Wimpfheimer_ Is it not so.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Toward a Poetics of Legal Narrative in the Talmud ❙ 61 The notion of play does not speak to the interpreter of Talmud for whom the act of study and interpretation is an imperative. There is reductive beauty to the rabbinic interpretation that generates out of the biblical text an obligation to study, to interpret.⁴⁰ This normative claim establishes the act of interpretation as already an act of adherence. The notion of play cannot su³ce, for the interpreter is not simply freely interpreting, but is mandated to interpret. The interpretation performed by one who is mandated is informed by that performanceÐby the replication of adherence inherent in the act of interpretation itself. Replication, occurring on both a microlevel and a metalevel, highlights the manner in which the material that we study is always already encountered in the structure of the teaching of these relationships. Writ small, Rava's attempt to assert his authority uses control of the topic as the substance of the assertion. By changing the currency to suit his needs, Rava imposes control over the topic and over the students simultaneously. Writ large, the notion of service that is the subject of Rava's lecture and that frames the relationship between two subjects and an objectÐ between a borrower and a lender vis-Áa-vis the animalÐis similarly replicated in the various ways that one envisions textual production. While Rava and his students struggle to control their objectÐthe lectureÐand the stam struggles similarly with Rava for authority over the text, the interpreter struggles with other interpreters and with the text itself for control of the text's meaning. All three struggles are charged by the importance of the endeavor of Torah study to its participants qua adherents. The ®nal struggleÐthe struggle over ®nite meaningÐis perhaps the most charged of all, for it locates itself at the nexus of law's prescription, where theory and practice coincide and play is not an option. RAVA'S SHAME The adjoining talmudic passage continues to replicate the explicit teacher/student struggle within the rhetoric of its legal narration. The passage extends our context beyond the classroom, recounting an instance in which Rava's decision on a legal question, rather than just his teaching, is called into question. By highlighting a moment in which Rava's students prove more knowledgeable than he, the text demonstrates the potential pitfalls of his arrogance.
62 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer Mar⁴¹ bar ¼anina⁴² rented his mule⁴³ to Bei ¼ozai.⁴⁴ [Mar bar ¼anina] went out to lift up a load with [Bei ¼ozai].⁴⁵ They were negligent with it and it died. When they⁴⁶ came before Rava, he obligated [Bei ¼ozai] (to pay).⁴⁷ The Rabbis [his disciples] said to Rava:⁴⁸ But it is negligence with the owner [in service]! He was ashamed. Eventually it was ascertained that he had gone forth to examine⁴⁹ its load. Now, on the view that for negligence with the owner in service there is no responsibility, it is well; (for that reason he was ashamed).⁵⁰ But on the view that one is liable (for negligence in the presence of an owner),⁵¹ why was he ashamed? They were not negligent with it, but it was stolen and it died a natural death in the thief 's house; and they⁵² came before Rava, and he obligated them. [Thereupon] the Rabbis said to Rava: But it was theft with the owner [in service]! He was ashamed. Eventually it was ascertained that he had gone forth to examine its load. The passage opens with the facts of the case: Mar rents a mule to Bei ¼ozai, and assists them in its loading. Bei ¼ozai's negligence contributes to the animal's death. The passage proceeds to the judgment: Rava obligates Bei ¼ozai in light of their negligence. Suddenly, courtroom etiquette is breached.⁵³ ``The Rabbis,'' Rava's students, interject that Mar had been present when the animal was loaded, and Rava is ashamed. According to the traditional interpretation of this narrative, Rava denies Mar's presence its unquestionable normative ability to exonerate Bei ¼ozai. The law is never in question; Rava's error lies entirely in a judgmental oversight.⁵⁴ This interpretation is troubling, though, since the case that appears in Rava's courtroom is far from self-evident. No legal precedent exists for this case of ®rst impression. Exod. 22:13±14 articulates owner presence as an exonerating exception in a standard case of loss, not one in which the renter is actively responsible for that loss. Mishnah Bava Metsi¦a 7:9⁵⁵ implies an obligation for all nonowners in standard
Page 1 and 2: “But It Is Not So”: Toward a Po
Page 3 and 4: 52 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer speci®c n
Page 5 and 6: 54 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer Rava said:
Page 7 and 8: 56 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer claiming t
Page 9 and 10: 58 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer Teaching i
Page 11: 60 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer teleologic
Page 15 and 16: 64 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer reachÐwhi
Page 17 and 18: 66 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer erredÐtha
Page 19 and 20: 68 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer empathic d
Page 21 and 22: 70 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer failed to
Page 23 and 24: 72 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer for Rava t
Page 25 and 26: 74 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer rulings co
Page 27 and 28: 76 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer In our pas
Page 29 and 30: 78 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer Rabbenu Ba
Page 31 and 32: 80 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer 35 The ter
Page 33 and 34: 82 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer 330): ``in
Page 35 and 36: 84 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer 64 Though
Page 37: 86 ❙ Barry Wimpfheimer 73 BT Sanh

Wimpfheimer_ Is it not so.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?