Yadin, Azzan, “4QMMT, Rabbi Ishmael, and the Origins of Legal Midrash”, Dead Sea Discoveries 10,1 (2003), 129-149.
summarizes some of A Shremer article “they didn't read the sealed book”.
Qumranites called to “return to the torah of Moses” against the “dorshey chalakot” which is a pan on “dorshey halachot”.
Pharisees had a paradosis, a non-scriptural halakha, and the rabbis (tannaim) tried to connect it to the scripture.
Azzan criticizes Shremer for seeing rabbinic culture as unified.
He will show similarities between R. Yishmael's halakha to the MMT's.
p. 133
R. Ishmael and the marginalization of extra-scriptural tradition
R. Ishmael's statement that “in three places halakha bypasses the scripture” means (as in other occurrences of such an expression about three cases) that in all other cases halakha is supporting/supported [by] the scripture.
Also: halakha here means “to Moses from Sinai”.
The fact that this occurs in only three cases, is marginalizing the extra-scriptural halakha.
This is problematic, since oral-torah is accepted as rabbinic identity marker.
But in R. Ishmael's midrashim there is no extra-scriptural halakha, except the three cases mentioned above, as opposed to Akivian midrash which cites many such halakhot.
R. Ishmael never cites another rabbi from whom he learned a halakha [in the mishna and tosefta].
The talmud mentions a teacher to R. Ishmael – R. Nehunia ben Haqana, who taught R. Ishmael exegetical technique (kelal ufrat), and not extra-biblical traditions.
D. Halivi thinks that there was not Mishna of the school of R. Ishmael.
So: R. Ishmael does not transmit extra-scriptural traditions. He has not [non exegetical] teachers, and his school did not produce non-midrashic compositions.
Will show cases of expressions which in Akivian compositions mean extra-biblical traditions, and in the Ishmaelites mean biblical ones.
a. shma.
In akivian tradition: if a man commits five sexual offenses in one bout of forgetfulness, does each count separately? The answer: we didn't hear about these particular offences, but we heard (an extra biblical tradition) about others, and it is analogous to the cases you mentioned.
In Ishmaelian tradition: in the Mekhilta the words “we didn't hear” refer to scriptural exegesis.
b.
dispute between Hillel and shamai about a testimony of a woman who returned from abroad regarding her husband's death.
The house of shammai accepts her testimony, because sages spoke about a similar case (a woman who returns from the harvest).
In the mekhilta – a similar formula is used but with regard to the scripture and not to what sages said.
c. stam
in the mishna it is what was heard from sages without explanation. In Ishmaelite midrashim stam refers to scriptural statement made without explication.
d. leqayem (to establish)
in the mishna it refers to explanation of extra-biblical tradition “leqayem divrei chakhamim”. In Ishmaelite midrashim the same verb refers to an interpretation which supports a biblical verse
Other cases where in the Mishna we have “we didn't hear” (in a case of a woman coming from abroad testifying for the death of her husband refers to earlier sages, and in the Mekhilta it refers to a verse.
p. 140
R. Ishmael is closer to Qumran's דורשי התורה than to the דורשי הלכות/חלקות.
Rabbi Ishmael and Priesthood
It is recognized that R. Ishmael is from a priestly origin (in the Tosefta [T. Hal. 1:10] he swears by the priestly garb of his father; and it appears also in amoraic sources). A summary of all the sources/traditions is in Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael, Brill 1982
Geiger supports the view that R. Ishmael was priestly; he argues that Ishmael represents an older halakhic tradition that was overlaid with the new Aqivan one. Hirshman also supports this opinion (tora lekhol baei olam), who worked primarily with aggadic material. The universalistic view of the torah stems, says hirshman, from the ishmaelic school, which had its roots in second temple priesthood.
Yadin claims that Ishmael was priestly and rabbinic, and this explains the marginalization of extra-scriptural halakha in his Makita and sifre. This also explains Ishmael's closeness to Qumran in general, and MMT in particular.
He will show it by the shared legal traditions, the term “katuv” and the addressee of MMT.
Shared legal tradition:
a. the first fruit is for the priests in MMT 62-63 and sifre numbers 5 (Horovits, 8)
b. non-ritualistic slaughter should be in Jerusalem according to MMT (B 25-280). Ishmael and Aqiva argued about it, Ishmael siding (with MMT) that it is forbidden to eat Hulin, while Aqiva claimed that it was made allowed in the desert, and the prohibition concerns only the Qedashim.
c. MMT prohibits the slaughter of pregnant animals; the status of the embryo is the issue at stake. R. Ishmael and Qumran claim that the embryo is an animal for itself (as opposed to others). (this is following E. Eshel's analysis).
d. concerning an impure person who baptized, the level of his purity (following Kister's analysis): R. Ishmael and Qumran agree.
The role of Katuv
(after Qimron): the word katuv in MMT does not introduce a scriptural citation, and in the mishna it does. It is not always true about the mishna. Even bacher makes a mistake when saying that “hakatuv” and “amra torah” are synonymous. Only the latter precedes a biblical quote. Hakatuv refers to heqqesh (analogy).
In rabbi Ishmael midrashim “hakatuv” does not introduce a biblical quote, but an alternative or a hermeneutical move. In MMT the word hakatuv functions in the same manner.
Addressees of MMT
who are the “you” of MMT. The you are priests, but the legal positions attributed to this group largely correspond to he Pharisees positions recorded in the Mishna. Probably a priestly group which was sympathetic toward Pharisaic rabbinic circles, forerunners of the school of R. Ishmael?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Cana Werman, "Oral Torah vs. Written Torah(s)
Werman, Cana, “Oral Torah vs. Written Torah(s): Competing Claims to Authority”, Fraade, Steven D., Shemesh, Aharon & Clemens, Ruth A. (eds.), Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 175-197
What is called “priestly halakhah” is based on the Pentateuch, with laws fashioned in accordance to it, and developed to resolve contradictions and vagueness in it.
In the middle of the second cent. BCE the Pharisees gained more influence in Jerusalem, by the Hasnoneans, and their (Pharisees) halakhah also became influential in the official arena.
Those of the priests who did not want to comply with the new situation retreated to the desert and are known as “the Qumran sect”.
Many rules of the sect are the regular priestly rulings. But for the rest, by their withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple they cannot claim authority which derives from the Temple or from their civil position.
We find two claims of authority in Qumran:
1. in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll we find the view that the interpretation of the Torah was given to Moses in Sinai. It is the Torah and Te'uda (predestined history): expansion and interpretation of the first Torah, is to stand before the people as a witness when the correct interpretation is forgotten in the future.
2. the view in the Damascus Document is that the teacher of righteousness was instructed by God and developed the tools for interpretation which he imparted only to the members of the sect.
Rabbinic claim to authority:
The Pharisees interpreted and made new laws, but it is not clear what is the origin of their law; some of it must have been quite old.
The Tannaim probably continued the Pharisees culture. They decided about halakhah independently from the Scripture.
They did claim to have a second Torah, an oral one (the Qumran second Torah was written).
Werman claims that the oral Torah was a Sinaitic one (even though there is no such explicit claim), by analyzing two sources.
One (Sifra 112c, ms. Vatican 31) where the tanna qamma claims that there are two torot, and R. Akiva says that there are many; this shows the view of two torot as axiomatic.
Two (Sifre Deut, Finkelstein, 408) where we find the claim for two torot pronounced by the authoritative sage Rabban Gamliet; we also find here the reducing of the priestly authority to a few legal incidents only.
Sometime we find talk about a single Torah in rabbinic literature, for example Sifre Deut 306 (and other examples) where the Torah and the interpretation came as one unit, and the Scripture consists of all halakhot and midrash.
R. Akiva rejected the notion of two torot.
R. Ishmael and Claims to Authority
R. Ishmael accepts (or at least does not reject) the notion of two torot.
Werman checks R. Ishmael's methodology regarding two halakhic issues, and compares it with the view of Qumran and of R. Akiva.
1. Law of the beautiful captive
in Qumran (temple scroll) she is forbidden to prepare food, so practically she is forbidden to marriage. This is against what is stated in the bible (deut 21:10-14).
Midrash Tannaim (of the school of Ishmael) accepts the biblical law, and is also aware of a possibility for her to convert (which is an innovation not found in the biblical text).
The way of R. Akiva:
turns the words “mother and father”, which she has to lament, into “idolatry” (Sifre on Deut 213), which in fact leaves for her only the option of conversion. R. Akiva finds a prooftext for his opinion.
2. the covering of the blood (slaughtering a nonconsecrated animal).
The Qumran view accepts that animals can only be slaughtered at the altar in the temple. This is restricting the biblical permission granted in Deuteronomy 12 (which contradicts Leviticus 17:11).
R. Ishmael accepts both biblical views, not interpreting one in light of the other (as they did in Qumran). (ms Oxford assigns the lift of the prohibition to the sages, not to the Scripture).
R. Akiva finds no contradiction between Leviticus and Deuteronomy, claiming that it was always possible to eat meat anywhere.
R. Akiva assumes the unity of the Torah, and uses interpretative methods to arrive at this unity, and R. Ishmael subjects the Scripture to a careful reading, and on the other hand accepts a set of halakhot circumventing (or expands) the Scripture, an alternative to it.
In light of these findings Werman suggests to reexamine some concepts:
1. Halakhot
the Tosefta speaks of two type: halakhot with scriptural support (torts, the Temple service, purity laws et al.) and those without it, and then they have a very scanty scriptural support, but there are many halakhot (Shabbat, Festival offerings).
R. Jehoshua endeavors to impart authority to the non-supported halakhot as well.
The Mishna does not declare the non-supported halakhot as non-supported, because they are supported (on a scanty scriptural basis). It maintains the unity-of-Torah approach, not allowing other authorities for the halakha.
The term halakha in the Tosefta applies to all laws, scriptural or other; in the Mishna – only to laws that are based on the scripture (since all halakhot are).
2. prohibition against writing:
oral torah is an early tannaitic concept. Attributing the tradition to the fathers, which ultimately is derived from Sinai. There is no actual prohibition on writing, but it fits well for it not to be written (“Nontheless the advocate of the 'oral Torah' claim might be cautious when writing, especially during the writing of nonmidrashic [=non scriptural] collections of laws).
Also the R. Akiva's approach (no two torot, unity of the Torah) would not issue a blanket prohibition against writing.
Summary (which is not summarized here)
What is called “priestly halakhah” is based on the Pentateuch, with laws fashioned in accordance to it, and developed to resolve contradictions and vagueness in it.
In the middle of the second cent. BCE the Pharisees gained more influence in Jerusalem, by the Hasnoneans, and their (Pharisees) halakhah also became influential in the official arena.
Those of the priests who did not want to comply with the new situation retreated to the desert and are known as “the Qumran sect”.
Many rules of the sect are the regular priestly rulings. But for the rest, by their withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple they cannot claim authority which derives from the Temple or from their civil position.
We find two claims of authority in Qumran:
1. in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll we find the view that the interpretation of the Torah was given to Moses in Sinai. It is the Torah and Te'uda (predestined history): expansion and interpretation of the first Torah, is to stand before the people as a witness when the correct interpretation is forgotten in the future.
2. the view in the Damascus Document is that the teacher of righteousness was instructed by God and developed the tools for interpretation which he imparted only to the members of the sect.
Rabbinic claim to authority:
The Pharisees interpreted and made new laws, but it is not clear what is the origin of their law; some of it must have been quite old.
The Tannaim probably continued the Pharisees culture. They decided about halakhah independently from the Scripture.
They did claim to have a second Torah, an oral one (the Qumran second Torah was written).
Werman claims that the oral Torah was a Sinaitic one (even though there is no such explicit claim), by analyzing two sources.
One (Sifra 112c, ms. Vatican 31) where the tanna qamma claims that there are two torot, and R. Akiva says that there are many; this shows the view of two torot as axiomatic.
Two (Sifre Deut, Finkelstein, 408) where we find the claim for two torot pronounced by the authoritative sage Rabban Gamliet; we also find here the reducing of the priestly authority to a few legal incidents only.
Sometime we find talk about a single Torah in rabbinic literature, for example Sifre Deut 306 (and other examples) where the Torah and the interpretation came as one unit, and the Scripture consists of all halakhot and midrash.
R. Akiva rejected the notion of two torot.
R. Ishmael and Claims to Authority
R. Ishmael accepts (or at least does not reject) the notion of two torot.
Werman checks R. Ishmael's methodology regarding two halakhic issues, and compares it with the view of Qumran and of R. Akiva.
1. Law of the beautiful captive
in Qumran (temple scroll) she is forbidden to prepare food, so practically she is forbidden to marriage. This is against what is stated in the bible (deut 21:10-14).
Midrash Tannaim (of the school of Ishmael) accepts the biblical law, and is also aware of a possibility for her to convert (which is an innovation not found in the biblical text).
The way of R. Akiva:
turns the words “mother and father”, which she has to lament, into “idolatry” (Sifre on Deut 213), which in fact leaves for her only the option of conversion. R. Akiva finds a prooftext for his opinion.
2. the covering of the blood (slaughtering a nonconsecrated animal).
The Qumran view accepts that animals can only be slaughtered at the altar in the temple. This is restricting the biblical permission granted in Deuteronomy 12 (which contradicts Leviticus 17:11).
R. Ishmael accepts both biblical views, not interpreting one in light of the other (as they did in Qumran). (ms Oxford assigns the lift of the prohibition to the sages, not to the Scripture).
R. Akiva finds no contradiction between Leviticus and Deuteronomy, claiming that it was always possible to eat meat anywhere.
R. Akiva assumes the unity of the Torah, and uses interpretative methods to arrive at this unity, and R. Ishmael subjects the Scripture to a careful reading, and on the other hand accepts a set of halakhot circumventing (or expands) the Scripture, an alternative to it.
In light of these findings Werman suggests to reexamine some concepts:
1. Halakhot
the Tosefta speaks of two type: halakhot with scriptural support (torts, the Temple service, purity laws et al.) and those without it, and then they have a very scanty scriptural support, but there are many halakhot (Shabbat, Festival offerings).
R. Jehoshua endeavors to impart authority to the non-supported halakhot as well.
The Mishna does not declare the non-supported halakhot as non-supported, because they are supported (on a scanty scriptural basis). It maintains the unity-of-Torah approach, not allowing other authorities for the halakha.
The term halakha in the Tosefta applies to all laws, scriptural or other; in the Mishna – only to laws that are based on the scripture (since all halakhot are).
2. prohibition against writing:
oral torah is an early tannaitic concept. Attributing the tradition to the fathers, which ultimately is derived from Sinai. There is no actual prohibition on writing, but it fits well for it not to be written (“Nontheless the advocate of the 'oral Torah' claim might be cautious when writing, especially during the writing of nonmidrashic [=non scriptural] collections of laws).
Also the R. Akiva's approach (no two torot, unity of the Torah) would not issue a blanket prohibition against writing.
Summary (which is not summarized here)
Friday, February 29, 2008
Summary: Moshe Idel on Moshe Gaster
אידל, משה, משה גסטר, המיסטיקה היהודית וספר הזוהר, תעודה כא-כב (תשס"ז), חידושי זוהר: מחקרים חדשים בספרות הזוהר, תל אביב, 111-127
Idel, Moshe, “Moses Gaster, Jewish Mysticism and the Zohar”, Teuda 21-22 (2006), 111-127.
A
about moshe gaster, a romanian jew, 1856-1939.
was highly educated. Had a collection of mss, some from the genizah, part of the collection was sold to the british library in london, another part was sold to the john reylends library in manchester; mss. Of the religious slovanian and romanian literature was sold to the national academy in romania.
B
he held the theory of the “stream of traditions” from the east which influenced european culture: a stream from the east in late antiquity, which reached as far as england, was parallel to the streaming in of the bible. This was innovative at the time, when scholars saw euroean culture as a mixture of greek- and roman culture and the bible, but did not like to include influence of non biblical hellenistic or oriental culture, which was carried by “secondary elites” (p. 113). He was criticized and banned at the time.
His theory did not agree with the standart folklorist approach, which sees an influence from folkoristic stratae of society into the more official and educated stratae, but he saw the influence of book from the east, not of “lower culture”.
Gaster had no students, so he was not influencial; the interest in his theories returned in the 80's of the 20th century with regard to european culture, not so with regard to jewish culture.
C
gaster also studied jewish mysticism. Here his contribution was completely forgotten, he was not mentioned by scholem, tishbi, weblowsky and others.
Gaster thought that kabbalah is ancient; he sees manichean influence on it. He wrote non-apologetically about anthropomorphism in early judaism (pp. 116-117). he was a student of Gertz, but did not accept his opinion about Ramdal as composer of the Zohar.
Gaster also thought that the Bahir was not written in Europe
Kabbalh to him was a merging of philosophy and agadah.
D
about the Zohar – gaster thought that it was a compilation of oriental texts by an unskilled editor; the zohar itself has more than one mystical approach. He held this view for 40 years.
Idel finds that there is a contradition in Gaster's method between his belief in the “midrash of shimon bar yochai” and the assumption that there was manichean influence on the zohar (medieval manichean influence, katharic or bogomillic).
New assessments about the zohar, of liebes, and ronit dishon (meroz) opened a new page (but they also don't rely on Gaster). Some of Gaster's conclusions seems to have more than a grain of truth in them (apocryphal writings embedded in the Zohar, manichean influence, the Zohar being an almost accidental collection).
E
Gaster was brave and innovative. His theory of stream of traditions is the motive behind his scientific work – his publishing of particular compositions such as the book of yerachmiel, maise-buch (yiddish) and the exempla of the rabbis.
Gaster preceded Herzl in establishing settlements in Palestine. He understood that the Ugandan proposition was a mistake, but he didn't have a good political understanding of the scholarly world, so he didn't have an academic position.
Idel, Moshe, “Moses Gaster, Jewish Mysticism and the Zohar”, Teuda 21-22 (2006), 111-127.
A
about moshe gaster, a romanian jew, 1856-1939.
was highly educated. Had a collection of mss, some from the genizah, part of the collection was sold to the british library in london, another part was sold to the john reylends library in manchester; mss. Of the religious slovanian and romanian literature was sold to the national academy in romania.
B
he held the theory of the “stream of traditions” from the east which influenced european culture: a stream from the east in late antiquity, which reached as far as england, was parallel to the streaming in of the bible. This was innovative at the time, when scholars saw euroean culture as a mixture of greek- and roman culture and the bible, but did not like to include influence of non biblical hellenistic or oriental culture, which was carried by “secondary elites” (p. 113). He was criticized and banned at the time.
His theory did not agree with the standart folklorist approach, which sees an influence from folkoristic stratae of society into the more official and educated stratae, but he saw the influence of book from the east, not of “lower culture”.
Gaster had no students, so he was not influencial; the interest in his theories returned in the 80's of the 20th century with regard to european culture, not so with regard to jewish culture.
C
gaster also studied jewish mysticism. Here his contribution was completely forgotten, he was not mentioned by scholem, tishbi, weblowsky and others.
Gaster thought that kabbalah is ancient; he sees manichean influence on it. He wrote non-apologetically about anthropomorphism in early judaism (pp. 116-117). he was a student of Gertz, but did not accept his opinion about Ramdal as composer of the Zohar.
Gaster also thought that the Bahir was not written in Europe
Kabbalh to him was a merging of philosophy and agadah.
D
about the Zohar – gaster thought that it was a compilation of oriental texts by an unskilled editor; the zohar itself has more than one mystical approach. He held this view for 40 years.
Idel finds that there is a contradition in Gaster's method between his belief in the “midrash of shimon bar yochai” and the assumption that there was manichean influence on the zohar (medieval manichean influence, katharic or bogomillic).
New assessments about the zohar, of liebes, and ronit dishon (meroz) opened a new page (but they also don't rely on Gaster). Some of Gaster's conclusions seems to have more than a grain of truth in them (apocryphal writings embedded in the Zohar, manichean influence, the Zohar being an almost accidental collection).
E
Gaster was brave and innovative. His theory of stream of traditions is the motive behind his scientific work – his publishing of particular compositions such as the book of yerachmiel, maise-buch (yiddish) and the exempla of the rabbis.
Gaster preceded Herzl in establishing settlements in Palestine. He understood that the Ugandan proposition was a mistake, but he didn't have a good political understanding of the scholarly world, so he didn't have an academic position.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Summary of Rosen-Tzvi, Mishna Sota chapter 5 and Akivian midrash
Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “‘Who will uncover the dust from your eyes?’: Mishnah Sotah 5 and R. Akiva’s Midrash”, Tarbiz 75 (2007), 1+2, pp. 96-128
in Mishna Sota 5 there are four drashot, about impurity, Eruvin, the reading of the song of the sea and the faith of Job.
He will prove that the first mishna does not belong to this sequence
the common thing about these four derashot is the manner of interpretation of R. Akiva; this whole sequence is praising it. Akiva's method is being contrasted with a minimalistic methods of other rabbis.
1. impurity of a third vessel: a major halakhic topic of the period. Ribaz had a certain halakha: a loaf in an impure vessel is not only impure, but also littering other things. This halakha is different than what is said in Lev. 11. he was afraid that later generations will cancell this halakha because it is not based in scriptures. [some important bibliography about this]. This halakha is not found in qumran (because it is tradition and not scriptures). R. Akiva is the first rabbi to connect this halakha to scriptures. R. Akiva is praised by R. Yahoshua. Akiva can make a drasha which Ribaz couldn't because of the different system of drashing: Ribaz just saw that the scriptural halakha was different; Akiva interpreted.
2. eruvin: there is a contradiction in the scriptures (Num. 35, 1000 ama in verse 4, 2000 in verse 5). again a halakha which Akiva connected with a verse.
Then comes R. Eliezer's drasha, which explains the verse but does not connect it to a halakha. This sheds sharper light on Akiva's interpretation, being an opposition to it: Akiva's system of deconstructing the verse (take it out of its context). The novalty of Akiva is that he learned about “tchum shabbat” from this verse, which is not the original meaning of the verse.
This was probably done before in qumran, where they understood the difference from two types of tchum shabbat because of this contradiction between these verses. And R.-Tz. Brings other examples. R. yossei, in this passage, brings the halakha but does not connect it to verses. The innovation of R. Akiva is that he connect the pharasian halakha with a vese. So the passage in the mishna here praises R. Akiva's system: it is not tradition vs scriptures, but Akiva's combination of the two which is praised; this system is not accepted by R. Eliezer son of R. Yossey the Galilean.
3. The song of the sea. The tosefta version is longer, and used to understand the mishna. This is wrong. The version in the tosefta and in the mekhilta, and in the later sources (talmudim) are elaborations on R. Nehemiah's system, which is not a respons system at all. So in the mishna the “reading of the Shma” is an oral reading by cantor and congragation together; in the tosefta it is different (p. 112).
explaining the mekhilta (is this explainig the tosefta too?): because the holy spirit rested on them they all sang the song; this is learned from the verse, and not from any drasha. So it is in the yerushalmi.
So again this section in the mishna is presenting R. Akiva's system of interpreting the verse and leaning about the respons-type reading of the song of the sea, in opposition to R. Nehemiah's system.
{R.-Tz.'s interpretation of the Tosefta's passage: the system of response is accepted, there are three systems of it: hallel like a small-one, hallel like a big-person and like in the shma. Only that there is no respons in the shma here, but a drasha is attached to the end of R. Nehemiah's statement, a drasha about the pasuk at hand, which is not really explaining his words; so is the case in the mekhilta}
4. the faith of Job. This drasha is different from the others in stucture and rabbi. It is of a different sources and was added here because of R. Yehoshua's reaction. it presents a mahloket between ribaz (learning from the simple meaning of the verse that Job feared God) and Yehoshua son of Hyrcanus who presents a sophisticated drash: learning from another verse of Job. This passage is praising the sophisticated reading vs. the simple one, like in the first case – the more “modern” reading (of Yehoshua) is better. It is not that love is better than fear in this passage {me: it will be so in the tesefta}. We don't know who this yehoshua was, but he is presented as a continuer of R. Akiva. The theme (readiness to give your life for God) is tpical Akivian.
5. the first mishna: the sota and her husband. Here there are two drashot of R. Akiva about “sota”. This passage seems to be stuck in the middle of chapter about “drinking women”. The difference between the previous chapter to the next is that in chpater 4 women don't drink because of their high status, and in chapter 6 they dont drink because of issues of testimony about them.
At the end of chapter 4 is discussed the relationship between the suspected woman and her suspected lover. R. Akiva brings in the lover-character into the mishna. He says 1. that the water she is drinking check him as well and 2. that she is fobidden to him. R. yehoshua says about the second case that a former sage said it too; Rabbi is saying a drasha which seems to be similar. {discussing some scholars that dealt with this passag}. R.-Tzi's understanding: the first mishna was added later to the four drashot learned above, and was formed as an intro to them all, by having Akiva's system praised by R. Yehoshua (by comparing it to an ancient sage), and having Rabbi's statement added as a contrasting opinion, in a manner similar to what is done in the four later drashot.
So the whole corpus is presenting the greatness of R. Akiva's system, in relation to earlier and later rabbis.
A sophisticated group of r. akiv'as drashot; in each one drasha is brought, first in halakha and then in aggada. They are presenting the akivian method: addition of “lemor”; addition of “vav”; learning halakha from a contradiction; and from a difference in staement (eyno omer). The akivian nature is in the focusing on single words and even letters, and is being made clearer by presenting a different views (which always read the verses in a simpler manner). The other opinions are brought in order to show the greatness of R. Akiva. There is a development in the drashot of R. Akiva (note 141); there is also a picture of a developing system of drasha from one generation to another: ribaz, r. yehoshua, r. akiva, yehoshua son of hyrcans. This image of r. Akiva, as a peak of drashic abilities, appears also in the talmudim. The greatness of R. Akiva is not only in his drashic-abilities, but in his using it in order to establish halakhas which already exist (discussing a passage from Sifre Num. about the kohanim with “mumim”). This connection could be, in fact, the voice of the editor (which is heard in the statements of R. Yehoshua).
Kahana wrote about this as well: the Tannaitic ever-growing tendency to connect halakha to and midrash. In our passage the heros of this tendency are R. Akiva and R. Yehoshu, but the connection made is between halakha and scriptures.
in Mishna Sota 5 there are four drashot, about impurity, Eruvin, the reading of the song of the sea and the faith of Job.
He will prove that the first mishna does not belong to this sequence
the common thing about these four derashot is the manner of interpretation of R. Akiva; this whole sequence is praising it. Akiva's method is being contrasted with a minimalistic methods of other rabbis.
1. impurity of a third vessel: a major halakhic topic of the period. Ribaz had a certain halakha: a loaf in an impure vessel is not only impure, but also littering other things. This halakha is different than what is said in Lev. 11. he was afraid that later generations will cancell this halakha because it is not based in scriptures. [some important bibliography about this]. This halakha is not found in qumran (because it is tradition and not scriptures). R. Akiva is the first rabbi to connect this halakha to scriptures. R. Akiva is praised by R. Yahoshua. Akiva can make a drasha which Ribaz couldn't because of the different system of drashing: Ribaz just saw that the scriptural halakha was different; Akiva interpreted.
2. eruvin: there is a contradiction in the scriptures (Num. 35, 1000 ama in verse 4, 2000 in verse 5). again a halakha which Akiva connected with a verse.
Then comes R. Eliezer's drasha, which explains the verse but does not connect it to a halakha. This sheds sharper light on Akiva's interpretation, being an opposition to it: Akiva's system of deconstructing the verse (take it out of its context). The novalty of Akiva is that he learned about “tchum shabbat” from this verse, which is not the original meaning of the verse.
This was probably done before in qumran, where they understood the difference from two types of tchum shabbat because of this contradiction between these verses. And R.-Tz. Brings other examples. R. yossei, in this passage, brings the halakha but does not connect it to verses. The innovation of R. Akiva is that he connect the pharasian halakha with a vese. So the passage in the mishna here praises R. Akiva's system: it is not tradition vs scriptures, but Akiva's combination of the two which is praised; this system is not accepted by R. Eliezer son of R. Yossey the Galilean.
3. The song of the sea. The tosefta version is longer, and used to understand the mishna. This is wrong. The version in the tosefta and in the mekhilta, and in the later sources (talmudim) are elaborations on R. Nehemiah's system, which is not a respons system at all. So in the mishna the “reading of the Shma” is an oral reading by cantor and congragation together; in the tosefta it is different (p. 112).
explaining the mekhilta (is this explainig the tosefta too?): because the holy spirit rested on them they all sang the song; this is learned from the verse, and not from any drasha. So it is in the yerushalmi.
So again this section in the mishna is presenting R. Akiva's system of interpreting the verse and leaning about the respons-type reading of the song of the sea, in opposition to R. Nehemiah's system.
{R.-Tz.'s interpretation of the Tosefta's passage: the system of response is accepted, there are three systems of it: hallel like a small-one, hallel like a big-person and like in the shma. Only that there is no respons in the shma here, but a drasha is attached to the end of R. Nehemiah's statement, a drasha about the pasuk at hand, which is not really explaining his words; so is the case in the mekhilta}
4. the faith of Job. This drasha is different from the others in stucture and rabbi. It is of a different sources and was added here because of R. Yehoshua's reaction. it presents a mahloket between ribaz (learning from the simple meaning of the verse that Job feared God) and Yehoshua son of Hyrcanus who presents a sophisticated drash: learning from another verse of Job. This passage is praising the sophisticated reading vs. the simple one, like in the first case – the more “modern” reading (of Yehoshua) is better. It is not that love is better than fear in this passage {me: it will be so in the tesefta}. We don't know who this yehoshua was, but he is presented as a continuer of R. Akiva. The theme (readiness to give your life for God) is tpical Akivian.
5. the first mishna: the sota and her husband. Here there are two drashot of R. Akiva about “sota”. This passage seems to be stuck in the middle of chapter about “drinking women”. The difference between the previous chapter to the next is that in chpater 4 women don't drink because of their high status, and in chapter 6 they dont drink because of issues of testimony about them.
At the end of chapter 4 is discussed the relationship between the suspected woman and her suspected lover. R. Akiva brings in the lover-character into the mishna. He says 1. that the water she is drinking check him as well and 2. that she is fobidden to him. R. yehoshua says about the second case that a former sage said it too; Rabbi is saying a drasha which seems to be similar. {discussing some scholars that dealt with this passag}. R.-Tzi's understanding: the first mishna was added later to the four drashot learned above, and was formed as an intro to them all, by having Akiva's system praised by R. Yehoshua (by comparing it to an ancient sage), and having Rabbi's statement added as a contrasting opinion, in a manner similar to what is done in the four later drashot.
So the whole corpus is presenting the greatness of R. Akiva's system, in relation to earlier and later rabbis.
A sophisticated group of r. akiv'as drashot; in each one drasha is brought, first in halakha and then in aggada. They are presenting the akivian method: addition of “lemor”; addition of “vav”; learning halakha from a contradiction; and from a difference in staement (eyno omer). The akivian nature is in the focusing on single words and even letters, and is being made clearer by presenting a different views (which always read the verses in a simpler manner). The other opinions are brought in order to show the greatness of R. Akiva. There is a development in the drashot of R. Akiva (note 141); there is also a picture of a developing system of drasha from one generation to another: ribaz, r. yehoshua, r. akiva, yehoshua son of hyrcans. This image of r. Akiva, as a peak of drashic abilities, appears also in the talmudim. The greatness of R. Akiva is not only in his drashic-abilities, but in his using it in order to establish halakhas which already exist (discussing a passage from Sifre Num. about the kohanim with “mumim”). This connection could be, in fact, the voice of the editor (which is heard in the statements of R. Yehoshua).
Kahana wrote about this as well: the Tannaitic ever-growing tendency to connect halakha to and midrash. In our passage the heros of this tendency are R. Akiva and R. Yehoshu, but the connection made is between halakha and scriptures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)