Palestinian scholar of the third century; junior contemporary of Ḥiyya b. Abba and Tanḥum b. Ḥanilai. Ḥanina applied to Ḥiyya to explain why the expression "that it may go well with thee," contained in the second version of the Decalogue (Deut. v. 16), was not embodied in the first version (Ex. xx. 12). Ḥiyya thereupon gave him this remarkable answer: "Instead of asking me that, ask me whether the expression is embodied in either version: I do not even know it is there! However, apply to Tanḥum. b. Ḥanilai, who has frequented the school of the expert haggadist Joshua b. Levi." Ḥanina did so, and was told that the promise was omitted from the first version because the first tablets of the Decalogue were destined to be broken (see Ex. xxxii. 19). This is explained by a later haggadist, who stated that the inclusion of the promise in the tablets that were destined to be broken would have been very discouraging to the people, who would have seen in the breaking of them a foreshadowing of the cessation of God's goodness (B. Ḳ. 54b et seq.). With reference to Isa. lxiv. 3 (A. V. 4: "Neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him"), Ḥanina remarks: "The Jews who attended the banquet given by Ahasuerus [Esth. i.] were asked whether God would ever provide better entertainment for them; to which they replied, 'Should God furnish us the like of this we should protest, since we have had such viands at the board of Ahasuerus'" (Esth. R. i. 5, where is corrupted to ). His name appears also in connection with a halakah which he reports as having originated with Hezekiah, probably the son of Ḥiyya (Yer. Yeb. vi. 7c).

J. S. M.
Images of pages