Wimpfheimer_ Is it not so.pdf

Toward a Poetics of Legal Narrative in the Talmud ❙ 73
ashamed by the realization that sometimes the speaker may control the topic too
muchÐto the point of missing issues that should be addressed, issues that other
interpreters may notice.
In both narratives, the text's anonymous authorsÐthe anonymous narrator
and the stamÐloom large.⁷⁷ The function of the stam in the ®rst story is mirrored
by that of the anonymous narrator in the second. In the ®rst narrative, an arrogant
Rava asserts authority over his students. The stam actively undercuts such authority
by saying ``But it is not so.'' In the second narrative, a humbled Rava hides from the
students who have outsmarted him. Here the narrator of Rava's shame resuscitates
Rava through an appeal outside of the lawÐan appeal to textual reality. For it turns
out that in a reinterpretation of Mar v. Bei ¼ozai, the owner was not su³ciently
present to invoke the exoneration. Whereas the scenario initially appeared to the
students and Rava (and the reader) as one in which the owner was assisting in the
animal's loading, in actuality the owner was actively contradicting the e²orts of the
borrower by emerging to unload an overburdened animal. In altering the scenario,
the narrator transforms Rava's erroneous judgment into a prophetic one. Though
Rava was unaware of the correctness of his decision, his mistake is one of human
justice, not of objective truth. In the end, his ruling, though hastily determined, is
®tting for the scenario as it actually occurred. His embarrassment is erased as his
mistake metamorphoses into omniscience. Whereas once his students could see
what was hidden from him, now he can see what had been hidden from all.
Upon closer examination, though, it is not Rava who is omniscientÐhe does
not intentionally divine the correct ruling. Were this the case, he would not be
ashamed. Rather, it is his rulingÐhis textÐthat is once again empowered. His
statement in the ®rst narrative is employed by the stam in the imprisonment of its
creatorÐRava is in his students' service two months a year. His ruling here is
employed by the narrator to liberate a quieted Rava. The redactor of these passages
balances the statements of the stam and the work of the narrator, juxtaposing the
two to undercut a victorious teacher and resurrect a fallen judge.
The mirroring of two Rava narratives heightens the impact of each. Our ®rst
narrative contains several replications of form and content that alert us to the
impossibility of attaining a comfortable distance from our objects of study. That
lesson is solidi®ed in the second narrative as the distance between Rava and his