Torah in the Mouth.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE Jaffee, Martin S., Samuel and Althea Stroum Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Washington Print publication date: 2001, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-514067-5, doi:10.1093/0195140672.001.0001 eighth. For a fine survey of the options, with a creative distinction between a mid-third-century written redaction circulating in Palestine and an oral redaction circulating primarily in Babylonia at a much later date, see Y. Elman, Authority and Tradition , pp. 1–46. On the specific question of the oral transmission of the Tosefta, see Y. Elman, “Orality and the Transmission of Tosefta Pisha in Talmudic Tradition,” in H. Fox and T. Meacham, Introducing Tosefta, pp. 123–180. Citations of the Tosefta in this book are translated by the author. The edition used for the Orders of Agriculture, Festivals, Women, and the Bavot is that of S. Lieberman. Other citations are drawn from the edition of K. Rengstorf, where available, and from that of M. Zuckermandel. 13. Critical opinion regarding the dates for the compilation and circulation of these diverse collections is conveniently surveyed in G. Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash , pp. 248–276. Author's translations are from the following editions: Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, ed. Horovitz and Rabin; Sifra to Leviticus, ed. Weiss; Sifre to Numbers, ed. Horovitz; Sifre to Deuteronomy, ed. Finkelstein. 14. My own discussion rehearses much that can be found in B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript , pp. 19–32, although I am less confident than Gerhardsson that the distinction between qr' and šnh has much relevance in the Second Temple period. 15. This assumption is confirmed by the ruling of M. Sotah 7:7 that part of the Temple scriptural reading for Yom Kippur be read by the High Priest ‘l ph (“from memory”) rather than from a written copy. This is understood as an exception permissible only for the sake of the congregation, which might be disturbed by the interruption of rolling the scroll of the Torah from the first reading of the day, Lev. 23:26–32, to the second reading, Num. 29:7–11. See also T. Megillah 2:5, which specifies that “one who recites [the Esther Scroll] from memory has not satisfied his obligation.” For the semantic range of the root qr' and the noun mqr' in the rabbinic literature, see Bacher, Terminologie, vol. 1, pp. 174–176; vol. 2, pp. 193–196. 16. There are some exceptions in which a recitation of Scripture is incorporated into the term for oral recitation from memory. See, e.g., Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, A18, in which, responding to Rabbi Tarfon's request to “repeat for me” (šnh ly), a disciple is said to have “brought Scripture, repeated tradition, exegetical tradition, legal tradition, and homiletic tradition.” On šnh in general, see W. Bacher, Terminologie, vol. 1, pp. 193–195; vol. 2, pp. 225 – end p.184 226. A helpful discussion of the use of the stem šm‘ in early rabbinic halakhic tradition to denote the medium of transmitted knowledge is that of Goldin, “On the Account of the Banning of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus,” pp. 285–288. 17. The gap between this representation of matters and the suggestive evidence of the texts themselves that writing was employed in their composition at some level will concern us in chapter 7. For the moment we will simply accept the Tannaitic testimony as it is presented. 18. For similar usage of mšnh in the construct state, see M. Avot 3:7–8: “one who interrupts his recitation (mšntw )”; “one who forgets a single point of his recitation (mšntw ). Cf. Y. Moed Qatan 3:7, 83b: “whoever neglects his affairs in preference for his recitation ( mšntw ).” On this point S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 88–96, assumes that the term mšnh in its construct state refers to coherent corpora of traditions transmitted orally among early Tannaim, e.g., in the circle of Rabbi Aqiva. This usage, in fact, is attested only in relation to Masters of the third century (e.g., Y. Maaserot 3:7, 50d, which speaks of “the Mishnah of” (mšntw šl ) Rabbi Hiyya, Rabbi Hoshaya, and bar Qappara). See Y. Epstein, Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah , pp. 25–74. 19. The distinction between mishnah as a designation of a circumscribed logion and Mishnah as the designation of a redacted literary work is not always obvious. It is preserved as well in both Talmuds, in which the Aramaic term mtnyt‘ (“repeated teaching”) commonly refers to any reputedly Tannaitic teaching, while mtnytyn (“our repeated tradition”) refers to the formal learning curriculum of the community embodied in the Mishnah of Rabbi Yehudah. See Bacher, Terminologie, vol. 1, p. 194; Y. Epstein, Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah , pp. 813–814; and C. Albeck, Introduction to the Mishnah., pp. 1–2. 20. See Y. Epstein, Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah , pp. 25–163. 21. For discussion of the sixth chapter of M. Avot, see M. Lerner, “The Tractate Avot,” pp. 273–275. 22. I quote from Schechter, ed., p. 28b. See chapter 5, n. 3, for bibliography regarding the position of Avot d'Rabbi Natan in emerging rabbinic tradition. 23. Bracketed material does not appear in the text. The context of the story, which describes a man who strove for a high level of piety, requires this qualification. 24. In versions of this passage cited in Y. Berakhot 3:4, 6c and B. Berakhot 22a, the females are excluded so as to avoid the obvious implication that women are permitted to read the Torah in public. See D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel , pp. 180–181. 25. The claim is usually based upon an enigmatic passage in M. Eduyot 1:3 (B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript , p. 131; D. Zlotnick, Iron Pillar Mishnah , p. 40; J. Faur, Golden Doves with Silver Dots , pp. 89–90). In dispute with Shammai over the quantity of drawn water that nullifies the purifying power of an immersion pool, Hillel employs the antiquated measurement of a hin in place of the term qav, preferred elsewhere in rabbbinic usage. The Mishnah's glossator explains Hillel's terminological choice as follows: “for a person is obliged to report [a tradition] in the expression used by his Master [blšwn rbw ].” It is significant that T. Eduyyot 1:3, which offers a parallel to M. Eduyyot 1:3’s dispute, has both Hillel and Shammai employing the term hin and offers no further comment. In Mishnaic context, therefore, the explanation simply justifies Hillel's preservation of an antiquated PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003 - 2011. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/privacy_policy.html). Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 20 September 2011
Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE Jaffee, Martin S., Samuel and Althea Stroum Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Washington Print publication date: 2001, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-514067-5, doi:10.1093/0195140672.001.0001 hin and offers no further comment. In Mishnaic context, therefore, the explanation simply justifies Hillel's preservation of an antiquated term; it makes no claim about the verbatim memorization of entire utterances. The citation of this gloss at B. Berakhot 47a suggests that, among later Babylonians, the point was indeed extended beyond terminological precision even to grammatical forms. But this still does not amount to a requirement for verbatim transmission of all utterances. Another passage quoted as Tannaitic tradition in B. Sukkah 28a in the name of the first-century Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus is also often cited in support of the existence of an institutionalized mandate of verbatim memorization (e.g., D. Zlotnick, Iron Pillar Mishnah , p. 65). end p.185 The passage reads: “You [Sages] implore me to report a matter [dbr ] I haven't heard from my Masters. [But,] in my entire life no one has ever preceded me to the House of Study, nor have I dozed off in the House of Study . . . , nor have I left anyone remaining in the House of Study, nor have I uttered a word of idle conversation, nor have I ever reported a matter [dbr ] I did not hear from my Masters.” Eliezer's point, as the context makes clear, is that he refuses to offer a ruling on a topic unless he has heard a tradition from his teachers. In any event, the wide range of textual variation characteristic of the transmission of specific teachings in rabbinic literature—in both halakhic and aggadic genres—testifies to the fact that rabbinic tradents valued what Latin rhetoricians termed memoria ad res above memoria ad verbum (see M. Carruthers, The Book of Memory , pp. 86–89). For recent perspectives on the significance and reliability of the attributions of teachings to specific autorities, see J. Neusner, “Evaluating the Attributions,” pp. 93–111; S. Stern, “Attribution and Authorship,” pp. 28–51; idem, “The Concept of Authorship,” pp. 183–185; D. Kraemer, “On the Reliability of Attributions,” pp. 175–190; R. Brody, “Geonic Literature and the Text of the Talmud (Heb.),” pp. 257–259, 282; R. Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors , pp. 127 –140; and C. Hezser, The Social Structure of the rabbinic Movement , pp. 334–335. 26. See T. Parah 11:8 (ed. Rengstorf): “The authorities do not dispute the substance of the halakhah, but rather the formulation” (hlšwn). The most exhaustive catalogue of the forms and formulaic patterns employed in the Mishnah and Tosefta in particular is that of J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities , vol. XXI, pp. 164–246. 27. A similar testimony to the recasting of a tradition on the basis of rational considerations, drawn from Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai, Pisha (Ex. 13:5), serves as D. Nelson's route into the oral-performative world of rabbinic midrashic literature. See his recent dissertation, Textuality and Talmud Torah , pp. 1–2. 28. Cf. T. Parah 4:7 (ed. Rengstorf). Later Babylonian traditions are clear that students memorized their Mishnaic materials with the mnemonic aid of cantillation: B. Sanhedrin 99b, B. Megillah 32a. Helpful discussions of the role of chanting and song in the memorization of Tannaitic traditions may be consulted in B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript , pp. 163–168; B. Bayer, “Oral Law in the ‘Oral Law,’” pp. 1148–150; and D. Zlotnick, The Iron Pillar Mishnah , pp. 54–60. An ethnomusicological study of the oral performance of the Mishnah based upon medieval manuscript traditions of Aleppo has been offered in F. Alvarez-Pereyre, La Transmission Orale de la Mishnah. 29. My discussion here revises and amplifies arguments I first set forth in M. Jaffee, “Halakhah in Early rabbinic Judaism,” pp. 113–132. I wish to thank the publisher, Walter de Gruyter, for permission to use this material. 30. There are only two appearances in the Mishnah. M. Sheqalim 6:1 reports that the families of Rabban Gamaliel I and Rabbi Hananiah, Prefect of the Priests, had a “masoret from their fathers” that the original Ark was hidden at a certain spot in the Temple. The second appearance (M. Avot 3:13), “the masoret [some versions: mesorah] is a fence for the Torah,” refers narrowly to the traditions by which the text of the Torah was preserved and its words pronounced. The two examples in the Tosefta (Bekhorot 1:12 and Arakhin 5:16) follow the usage of M. Sheqalim. See Bacher, Terminologie, vol. 1, p. 108, and 2, p. 115. 31. The one example in the Mishnah and the Tosefta is that of M. Taanit 2:1, which introduces a citation of Joel 2:13 with the phrase, “and in the qabbalah it says,” thus indicating that qabbalah designates the tradition of the Prophets. See Bacher, Terminologie, vol. 1, pp. 105 –106. 32. On the semantic range of this term, see Bacher, Terminologie, vol. 1, pp. 42–43, and 2, pp. 53–56. Etymological discussions may be consulted in Lieberman, Hellenism, 83, n. 3; Safrai, Literature of the Sages , 121–122; and most recently, Abusch, “Alaktu and Halakhah,” end p.186 pp. 15–42. While Abusch's etymological case is very provocative, my own study of the actual usage of halakhah in early rabbinic sources shows that, where it does bear the connotation of revealed law, it does so only in the post-Mishnaic sources which have already begun to reflect upon the term in light of theological and jurisprudential concerns. 33. T. Gittin 4:6 offers a ruling that assumes the position staked out in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yose, but it betrays no special knowledge of the dispute between the latter and Rabbi Haninah. 34. For a richer exposition of the metaphorical character of Mishnaic thought on tents than I can offer here, see the discussion in J. Neusner, History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities , vol. V, pp. 174–184. 35. I translate the version of MS. Parma De Rossi 138, supported by a number of early witnesses. Albeck's text must be rendered “and decides in accordance with it” instead of “it may rely on it.” 36. See references to the “earlier teaching” (mšnh r'šwnh), which is then superseded by a more recent ruling, e.g., M. Ketubot 5:3, Gittin 5:6. Relevant here as well are the numerous instances of the formulary: “In early days they would say, . . . but they reconsidered and said, PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003 - 2011. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/privacy_policy.html). Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 20 September 2011
Page 1 and 2:
Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68: Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 117: Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
show all

Torah in the Mouth.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?