Gittin the two are named side by side. Tosafot on Gittin is the source for the rule that the plain name means bar Yaakov, and Tosafot reads Rashi there as holding otherwise
Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda. another sage with the same first name. Tosafot on Gittin lists him as one of the two the Gemara names next to Rav Nachman bar Yaakov
Honest limits
What the sources do not tell us
The sources do not give the years of his birth or death.
The Gemara does not explain "the house of the Nasi" or say which Nasi is meant. Rashi on Kiddushin lists "judge for the Exilarch" and "son-in-law of the house of the Nasi" side by side. Tosafot on Gittin, when it refers to the passage in Chullin, writes "son-in-law of the house of the Exilarch".
The commentators do not agree on which Rav Nachman was that son-in-law. Tosafot holds it was the plain Rav Nachman, bar Yaakov. As Tosafot quotes Rashi on Gittin, it was Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Rashi on Kiddushin gives the title to the Rav Nachman of Nehardea.
The Gemara does not say that Yalta was the daughter of the Exilarch. In Berakhot it names her without saying who she was. That she was Rav Nachman's wife is from Rashi on Kiddushin.
The Gemara does not use the word "teacher" for Rabbah bar Avuha in the passage cited, and does not use the word "student" for Rava.
The Gemara does not say who made the enactment of the oath of hesset. It says that Rav Nachman's ruling is an enactment.
Moed Katan does not name who "him" is in "let the master tell him not to cause me pain". The Angel of Death is Rashi's explanation.
Last checked 2026-10-12. Found a mistake? Tell us.
Every Hebrew and Aramaic quote on this page was checked by script against the passage it cites.
The texts come from Sefaria: the Talmud Bavli is
the William Davidson Edition (Koren Publishers, vowels by Dicta, CC BY-NC), and the Mishnah is the
Torat Emet edition. English translations and explanations are Torah Tech originals, and any
mistakes are ours.
This page is for learning. It is not a halachic ruling.
The Opportunity Year · Tel Aviv, Israel
Learn like this for a year
Torah Tech is a yeshiva and tech program in Tel Aviv. Mornings in the beit midrash,
afternoons interning at Israeli startups, and a year that changes what a young man
thinks he is capable of.