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
32. In contrast to Lev.11:34, which knows only that water can be a conveyer of uncleanness, scribal tradition includes other liquids: dew,
wine, oil, blood, milk, and bee honey (M. Makhshirin 6:7). Sifra to Leviticus, Shemini, per. 11:6–7, provides the exegetical inferences
behind the ruling. See also B. Niddah 7b, s.v. wrbnn hw’ dgzrw gzrh .
33. B. Shabbat 14a, commenting on M. Zabim 5:12, explains this form of uncleanness as a precaution instituted to discourage laxity with
regard to proper ritual immersions for purification.
34. On this identification and others, see the classical commentaries to M. Tohorot 4:11 ad loc.
35. The theme seems to be as old as the Book of Jubilees, in which Abraham is depicted as celebrating the Festivals of Sukkot (Jubilees
16:20–31) and Shavuot (Jubilees 22:1–9). See also his blessing for Jacob (Jubilees 23:16) in which he implores his son to avoid eating
with Gentiles.
Closer to the rabbinic period, the first century Jewish exegete, Philo wrote that Abraham performed the commandments “not taught by
written words, but unwritten nature gave him the zeal to follow where wholesome and untainted impulse led him” (On Abraham 275, pp. 133
–135).
S. Sandmel, Philo's Place in Judaism, pp. 30–95, surveys the image of the founding patriarch of Judaism in the Palestinian and diaspora
literature of the Second Temple period. On pp. 354–356 he notes the similarity in the Philonic and later Toseftan appreciation of Abraham's
pre-Sinaitic piety. See also the extensive note of L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews , vol. 5, p. 259.
36. I cite the text of ed., Lieberman, vol. 3, p. 299.
37. I cite the text of ed., Zuckermandel, p. 344.
38. The printed text reads: “all the same are the Torah in Script and Torah in the Mouth.” I cite the manuscript versions recommended by
R. Rabbinowicz, Diqduqei Soferim, ad loc., n. 90. In an important article, M. Gruber points out that the version of the printed text is a
medieval revision grounded in Rashi's commentary on Gen. 26:5 (M. Gruber, “Rashi's Torah Commentary,” pp. 225–228).
39. There is, overall, a tendency in the Talmud Yerushalmi to identify the Sages with the ancient scribes. This identification then permits
scribal teaching and halakhic tradition to appear identical. Thus Y. Eruvin 5:1, 22c, offers a discussion of the seven names of the
Temple's Eastern Gate. One of these names, the New Gate, is explained as follows: “For there the Scribes declared innovations in the
halakhah.” Here scribes are assimilated to the role of Sages in developing and extending halakhic norms. Cf. Y. Sheqalim 5:1, 48c, with
regard to Ezra, who is portrayed as uniting within himself the traditions of both scribes and Sages: “just as he counted the words of the
Torah, so too did he count the words of the Sages.”
6. Composing the Tannaitic Oral-Literary Tradition
1. Indeed, S. Lieberman (Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 86–88, 207–208) long ago acknowledged the use of written aides de memoire
in rabbinic circles, although he insisted that official publication of such texts as the Mishnah were exclusively oral. He was, however,
vague on the question of composition. The rare depictions of the Tannaim editing traditions are also unclear with regard to the methods of
compiling those traditions into larger collections. See the descriptions of Rabbi Aqiva's activities in T. Zabim 1:5 and Avot de-Rabbi
Nathan A18, and the discussions of S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 91–93;
end p.193
J. Faur, Golden Doves with Silver Dots , pp. 84–89 and 98–99; and D. Zlotnick, Iron Pillar Mishnah , pp. 31–32. For criticism of
Lieberman's account in particular, see M. Jaffee, “How Much Orality in Oral Torah?” pp. 68–69.
More recently, cogent arguments have been offered for the early existence of written recensions of the Tosefta (Y. Elman, Authority and
Tradition, pp. 275–281) and Sifra to Leviticus (S. Naeh, “Structure and Divisions of the Midrash Torat Kohanim”).
2. M. Gruber, “The Mishnah as Oral Torah,” pp. 112–122, has shown that the Mishnah itself includes no claim that it constitutes a
redacted text of the original Oral Torah. The dual meaning of the Hebrew term, mšnh—as “repeated tradition” in general or as a particular
compilation of such tradition, e.g., the Mishnah—can at times lead to confusion in this regard. For example, the idea that “many halakhot
were given to Moses on Sinai and all are embedded in mšnh” (Y. Peah 2:6, 17a and parallels; see chapter 7) refers to “repeated tradition”
in the generic sense. So too B. Eruvin 54b's well-known answer to the question, “How was mšnh arranged?” See chapter 7 for extensive
discussion of Y. Peah 2:6. In both cases the referent of mšnh is the halakhic tradition in general out of which specific compilations
emerge, rather than the redacted Mishnah in particular.
3. The fundamental medieval source on the media for transmitting the earliest rabbinic literature is the responsum of the tenth-century
Geonic authority Rabbi Sherira b. Hanina. He supplied the first coherent history of rabbinic literary tradition. The text has survived in two
recensions, usually identifed as the “French version” and the “Spanish version.” See the edition of B. Lewin, Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon . M.
Schlütter, Auf welche Weise wurde die Mishna geschrieben? pp. 5–21, has criticized this picture of the text's recensional history and
redefined the manuscript traditions as the “B-recension,” based upon MS Berlin (Lewin's “French recension”), and the “Y-recension,” based
upon the 1566 publication of the text in Sefer HaYuhasin.
The two versions of Rav Sherira's letter differ significantly on the question of the role of writing in rabbinic tradition. The B-recension tends
to favor a purely oral model of the transmission of the Mishnah and the Talmud until nearly post-talmudic times, whereas the Y-recension
tends to claim early written versions (e.g., Lewin's text, pp. 21–23, and Schlütter's translation, pp. 80–81). The B-recension, circulating
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