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 included with Scripture itself as part of the original revelation to Israel. In a formulation found now in Sifre to Deuteronomy 32:2, par. 306: Just as the same rain falls upon trees and gives to each a distinctive flavor—vines in accord with their nature, olives in accord with their nature, figs in accord with their nature—so too are words of torah all one—yet they contain [the distinct characteristics of] Scripture, mishnah, halakhot, and aggadot. The theological reconceptualization of halakhah from human oral-performative tradition to the very speech of God is essentially complete. Indeed, from the perspective of the curriculum pericope, it is a small step to the classical legitimation of halakhic authority found in the conception of the Written and Oral Torah. That tentative step, in fact, takes place within the Tannaitic midrashic compilations themselves. Here, once in Sifre to Deuteronomy Dt. 33:10, par. 351, and once in Sifra Behuqotai (to Lev.26:46), a conventional scriptural reference to divine teachings in the plural (twrwt) yields the same midrashic response: “This teaches that two Torahs were given to Israel, one by mouth and one in script.” A brief comparison of these two end p.90 passages will enable us to conclude our tracing of the diverse conceptions of halakhic origins and authority that remain in tension within the Tannaitic materials. In Moses' final blessing of the tribes of Israel prior to his death, he offers a charge to the priestly tribe of Levi: “They shall teach your judgments to Jacob and your Torah [twrtk] to Israel” (MT Dt.33:10). As L. Finkelstein has noted, 21 the midrashic response at Sifre to Deuteronomy, par. 351, assumes a small change in the vocalization of twrtk to yield “your Torahs” (twrwtyk): 1. “And your Torahs to Israel”—this teaches that two Torahs were given to Israel, one by mouth (bph) and one in script (bktb). 2. Agnitos the Hegemon asked Rabban Gamaliel, saying to him: How many Torahs were given to Israel? He replied: Two—one by mouth The extant biblical texts uniformly attest the singular form of Torah. Accordingly, the midrashist (1) is most likely bringing his conception of two Torahs to the text rather than reasoning toward it from a textual cue. 22 The brief narrative at 2 links the idea to an early Tannaitic authority, probably the Yavnean Rabban Gamaliel II. 23 Here, in a post-Mishnaic compilation of Tannaitic exegetical tradition, is our first attempt to assign the idea of two revealed sources of Torah, one written and one in writing, to a rabbinic Sage. The point did not remained unchallenged. A midrashic compilation roughly contemporary with Sifre, the Sifra to Leviticus, preserves an important curriculum pericope of the type we have already examined. The scriptural text is Lev. 26:46: “These are the statutes, the judgments, and the Torahs [twrwt] which YHWH established between himself and the people Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.” The midrashist, more fortunate than his colleague in Sifre Deuteronomy 351, has the advantage of a scriptural source that speaks of Torah in the plural. His resignification of the entire series of legal terms follows accordingly (Sifra, Behuqotai, par. 8:12): Units 1 + 3–4 are more explicit than other pericope in linking all of rabbinic oral-performative tradition—including halakhot—to Sinaitic revelation as part of an orally delivered Torah complementing the one written in Scripture. But note the important intrusion attributed to Rabbi Aqiva (2). Citing the frequent scriptural usage of twrh to mean a body of topically delimited instruction, he dismantles the exegetical end p.91 [bph] and one in script [bktb]. 1. “The statutes”—these are the exegetical traditions [mdršwt]. “the judgments”—these are the rules of judicial procedure [dynym]. “the Torahs”—this teaches that two Torahs were given to Israel, one in script [bktb] and one orally [b‘l ph]. 2. Said Rabbi Aqiva: Now did Israel have only two Torahs?! Indeed, weren't many Torahs given to Israel? “This is the Torah of the Whole Offering” [Lev. 6:2], “This is the Torah of the Meal Offering” [Lev. 6:7], “This is the Torah of the Guilt Offering” [Lev. 7:1], “This is the Torah of the Peace Offering” [Lev. 7:11], “This is the Torah when a person dies in a tent” [Num. 19:14]. 3. “Which YHWH established between himself and the people Israel”—Moses was privileged to mediate between Israel and their Father in Heaven. 4. “on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses”—this teaches that the Torah was given with all its halakhot, details, and explanations through Moses on Mount Sinai. assertion of unit 1 into an absurdity. Whatever the authority of the Oral Torah might be, it requires no support from scriptural exegetes. The text from Sifra shows that, even in the latest strata of the Tannaitic corpus, the emerging conception of rabbinic tradition as an element of revelation is far from secure. The prestigious figure of Rabbi Aqiva himself is marshalled as a critic of ideological excesses mounted on its behalf. But it has made its appearance as one among a number of competing models by which Sages sought to root their distinctive tradition—halakhic learning—solidly in the soil of the revelation upon which Israel's covenantal existence is grounded. For the third-century tradents of Tannaitic midrashic learning, the oral-performative tradition in which halakhic norms are carried is no longer 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 represented as it routinely appears in the materials of the Mishnah and the Tosefta—as the result of human ingenuity working in spheres beyond the range of Scripture. Rather, it is portrayed as an epiphenomenon of the same processes that produce Scripture. Like the Mishnah's halakhah, that of the Tosefta and the midrashic compilations is the effective source of traditional learning by which Israel maintains the continuity of its life with the commandments of Scripture. But unlike anything in the Mishnaic and Toseftan swath of traditional halakhic discourse, the midrashic representations of rabbinic text-interpretive tradition have begun to collapse the distinction between divine words and traditions transmitted within human institutions. Whatever is legitimately incorporated into the rabbinic tradition of learning is by that very fact connected in some way to the heritage of Sinai. Halakhah , Words of the Scribes, and Sinaitic Tradition There is one final aspect of this process that deserves our attention: the way in which early rabbinic legal theorists located halakhah in relation to other sources of legal norms that tradition had identified as originating beyond the explicit sense of Scripture. The most important of these are identified in the Tannaitic compilations as the “words of the scribes” (dbry swprym; vocalized divrei soferim). 24 Like halakhah itself, divrei soferim has more than a single connotation in early rabbinic jurisprudential and historical reflection. Subtle shifts in the term's signification as it passes through the tradental groups who compiled the Mishnah and the Tosefta will provide yet another example of the tendency of rabbinic theorists of the middle to late third century to assimilate more and more of the inherited extrascriptural oral-performative tradition to revelation itself. 25 In the Mishnah, the distinction between halakhah and divrei soferim as sources of tradition is drawn most clearly by reference to a third source of norms, the Mosaic Torah itself (hatorah). This point is clear on the basis of the one place in the Mishnah (paralleled in Sifra Emor, par. 10:11) in which scribal opinion is explicitly juxtaposed with halakhah (M. Orlah 3:9): 1. New grain [of the spring harvest] is forbidden [for consumption prior to the offering of the first sheaf] anywhere [in the Land and in the end p.92 Exile] on the basis of the Torah [Lev. 23:10–15]. 2. But [the prohibition of] foreskin-fruit 26 [Lev. 19:23] [in the Exile] is halakhah. 3. And seed of diverse kinds [Lev. 19:19 and Dt. 22:9–11] [is prohibited from being sown together even in the Exile] on the basis of divrei soferim. The Mishnah recognizes an apparently troubling legal fact: rabbinic tradition applies to diaspora Jews certain agricultural prohibitions that, at least from a superficial reading of the Torah, should apply only in the Land of Israel. On what authority do these extensions rest? The answer is supplied by reference to the three distinct sources of authoritative legal tradition. The Mishnah grounds the diaspora prohibition against new grain in the language of the Torah itself (1). Lev. 23:10–15 is clear that the offering of the first sheaf is to be taken from the produce of the Land of Israel. But in a concluding coda, Lev. 23:15 prohibits the consumption “in all of your dwellings” of any produce prior to the removal of the sheaf. On the basis of this specification, the Sages' text- interpretive tradition stipulates that the intent of the prohibition is to cover any area of Jewish settlement, including lands of the Exile. Since the inference can be directly linked to a scriptural source, the resulting prohibition is regarded as part of the intended sense of the ruling: it is “from the Torah.” 27 The basis of the diaspora prohibitions against foreskin-fruit and the sowing of diverse kinds are acknowledged to have a more attentuated foundation in the Torah. In the case of foreskin-fruit, Scripture does not forbid such fruit “in all your dwellings.” Presumably, then, the Mishnaic prohibition stands on the authority of the Sages' oral-performative tradition rather than explicit scriptural language as mediated within traditions of text-interpretation. We are not surprised, therefore, to learn that it is, as the Mishnah states, halakhah (2). The surprise comes in ruling 3. Like the Torah's prohibition against foreskin-fruit, that against sowing diverse kinds of seeds in the same field is not modified by any reference to “all your dwellings.” Accordingly, the Mishnah acknowledges that the extension of the prohibition to the diaspora is founded in the traditional norms rather than in the Torah. But instead of seeing the expected reference to halakhic tradition, we are directed to “words of the scribes.” What is at stake in the assumed distinction between halakhah and words of the scribes? M. Orlah 3:9 itself provides no explicit explanation of this distinction nor of its implications regarding the relative authority of each legal source. Amoraic authorities of the third century were themselves puzzled by the matter, offering divergent solutions. 28 Both halakhah and words of the scribes clearly constitute sources of legal guidance. Are the sources, however, distinct in origin but equal in authority? Or is there a distinction to be made in their authorities as well? Traditions reflected in the Mishnah and Tosefta, unfortunately, nowhere address this point explicitly, but some inferences are nevertheless possible. The first observation we can make is that there is an important difference in the way halakhah and divrei soferim are assumed in 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: Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 55: Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Ora
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
show all

Torah in the Mouth.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?