Between Casuistics and Conceptualization: On the Term Ameru Davar Ehad in the Palestinian Talmud

This article analyzes one of the technical terms in the Palestinian Talmud, "ameru davar eḥad" ("[Rabbis X and Y] said the same thing"), which is used to draw attention to similarity or identity between the rulings of different talmudic sages. As a rule, the common features or legal or factual principles to which this term alludes are not articulated explicitly. The nature of the associations introduced varies from case to case, ranging from literal identity to the assumption of common legal principles, to superficial similarity and even shared negative features, without any concrete agreement between the views associated. The associations introduced by ameru were apparently motivated by different factors. Sometimes this term serves an exegetical function, explaining the content or legal basis of a particular ruling by associating it with another ruling. In other passages, these associations limit disagreement between different views by drawing attention to similarities. In still other passages, the ameru dicta were apparently motivated by an interest in association for association's sake, perhaps for didactic or mnemonic reasons. Even though ameru associations sometimes reflect bona fide legal principles, this is not an intrinsic feature of this term. Nevertheless, by associating distinct and often disparate cases, the ameru statements deviate from the casuistic approach characteristic of tannaitic literature, as they extend the purview of legal thought beyond the particular to the general. Accordingly, the ameru associations may be considered the precursor of other, more sophisticated manifestations of conceptual thought and expression found in later strata of rabbinic literature.