Friday, 16 June 2017

What's in a name?

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

No comments:

Post a Comment