I thought to answer as follows:
When the Gemara answers that Rav is a tanna, that is when the question is on Rav alone. In this case the question is on a joint statement of Rav and Shmuel. (Whether there is also a concept of "Shmuel is a tanna" as well is subject to debate, but for the sake of this answer let's assume that there isn't.) Thus even if the ...
The Rambam mentions him in the הקדמה to משניות in his list of people mentioned in the משנה as "someone mentioned but not for his views in אסור והיתר".
R' Sherira Gaon lists him as the same generation as Rav and Shmuel, but does not list him as one of the people how is both a Tanna and an Amora. it would seem that R' Sherira hold that he is not a Tanna.
(I am prepared for all of the downvotes this might get me...)
In my understanding of Rabbeinu Tam, this is a non-issue. Rabbeinu Tam rejects Rashbam's opinion because Rav Ashi answers Rav Achai in Kesubos. Finished.
Once that is the case, Rabbeinu Tam must come up with some explanation as to why Rav Achai always appears using the terms of Parich/Pashit. ...
The edition of Shas at HebrewBooks.org contains a footnote suggesting that it is indeed R. Shimon b. Lakish.
It notes that there are manuscripts with this reading, as well as the parallel text in the Talmud Yerushalmi.
R. Tzvi Elimelech of Dinov in his commentary to the passage on 43b writes as follows:
מהראוי להתבונן מהיכן שפט זה דר"י אמר כך משום חביבות א"י שהיה לו ביותר מכל העולם וגם אם תלוי הדבר בחביבות א"י הנה אם יארע עוד איש שיקר בעיניו חביבות א"י ישתנה הדין ויברך כמו שברך ר"י וזה לא שמענו מעולם ונראה דאמר כן משום דר"י ס"ל כל העולה ...
There is another gemara where Rav is refuted from a beraita, and the gemara does not answer that Rav is a tanna who can argue.
Take a look at Menachot 5a (today's page in the Daf Yomi cycle!). Rav is of the opinion that an asham metzora (a leper's guilt offering) which has been slaughtered shelo lishmo (with the intent that it not be an asham metzora but ...
From here it would appear that there are 277 Tannaim and 1,292 Amoraim mentioned in the Talmudic-Midrashic literature. (Note: A number of Amoraim, e.g. Rav [Abba Arika] is also considered a Tanna according to some gemarot.)
The מגיד תעלומה suggests that you cannot say that רבי אבא is רב in this case, because further on רב is quoted by רב חננאל as taking a different view.
The יפה תלמוד ג"ח suggests that in this case, רבינו is רבינו הקדוש for the same reason - רב being quoted further on as contradicting this din.
The עטרת שאול discusses this at length, suggesting different ...
The way that you translated it might seem to indicate that R. Chanina was reading the Beraita. However, we can challenge your translation. You appear to have rendered the word קרא as a verb meaning that R. Chanina was reading. However, we know from elsewhere in the Talmud that the word קרא is actually part of R. Chanina's name/title. In Taanit 27b we find:
Source Gittin 6b
אמר רב יוסף מאן לימא לן דר' אביתר בר סמכא הוא ועוד הא איהו דשלח ליה לרב יהודה בני אדם העולין משם לכאן הן קיימו בעצמן (יואל ד, ג) ויתנו (את) הילד בזונה והילדה מכרו ביין וישתו וכתב ליה בלא שירטוט וא"ר יצחק בשתים כותבין שלש אין כותבין במתניתא תנא שלש כותבין ארבע אין כותבין א"ל אביי אטו כל דלא ידע הא דר' יצחק לאו גברא רבה הוא בשלמא מילתא ...
The last Mishnah in Uktzin - perek 3 mishnah 12 - starts with a quotation from R' Yehoshua Ben Levi. Tosafos Yom Tov there says that according to the Rambam he is a Tanna. However, at the end of the Masechto, Tosafos Yom Tov disagrees and gives a reason why Rabeinu Hakodosh, the copiler of the Mishnah, put in this saying of R' Yehoshua Ben Levi, even though ...
Sifra (Aramaic: סִפְרָא) is the Halakhic midrash to Leviticus. It is frequently quoted in the Talmud, and the study of it followed that of the Mishnah. Like Leviticus itself, the midrash is occasionally called "Torat Kohanim"...
According to the Wiki article, Maimonides and others have declared that the title "Sifra debe Rab" indicates Rav as the ...
Thanks to the answer of @Joel K I searched in manuscripts of the Sifria Leumit.
See in Manuscript Vatican Apostolica Hebr 110-111 that the text is Amar leih Rabbi Shimeon Ben Lakish (Left column fourth line)
This was not such a rare occurrence. Below are a bunch of examples (in addition to the example cited in the question) of Talmudic incidents in which a person is asked his/her name and the name is then expounded.
כי הא דרב אדא בר אהבה חזייה לההיא כותית דהות לבישא כרבלתא בשוקא סבר
דבת ישראל היא קם קרעיה מינה אגלאי מילתא דכותית היא שיימוה ...
ספר שי לתורה quotes an interesting פשט from R’ Simcha Ziskind Broide from Chevron:
R' Zera recognised that he wouldn't be able to learn properly with the new approach and svaros of Eretz Yisrael if he was preoccupied with that of Bavel.
He uses that as a lesson that we need to leave the past behind us at times in order to move on to the next level.
Hillel and Shamai themselves were the last of the Zugot -- pairs of scholars who served as the Nasi (prince) and Av Beit Din (chief justice), respectively. The Zugot are listed in the first perek of Masechet Avot (Pirkei Avot).
The Steinsaltz Talmudic reference guide contains a nice chart listing the generations of Tannaim and Ammoraim. According to it, the ...
The attribution to the Rogetchover is, according to Rabbi Bechhofer, "an unverified legend related in the Yeshiva world."
Something very much like this was written by the Meiri in his introduction to Pirkei Avos (starting here), where he goes through each Masechta listing all of the tannaim that appear there for the first time.
While it’s unclear who wrote Avos d’Rebbi Nassan, many Rishonim, including Rashbatz and Machzor Vitri, write that it was indeed written by the Tanna R’ Nassan.
Technically the entirety of Mishnayos qualifies: they were composed by Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi, based on the works of many Tannaim (though primarily R’ Meir and R’ Akiva).
The story you are looking for is about the Tosafist Rabbi Yechiel of Paris. From a quick search it seems like the source is from Éliphas Lévi in his book Histoire de la magie, (The History of Magic), 1860.
See this post which brings the story: http://www.ancientpages.com/2014/04/24/mystery-ancient-ever-burning-lamps/
Tosfos pesachim 5a:
דברי ר' ישמעאל - תימה לר"י דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל נפקא ליה מקרא אחרינא
ובכמה דוכתין פריך מר' ישמעאל אתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל
The Maharam explains Tosfos's question:
ד"ה דברי ר' ישמעאל וכו' ובכמה דוכתי פריך מרבי ישמעאל אתנא דבי רבי
ישמעאל ר"ל א"כ משמע דחד תנא הוא
This could be a proof that he was the tanna - r' yishmael
No. This is a commonly stated rule post-Talmud, but it is also simply accepted without debate in the Talmud. One example is Gitten 49b-50a where Mar Zutra makes a statement that when the Mishna says that when land is foreclosed on to collect a Kesuba the land taken from the least valuable-per-acre land (Ziburis) it is only referring to if the husband dies ...
As far as I have understood from speaking to Rebbeim, R' Chiya was a teacher of Baraisos. He was not himself a Tanna. Baraisas that went through the academy of R' Chiya were assumed to be authoritative. However, if R' Chiya taught something which had no reference or hint to it in the Mishna, it is assumed that it is a mistake. R' Chiya is not talking on ...
Rav Yochanan and Rav aren't entirely amoraim; both had semichah before the mishnah was closed. I bet there are a number of first generation amoraim in the same boat.
Shmuel is more complicated, since he never got semichah. However, the Rosh compares Berakhos 23b, where we rule like Shemu'el even though he contradicts a beraisa, and 24a where we wouldn't. ...