For a change I decided to write
briefly about a perhaps relatively minor issue. Different attitudes exist about
naming children. Usually the more emotional among us attach great importance to
name selection, whereas the rationalists like me are less bothered.
When reading the Torah the clear
impression seems to support the first group, as a huge number of words are
dedicated to naming. With the exception of Binyamin (who was named twice), the
naming of all of the twelve tribes is accompanied with an explanation. The same
is true about the names of Chava, Kayin, Sheis, Noach, Yaakov, Moshe and his
sons. All of this is hard to dismiss as inconsequential.
Even if we could downplay the
importance of these names given by humans, G-d himself gets involved with many
names. The names Adam, Avraham,
Sarah, Yishmael, Yitzchak and Yisrael are all given by G-d or His angels. Hashem
even indicates the importance of the naming of species of, animals instructing
Adam to name them.[1]
Chazal also tell us that a person’s
name can affect his actions, deriving this from an alternative reading of a
pasuk in Tehilim 46:9.[2]
Elsewhere they tell us of a case where R’ Yehuda and R’ Yossi entrusted an
innkeeper with their money, whereas R’ Meir did not out of concern that his name
(Kidor) hinted at crookedness.[3] The
innkeeper subsequently denied receiving the money, confirming R’ Meir’s fears.[4]
However, clearly a person has
free will and is capable of doing good or bad whatever his name is. This point
is also explicit in Chazal, who tell us that some people have repulsive actions
despite having pleasing names (Yishmael and Esav are given as examples), while
others have pleasing actions despite their repulsive names (Bakbuk, Chakufa and
Charchur in Ezra 2:51).[5]
The Maharam ibn Chaviv
(1654-1696) points out this seeming ‘contradiction’, and resolves that although
most peoples’ actions follow their names, there is a minority who ‘buck the
trend.’ He also raises the possibility that only new names have an effect on
their bearers, whereas old names that ‘the multitudes are familiar with’ do not
indicate anything.[6]
A rationalist view
From all the above it should be
clear that names can play an important role in the development of a person,
although nothing is set in stone. I am naturally sceptical of mystical
explanations of this, and even if I believed in such explanations I would lack
the tools to analyse them.[7] But
here I think one can interpret in a rather simple and rational way.
To varying extents, all of us are
influenced by many emotional factors. In many places Chazal tell us about the
severity of the prohibition of causing pain to others verbally, despite the
fact that the damage is merely psychological.[8]
A person’s name can be a strong
psychological influence, as it is the code-word used to describe his entire
entity. For this reason Chazal list one who calls someone else by a derogatory
nickname amongst those who go to gehinom and never come out.[9]
A name that represents something
positive, either in its inherent meaning or by association to a character in
history, will often direct a person.[10] In
contrast, a name associated with evil can cause unwanted effects. Although the
child may not assume that he is supposed to live up to his name, he may well
wonder why his parents chose this name for him and about how they view him.
This also explains the suggestion
of Maharam ibn Chaviv, that well-known names may not have an effect. Someone
with the same name as several of his friends will probably not think twice
about his parents’ intentions.
Practical conclusions
Unsurprisingly, I have very
little patience for most of the ‘rules’ one sometimes hears about which names
are acceptable and unacceptable. However, one rule is given by Chazal- we
should not name after wicked people.[11] Generally
speaking this rule is adhered to amongst religious Jews, although in recent
times certain questionable names have gained popularity.
The name Nimrod exists on the
fringes, and the name Omri is not uncommon. I suspect that in part ignorance is
to blame (for those who don’t know, Omri was one of the worst kings of Israel[12]).
Although in all likelihood, those who first revived these names wanted to take
from Tanach only the values of physical strength and leadership. They may even
have purposely looked for names of those who rebelled against the Torah and its
values.[13]
May we merit the most precious
crown, that of a ‘Shem Tov’.[14]
[1] Bereishis 2:20. Although the
Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:30) proves from this that languages are man-made and
not inherent.
[2] Berachos 7a
[3] Based on a
hint from Devarim 32:20.
[4] Yoma 83b
[5] Bereishis
Rabba, Vayetze 71:3
[6] Tosefes
Yom Hakipurim, Yoma 83b. Interestingly his series of sefarim is rather aptly
named ‘Shemos Baaretz,’ perhaps after this comment.
[7] It
would be especially hard to explain why some are unaffected by these mystical
forces, unless we apply the principle that ‘only those who believe are
affected’ (see Pesachim 110b).
[8] See Bava
Metsia 58b-59a
[9] Ibid.
[10] Even
if the person named after is not so well known, the choice of a name of someone
who is part of our heritage says something.
[11] Yoma 38b,
based on the pasuk ושם רשעים ירקב (Mishlei 10:7).
[12] See
Melachim 1, 16:25-6
[13] If anyone
can either support or challenge this hypothesis with evidence, I would be
grateful.
[14] See Avos
4:13
