Torah in the Mouth.pdf

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
54. On the Mosaic court and its relation to rabbinic courts, see M. Rosh Hashannah 2:9.
55. See the comments of S. Safrai in Literature of the Sages , pp. 182–183, on the work of other scholars. He nevertheless also tends to
submerge the concept of Mosaic halakhah within an encompassing context of Oral Torah: “In sum, we may state that halakhot which are
called ‘halakha to Moses from Sinai’ . . . are a part of the Oral Tora which goes hand in hand with the Written Tora; and the latter is seen
as given through Moses in his time and thus for the generations” (p. 185).
end p.188
Safrai is certainly correct regarding the later rabbinic conception, as discussions in, e.g., P. Peah 2:6, 17a and B. Men. 29b show. Indeed,
in the Talmuds the term “a halakhah of Moses from Sinai” is used rather indiscriminately as a tool of jurisprudence. Thus, for example,
rulings that, in the Mishnah itself, are revised by the formula “they really said . . . ” are taken to be Mosaic halakhot (e. g, B. Berakhot 20b;
cf. Y. Shabbat 1:4, 3b).
For further discussion of this complex problem, see the foundational studies of: S. Kaatz, Die Mündliche Lehre und ihr Dogma , vol. 1, pp.
4–15, and vol. 2, pp. 44–59; W. Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten , pp. 33–46; P. Schäfer, “Das Dogma von der Mündlichen Torah im
Rabbinischen Judentum,” pp. 153–197, and the recent treatment in J. Neusner, What, Exactly, Did the rabbinic Sages Mean by “Oral
Torah”? pp. 1–2, 6–11.
56. The Mishnah and Tosefta are virtually identical at units 1–2. Unit 3, which supplies the judgment over the Shammaite victory, appears
only in the Tosefta and parallels cited at Y. Shabbat 1:4, 3c and B. Shabbat 17a. See the textual discussion in S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-
fshuta, vol. 3, pp. 13–15.
57. In the same passage Abba Shaul argues that the practice is in fact a clear biblical commandment (Lev.23:39). See the comment of J.
Neusner, What, Exactly, Did the rabbinic Sages Mean by “The Oral Torah”? p. 18.
5. The Ideological Construction of Torah in the Mouth
1. Of the numerous literary, rhetorical, and traditio-historical studies of this material, the following are particularly helpful: E. Bickerman,
“La chaine de la tradition Pharisienne,” pp. 153–165; M. Heer, “Continuity of Tradition in the Transmission of Torah,” pp. 43–56; J.
Neusner, The Mishnah, pp. 206–214; idem, What, Exactly, Did the Rabbinic Sages Mean By, “The Oral Torah”? pp. 27–31; M. Lerner,
“The Tractate Avot,” pp. 263–276; and A. Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism, pp. 9–23. See also the brief but penetrating comments of S.
Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, pp. 69–72, and M. Swartz, Scholastic Magic, pp. 175–178. H. Strack and G. Stemberger, in
Introduction to Talmud and Midrash , pp. 120–121, provide an excellent introductory bibliography. This has unfortunately been omitted in
the second edition under Stemberger's name.
2. There remains no consensus regarding the precise point at which Avot came to be routinely circulated within the larger mishnaic
corpus, or why it was included among the other tractates in the order of Damages. See G. Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud and
Midrash, pp. 122–123.
3. The ascription of this post-mishnaic compilation to a Tanna of the late second century has long puzzled scholars. For a survey of
scholarly opinion regarding the relation of Avot de-Rabbi Nathan to the Mishnah, the relations of its two versions to each other, and other
questions, see M. Lerner, “The External Tractates,” pp. 370–378. S. Schechter's standard edition of the two versions of Avot de-Rabbi
Natan (published in 1887) has recently been reissued with an introduction by M. Kister. These summarize his more extensive text- and
tradition-critical study, M. Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan .
4. See, for example, E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution, p. 129, and D. Zlotnick, Iron Pillar Mishnah , p. 145. Compare the more nuanced view
of D. Rozental, “Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai,” pp. 455–460, who accepts the antiquity of the term but recognizes that its implications
were not fully worked out until the post-mishnaic period. Unlike Avot, Avot de-Rabbi Natan is familiar with the terminology of Written and
Oral Torah. See version A15 and version B29 (ed. Schechter, p. 61), paralleled by B. Shabbat 31a. It is all the more puzzling, therefore,
that Avot de-Rabbi Natan A1 makes no mention of the Oral Torah in its opening gloss of M. Avot's chain of tradition: “Moses was
sanctified in the cloud and received Torah from Sinai” (ed. Schechter, p. 1).
end p.189
5. S. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, p. 71.
6. The quotation is from J. Levenson, “The Sources of Torah,” p. 570.
7. Compare J. Neusner, What, Exactly, Did the Rabbinic Sages Mean By “The Oral Torah”? pp. 3–4.
8. This is the commonly attested reading. Cf. the proposed emendation of B. Hagigah 11b: hn whn (“these and those”). The Bavli's revision
is born of discomfort with the Mishnah's acceptance of certain bodies of halakhah as more “essential” than others, but there is little
reticence on this point in Tannaitic materials. See, e.g., T. Shabbat 2:10, in which Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel points out that “the
halakhot of Temple Dedications, purification offerings, and tithes are the essence of the Torah [yet] are transmitted to undisciplined Jews.”
In M. Avot 3:18 the honorific status of “essence of the halakhot” is applied to the obscure and difficult topics of bird offerings and the
calculation of the onset of menstrual impurity. For further discussion of these and other sources, see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah,
vol. III, p. 470.
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