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
Important comparative discussions of discipleship patterns in early Judaism from the perspective of the transmission of teaching traditions
may be consulted in Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers , pp. 16–60, and S. Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher , pp. 35
–196. See also the illuminating discussion of Greco-Roman philosophical discipleship in L. C. A. Alexander, “Schools, Hellenistic,” pp.
1007–1009.
71. The most comprehensive collection of source-material on the master–disciple relationship in rabbinic circles is, unfortunately, marred
by an ahistorical tendency to posit a single pattern of discipleship throughout the Tannaitic and Amoraic communities. See M. Averbach,
Jewish Education in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Period , pp. 93–212.
72. For Isocrates' remarks, see p. 130. The Mishnah's placing of the fruits of wisdom in an eschatological framework is, perhaps, a reflex
of its rabbinic milieau. The Toseftan textual witnesses seem troubled by the appearance of hokhmah (wisdom) where torah is to be
expected, but they nevertheless attest the Mishnah's choice. Cf. the Toseftan version cited at B. Bava Metzia 33a and the comments of
S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah. Part 9 , p. 168.
73. See C. Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement , pp. 332–352, and L. Levine, The Rabbinic Class, pp. 59–69.
74. This entire section is introduced into the margin of MS Leiden by a hand other than that of the original scribe. It appears in virtually
identical form in all printed editions of Y. Sheqalim. See Y. Zussman, “The Study Tradition and Textual Tradition of the Talmud
Yerushalmi,” p. 48.
75. hwh msmyk w'zyl ‘l : following the emendation of Qorban HaEdah, ad loc.
end p.207
76. Compare the way in which Rabbi Yohanan's opinion is deployed in the briefer narrative setting of Y. Avodah Zarah 3:13, 43b.
77. I omit here a brief narrative in which Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi attempt to appease Rabbi Yohanan by pointing to the negative
example of two Sages who, in the midst of a halakhic disagreement, tear a Torah scroll in the synagogue. This negative example fails to
appease Rabbi Yohanan, setting the stage for the continuation of the text.
78. The parallel at Y. Berakhot 2:1, 4b/Y. Moed Qatan 3:7, 83c, has a similar example drawn from among the disciples of Rabbi Aqiva that
makes the same point.
79. The linkage of this verse to torah study in general, and to reviving dead Sages in particular, is a commonplace. See Y. Berakhot 2:1,
4b/Y. Moed Qatan 3:7, 83b. In B. Sanhedrin 90b and B. Bekhorot 31b, unlike in the Yerushalmi, the exegesis is ascribed to Rabbi
Yohanan.
80. The version of Y. Sheqalim transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud incorrectly has “Rav Gidol.” See Y. Epstein, “Some Details of the
Yerushalmi,” p. 42.
81. I follow the translation of the Jewish Publication Society. For the midrashic meaning, see later discussion. This exegesis appears as
well at Y. Shabbat 1:2, 3a, and Y. Qiddushin 1:7, 61a.
82. I render the text of Y. Sheqalim in accordance with the parallel at Y. Shab. 1:2, 3a. This is followed in the Bavli's version of Y.
Sheqalim and is preferable to the garbled text of MS Leiden. Cf. S. Lieberman, Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto, pp. 21–22.
83. The parallel to unit 9–10 at Y. Shabbat 1:2, 3a, identifies Rabbi Zeira's interlocutor as Rabbi Ba b. Zavda.
84. See Bereshit Rabbah, 87:11 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, vol. 3, p. 1073). The notion is transmitted in Rabbi Yohanan's name at B. Sotah 36b.
85. I wish I could claim originality for this observation, but while preparing the manuscript of this book for the publisher, I discovered that it
was first noticed by S. Lieberman in Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto, p. 21.
86. See, for example, R. Valantasis, Spiritual Guides of the Third Century , pp. 35–61 and 147–155, and L. C. A. Alexander, “The Living
Voice,” pp. 221–247.
87. For discussion of how the representation of the orality of tradition enhances the figure of the Sage and the value of discipleship, see
S. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, pp. 13–23, 69–121.
88. Service to the Sage, which provided the opportunity to observe firsthand his embodiment of Torah, is portrayed in Tannaitic texts as a
sine qua non for the preservation of tradition in its pristine form. Lapses in service, correspondingly, are portrayed as the cause of dispute
and social fragmentation.
The classic source is T. Hag. 2:9/Sot. 9:9: “With the increase of disciples of Hillel and Shammai who served insufficiently [šl’ šmšw kl
rkn], disputes increased in Israel, and two Torahs resulted” (ed. Lieberman, vol. 2, p. 384). Note that this most explicit Tannaitic
reference to “two Torahs” has nothing to do with the Torah in Script and the Torah in the Mouth! Rather, it refers to discord among halakhic
schools of thought.
The versions transmitted in Y. San. 1:4, 19c, and Y. Hag. 1:2, 75d, differ from each other and from T., in minor ways, but each shares a
common amplification of the Toseftan version: “who served their masters [rbyhn] insufficiently.” Thus the Yerushalmi's appropriation of the
Tannaitic passage renders explicit what is already implicit in its source—the primacy of the master.
For textual discussion see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah: Part 5 , pp. 1298–1299. Broader discussion of the role of emulation and
personal service to the Sage in the shaping of rabbinic disciples may be found in M. Averbach, Jewish Education in the Period of the
Mishnah and Talmud , pp. 94–99.
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