Society, the Sacred and Scripture in Ancient Judaism: A Sociology of Knowledge (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 3)

Studies in Christianity and Judaism / Etudes sur le christianisme et le judaïsme : 3

Studies in Christianity and Judaism t Etudes sur le christianisme et le judaïsme

Studies in Christianity and Judaism / Etudes sur le christianisme et le judaïsme presents publications that study Judaism and Christ ûJ Tliliiti ?t ‫ דו‬not h atI*iiiall ‫ ח‬an ofrnrf trilüaUi roarnall an LI1llL‫ו‬ 1‫ד‬U1 rl 1HU ‫״‬nWo l nf iî ld 1y lUgüliiüX GllUl L LU lClnor L?aloreta lLllllg ilüIiaw tha studies that offer original insight into some central aspect of the two religions or of one of them. Three groups of studies are envisaged: studies of doctrine, historical studies, and textual studies. Whereas there exist similar publications produced in Canada in a theological context, this Series reflects the specific nature and orientation of the departments of religious studies in Canadian centres of learning. In these departments Christianity and Judaism are studied from the perspective of the history of religions. Such a perspective is not necessarily aligned with one of the two traditions. It tries to transcend traditional antagonisms as well as confessional limitations. After several decades of work from such a perspective, Canadian scholars are now in a position to offer studies that put forward less conventional views of the two religions.

GENERAI. EDITOR:

Jean Ouellette

Université de Montréal

EDITORIAL BOARD: G.-H. Allard Université de Montréal P.-E. Dion University of Toronto L. Gaston Vancouver School of Theology J. N. Lightstone Concordia University A. Mendelson McMaster University W. H. Principe University of Toronto P. Richardson University of Toronto E. P. Sanders McMaster University F. Wisse McGill University G. Vallée McMaster University

STUDIES IN CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM Number 3

SOCIETY, THE SACRED, AND SCRIPTURE IN ANCIENT JUDAISM A SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE

Jack N. Lightstone

Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press 1988

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

© 1988 Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/ Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses 88 89 90 91 4 3 2 1

Order from: Wilfrid Laurier University Press Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5

For Dorothy, Jennifer, and Etan

This page intentionally left blank

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Preface Transliterations Chapter One: Introduction

ix xiii 1

Chapter Two : The ‫״‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses"

21

Chapter Three: Diaspora, Sources of the Sacred, and Torah as Holy Relic

45

Chapter Four: Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah and Scripture as Closed System

59

Chapter Five : Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and the Fragmentation of Scripture Notes

71 95

Selected Bibliography and Abbreviations

1 07

General Subject Index .

121

This page intentionally left blank

P R E F A C E

This work explores the relationship o f religion, social patterns, and the perception of the character of scripture in four distinct modes of Ancient Judaism: 1 ) the

‫י‬Restoration‫ ׳‬community of the

Diaspora down to the end of the fourth century

CE;

3 ) earliest

rabbinic Judaism of the second century CE in the Land of Israel; 4) Late Antique Talmudic Rabbinism, primarily through

the

sixth

century

CE.

This

work

in Babylonia, down

attempts,

first,

to

describe for each of the settings how scripture is perceived and, second, to explore why it is thus perceived — task

is

descriptive

explanation material,

and

the

second

that is, the first

broaches

the

issue

and, therefore, of theory. The presentation

including

the

modes and communities,

consideration

of

four

has been organized

discrete

of

of the

Judaic

to facilitate

the

theoretical agenda. The approach both to the descriptive and to theoretical aspects is heavily influenced not only by the methods of

literary

literature

and

form

criticism

of Ancient

now

Judaism,

but

used

in

also

by

the

study

of

the

the methods

and

perspectives of symbolic, cultural anthropology and the sociology of knowledge. About these matters, I shall say more below and in chapter 1 . At

this

juncture,

however,

I should

specify

what

this work

does not attempt to do. It does not attempt to be a comprehensive account either of Ancient Judaism or of biblical interpretation in Ancient Judaism. X have omi notably

6ntx rely

the Dead

coos 1 cl e jr 211 ion of

some

Sea Commmunity at Qumran. Nor

groups § mos t>

does

this

work

clearly fall within the field o f the history o f biblical exegesis because it lacks that area‫ ׳‬s persistent attention to the content of exegesis and to the history of that content.

To

the

extent

that this study concerns itself with biblical interpretation, it focusses primarily on the form in which exegesis occurs. There is a third sense

in which this study is limited

ix

in its scope. It

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

does

not

attempt

a comprehensive,

in-depth

analysis

of

the

religion of even those groups considered, or of the literature which

they

have

left

us,

or

of

their

origins,

to explore

the most

history,

and

development. What

follows attempts

fundamental,

coherent and general patterns which characterize the cultures of Ancient Judaic groups. It is my contention that these consistent patterns encode meaning statements

about

how

(as does language) and

the world

is,

about

the

thereby

location

make

of

the

group in that world, about the nature of the interaction within and among realms in that world. In other words, these patterns convey and constitute knowledge of the topography of the socially constructed world and of relationships and processes within that topography. Scripture, once adopted as such, ostensibly provided the immutable, official map of things ; what, therefore, happens to scripture, how it is reconstructed or differently

perceived,

in each of four distinct Judaic contexts in the Ancient

World,

provides valuable insight into, even an indicator of, the socioworld is * For those

interested

symbolic anthropology,

in the sociology

of knowledge

the work will provide relevant

and

evidence

from Ancient and Late Antique religion and literature. I would hope

as

well

that

the

study

contributes

to

the

attempt

to

demonstrate the value of these historical data for sociological and anthropological theorizing. For those involved in the history of religions and for scholars of Ancient Judaism in particular, I offer an attempt to show further the value of the sensibilities and

perspectives

historical

and

of

social

literary

anthropology

critical

as

methods

a complement in

the

study

religions and their literature. For the student of exegesis, scripture

I offer in

a different

the life of

way

of

seeing

the community which

the

reveres

to of

biblical place

of

it. So,

while not comprehensive, the work intends to be more than merely heuristic

or suggestive.

It explores

di f f erent

issues

to a

different end than is usually the case among scholars of Ancient Judaism or of biblical exegesis. x

Preface

This book emerged from my participation over the last four years

in

the Torah/Nomos

Canadian emerged

Society from

Group

Biblical

in

of chapter

Studies

of

the annual meetings

Studies.

papers delivered

earlier version proceedings

of

to

Three

chapters

the group;

chapter

3 were published

in Religion

between

of

4 and

in the

1984

the

directly an

group's

and

1986

and

appear in the present context with permission of the journal and its

publisher.

These

chapters

criticism

to

the

and a

(University

College, University of Toronto), who organized

to

Torah/Nomos

resulting

therefore,

thanks

the

much

discussion

special

by

owe

Professor

Group.

Peter

I

owe,

Richardson the

group's sessions and acted as editor for the publication of the proceedings. English Revised

translations of biblical

Standard

Version

Bible with Apocrypha; have

been

so

as published

passages in the

are

Oxford

from

the

Annotated

biblical passages cited in rabbinic texts

rendered,

however,

as

to

make

those

texts

intelligible. Unless otherwise indicated, translations of extrabiblical texts are my own. My colleagues at Concordia, Professors F. Bird, C. Davis, M. Despland,

H. Joseph,

D. Howes,

M. Miller,

S . McDonough,

M.

Oppenheim, I. Robinson, J. Rossner, and L. Teskey-Denton, and ‫»״‬y students and colleagues, N. Joseph, S. Fishbane and M. McBrea

‫״‬,

have all read and commented upon earlier drafts of the majority of chapters. I can imagine no better collégial context in which to work than they provide. For any faults in this study, only I am responsible. My doctoral student, Ruth Vale, worked

extensively

on

the

the preparation of the final manuscript and the bibliography. She deserves my special gratitude. L. Stevens kindly

proofread

the

manuscript. This project was brought to completion with the aid of funds from Concordia University ; its support is appreciated. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

xi

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture I dedicate this work to my family; they will know why this work, which emerged over the last several years, is integrally related to my life together with them. Jack N. Lightstone Concordia University Montreal, PQ, Canada Lag BaOmer, 5747 May 1987

xii

TRANSLITERATIONS

‫א נ נ ד ה ו ז ח ט י נך ל‬ l k y t h z w h d g b ‫׳‬

r

17 p

1 I 5 ‫ן‬I*5‫ ן‬Hb » ‫ו ם‬ ‫ נז‬D& ‫ ו‬P

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

ONE

Introduction

This study, as noted in the preface, explores the relationship in Ancient Judaism of religion, ,

social patterns

and place,

and

perception‫ ׳‬of scripture. The work proceeds both comparatively

and

historically

distinct

Judaic

by

examining

settings :

(1)

these ,

the

relationships

Restoration‫׳‬

in

four

community

in

Judah during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE; (2) the GraecoRoman Diaspora

down to the end of

the

fourth

century

earliest rabbinic Judaism of the second century Israel;

(4) Late

Antique

Talmudic

Rabbinism,

CE;

(3)

in the Land of primarily

in

Babylonia, down through the sixth century CE. By following this approach this work intends both to describe and to explain these relationships in Ancient Judaism; that is, the task is not only to

lay

out

data

in some new

fashion,

but

also

to offer

some

theoretical account for their interrelationship. Many other works have broached questions about the place of scripture in Judaism.1 Wherein this study differs, and where it has its own contribution to make, is precisely

in the theoretical

and

methodological

perspectives adopted. The Problem The Jewish scriptures evolved out of,

and subsequently

assumed

their place within, diverse Judaic spheres in the Ancient world. All of these spheres left their mark, first, upon the editing and compilation of the documents ; second, upon their coming together in canonical collections ; and, third, upon their interpretation. The rabbinic Bible, for example, reflects one canon among others current in Yahwehistic circles. interpretation those

of

of

scripture

non-rabbinic

The rabbis' collection and their

differed

groups.

And

from, the

and

competed

biblical

with,

literature

inherited by the rabbis itself reflects the views and practices of several successive

(Deuteronomic) factions facing -‫נ‬

from contemporary Israelite protagonists. now are commonplace among most biblical 1

All these and rabbinic

opposition assertions scholars.

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

But

such

claims,

while generally

assented

to, have

engendered

little systematic exploration of how in particular these texts, collections and exegeses reflect these various and varied sociocultural Judaic contexts. Two main reasons account for this state of affairs. First, for many students of Ancient Judaism and of Early Christianity, the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament reflects the normative, selfevidently

appropriate

religion;

in

insignificant. many

(even

comparison, So,

scholars

too,

if

evolving)

other

in considering

proceed

as

literatures were normative

if

stream

versions

the

of

are

Israelite

deviant

post-biblical

rabbinic

or

exegesis,

and

patristic

in Judaic and Christian

circles,

interpretation as the reflection of an evolving, but essentially monolithic, edge off

normative

the need

religious

takes

world-view,

to view the materials

much

of

the

in a comparative and

sociological perspective. Thus these documents both are, and yet are not, felt to be culturally determined. The practical outcome is

that

socio-cultural

considerations

will

tend

to

come

into

play, if they do at all, in understanding the deviants, not the norm.

The

norm

generally

requires

no

explanation,

interpretation. Only the finer details remain

to be

only

explained.

That is why the history of biblical interpretation, for example, usually concentrates upon the examination of discrete exegetical traditions

and

their history. The larger

systems

of which

the

discrete pericope is a part do not require explanation; they are taken for granted as givens. The second reason little

development

for this hiatus

among

biblical

is that scholars

there has been of

requisite

theoretical and methodological perspectives. This second

factor

largely

be

stems

from

serious problem —

the

first.

Where

there

is

felt

to

no

for the normal is not problematic -- there is

no pressing need for tools. But there is, I believe, yet another factor at work. Mary Douglas has pointed to a cultural bias among modern scholars of religion, to

look

to ideas

themselves

largely

as

the

reduced

a bias which predisposes scholars

explanation to

ideas.

for That

religious is,

the

phenomena, history

of

Introduction

religions remains to a great extent the history of

theological

ideas. The relationship of ideas to socio-cultural factors, while admitted, receives less attention• The

purpose

of

this

book

is

two-fold.

The

first

is

to

attempt a shift in perspective, so that what has appeared normal, familiar,

and

self-evidently

appropriate

may

be

seen

as

unfamiliar and, therefore, needing an explanation. The second is to

propose

and

methodological

to

use

the

perspective

bare

bones

of

which provides

a

theoretical

such

Let me elaborate upon both tasks in turn and

an

and

explanation.

then preview

the

results. The Descriptive Task As

suggested,

scholars

of

Ancient

Judaism,

many

of

whom

have

‫ י‬grown up‫ ׳‬with the text they study, take quite for granted the most

general

and

characteristic

shapes

of

the

documents

they

examine. Their expertise comes to play upon the discrete, for the shape of the whole, as I have stated above, is experienced as a given and, hence, is not a question begging

for answers. Their

questions tend to be of a particular sort. What is the source of Mishnah tractate Eduyot 3:1? What is the relationship between the exegetical beraitot in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds and the parallel

texts

in the Halakic

Midrashim?

Exodus ‫ ׳‬Book of the Covenant have been culled

Which

laws

in

from Akkadian or

Hittite law? Few,

if

any,

however,

ask,

the

following

questions.

Why

should Halakic Midrash be the way it is ; what is the meaning of doing

things

this way?

So too with Mishnah

or

the

Babylonian

Talmud. Or, why have a closed canon; indeed, why have scripture at all? What perception of the nature of scripture (or simply, of things in general) is implicit

in the manner

in which

Midrash

treats scripture, or Talmud treats Mishnah? To ask this latter type of question considerably

shifts one's attention

to the

larger shapes of things, normally taken for granted or as givens. So to query is immediately to see that they are not givens at all. For implied in such queries is the view that this general way of doing things or of perceiving matters is one among many

3

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture contrived by humanity. So what is achieved by doing it this way, forcing things into this shape or pattern? Generally

speaking,

the first part of each of the chapters

describes

in this work

these large patterns and shapes. The second part asks: What is thereby

achieved

for

the

group

in

question?

That

is,

what

perceptional world is thereby created? Methodological and theoretical perspectives adopted in this study have both informed and follow from the problem as we have just

defined

structured

it.

First,

patterns

documents

under

of

study,

communicate meaning, Insofar

as

these

we

are

whole

concerned

systems

because

as

these

although usually

documents

are

the

with

the

exhibited

structured

larger in

at an implicit product

of,

the

patterns or

level. gained

prominence in, distinctive groups, these implicitly communicated meanings represent shared, socially maintained perceptions. The implicit

character

unarticulated

of

assumption

these

statements

(that

that this is the manner

is,

the

in which

one

does things) bolsters our claim that what is communicated is, for the group in question, self-evidently appropriate. That basic, repeated patterns can function

as means

of

communication within a particular socio-cultural context has been convincingly established by cultural anthropoloqists, qoinq back to E. Dürkheim. Where the practice of symbolic anthropology has come

under

fire,

it

is

due

to

the

propensity

of

some

practitioners to over-interpret, and thereby distort the evidence beyond

recognition.

(Whether

I have made unrecognizable

phenomenon analyzed in this study,

the

I leave to the judgement of

the reader.) What anthropologists maintain about structured patterns of behaviour

may

also

be

said

of

highly

behaviour, ® of which much of our evidence early rabbinic

formalized

literary

is the product.

literature with which we deal,

for example,

The is

characterized by rendering the vast variety of what is said in relatively few structured ways of saying things. Idiomatic modes of speech, or the formal traits of particular groups of tradents, have been assimilated to one of several variations of a limited number of rhetorical patterns. In other words, these structures

4

Introduction speak,

first, for the redactors of these compilations®

second,

for those for whom

these compilations

are

and,

normative

expressions. These pervasive rhetorical patterns convey meaning of

the

law-like,

elements

of

the

elements, and element.

albeit

implicit,

structure,

(2)

rules

the

because

governing

relations

(1)

among

the

those

(3) the range of permissible content of any one

Such

implicit

meanings

remain

distinct

from

the

particular content at any one instance of the structure. In the realm of narrative,

the stock plots of films about Whites and

Indians in the American West provide an apt example. The very fact that we come to recognize

their narrative

lines as stock

*‫* ע‬a 4‫־‬ A1 a1n i & fi^Q [JIULo XlUpXXftSQ l^liCLI»• WC a^A^UnlcUyt! 1n1|JXit«i.LXy o bvv UX ****I‫״‬F UÇÂQ•.nI1 1^ ‫ ו‬wit™* *1 ‫ ^ ד‬e

fkaf

st

/•»!»f 1

•î mrt 1 ‫ ו‬r-i f 1 w

s

(here about the relations between, and the moral worth of. Whites and Indians) that is distinct from the content of any one story.^ One experiences these law-like relations as the "way

things

really are," as part of one's knowledge of the world. This argument applies equally to stock Westerns and to the highly formalized early rabbinic documents. It is this attention to implicit patterns

characterizing

the evidence of Ancient

Judaism, especially its treatment of scripture, that governs our descriptive endeavour throughout this study. The Explanatory

Task

Our parcelling of the data, in particular the attention given to larger

patterns

theoretical thereby within

and

their

implicit

meanings,

serves

our

interests. This study seeks to explore how what is

communicated

appears

its socio-cultural

to

be

self-evidently

setting. Or, to put

appropriate

this

in

another

way, we seek to account for the cogency and plausibility of these shared perceptions for those who so perceive matters. It is our hypothesis

that

this

cogency

has

to

do

with

the

fit

or

homological relationships across the various structured patterns constituting study,

the socio-cultural

which we

shall presently

setting. The results of review,

will,

it

the

is hoped,

further vindicate our approach. But first I should like to spell out aspects of this theoreticsil perspective « C. Geertz

in his

treatment 5

of

religion

"as

a

cultural

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

system" proposes that religious knowledge

finds its rationality

in a mutually confirming relationship with other aspects of the cultural system. He states : In religious belief and practice a group's ethos is rendered intellectually reasonable by being shown to represent a way of life ideally adapted to the actual state of affairs the world-view

describes,

while

the world-view

is

rendered

emotionally convincing by being presented as an image of an actual

state

of

affairs

peculiarly

well

arranged

accommodate such a way of life. This confrontation

to and

mutual confirmation has two fundamental effects. On the one hand,

it

objectivizes

moral

and

aesthetic

preferences

by

depicting them as the imposed conditions of life implicit in a world with a particular

structure, as mere common sense

given the unalterable shape of reality. On the other hand, it supports these received beliefs about the world‫ ׳‬s body by invoking

deeply

experiential

felt moral and

evidence

for

their

aesthetic truth.

sentiments

Religious

as

symbols

formulate a basic congruence between a particular style of life and a specific

( if, most often, implicit) metaphysic,

and in so p doing sustain each with the borrowed authority of the other. Geertz enterprise.

here makes First,

four

theoretical

the beliefs

and

points germane

practices

of

to our

religion

are

integrally related to style of life, or ethos, on the one hand, and

to

world-view,

on

the

other.

Second,

relationships as one of "congruence." Third,

he

describes

these

these beliefs and

practices implicitly communicate a "metaphysic," or "world-view." Fourth, this congruence of religion, style of life and world-view correlates with strong collective sentiments of an aesthetic and moral nature. Fifth, the overall effect is to "sustain," that is, to render plausible, both world-view, on the one hand, and style of life, on the other. Such claims will hardly be controversial, as Geertz himself notes. But he admits as well that these relationships are "hardly investigated either, so that we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished." It is 6

Introduction

into

this

theoretical

and

empirical hiatus

that Mary

Douglas‫׳‬

cross-cultural work on classification systems may be seen to fit. Building upon Dürkheim,

Mauss, and Evans-Pritchard, q attempted to demonstrate that : *

she has

the logical patterning in which social relations are ordered affords a bias in the classification of nature, and that in this bias is to be found the confident evident hidden

truth. And and

here,

inaccessible

in

this

intuition of self-

intuition,

implicit

assumption

is on

the

most

which

all

other knowledge is çround6d « 11 is the 1111111131 te instrument of domination, emotion

that

protected

commits

from

inspection

the knower

to

the

by every

social

warm

system

in

which his knowledge is guaranteed. Only one who feels coolly towards

that

society

can

question

its

self-evident

propositions. Let me translate Douglas into an idiom more suitable to our own. The social map, or ordered pattern of social relationships, will

significantly

belief,

correspond

rituals,

and

to

the mapping

{especially )

rules

of and

the world taboos.

in The

structured patterns implicit in both the social and cosmological order will replicate one another. Of the two maps, Douglas views the social

structure

as the independent,

determining

variable,

with respect to which other mappings (or knowledge) of the world will vary and in terms of which these mappings will be felt to be self-evidently true. I would modify Douglas‫ ׳‬assertions in two ways, both in line with Geertz. First, one may extend her explanatory scheme beyond her specific interests in classification of nature to include all structured

patterning

of

the

including highly patterned

world

and

of

objects

in

it,

texts. That is, for the purposes of

this study, the focus will be less on classification of nature per se than on Douglas‫" ׳‬other knowledge." Second, while seeing her term, biasing -- the

,

shape' of other knowledge,

I do not

share her certainty that that bias is sufficient cause for those shared again

sentiments returning

which

to

render knowledge

Geertz,

it 7

is

in

the

self-evident. mutual

Rather,

mirroring

of

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

social and other patterns that this affectively based sense of certitude lies. Hence, the more patterned systems in the cultural setting which structurally mirror one another, the stronger will be

the

sense

system.

of

self-evidence

One may

generative

here

cause and

facts.1®

Along

primary

causal

with

guaranteeing

invoke function

Douglas,

factor

any

one

patterned

Dürkheim‫ ׳‬s distinction in the

I see

explanation

in the

determining

the

social

shape

between

of

social

structure

of

the

a

world

implicitly communicated in other systems of knowledge, but these other systems too each function to enhance the plausibility of one another and of the social system. Douglas ‫ ׳‬theoretical

and

methodological

approach

must

be

supplemented still further to serve the present context. Douglas talks

of

the

social

system

effecting

a bias

towards

certain

systems of knowledge, rather than determining outright its shape and

character.

She

implicitly

recognizes

that

this

bias

effectively limits the range of what is plausible, given what is historically

available

to

the

group

in

question.

To

cite

Dürkheim‫׳‬s dictum: "the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it...."^

This in no

way contradicts the claim that "the first origins of all social processes

of

any

importance

should

be

sought

in

the

internal

constitution of the social group." There is a history to social facts and any bias is exerted in one direction or another along a continuum of what is historically

available to the group under

study. The workings of those social knowledge

of

the world

can,

forces informing

therefore,

only

be

shared

studied

by

comparative-historical research; for we can only study movement along

a continuum

whose

ends

are

largely

predetermined

by

historical exigency. The comparison of historically close social groupings will, therefore, allow the control necessary to study the effects

of

the social

map on other

systems

of

knowledge.

Again Dürkheim has said (and here Weber too would agree) : since "social

phenomena

experimenter,

evidently

escape

the

control

of

the

the comparative method is the only one suited to

sociology.

8

Introduction

Let

me

translate

considerations attempted

these

theoretical

and

methodological

into the specific realm of the explanatory

in

this

study.

Understanding,

or

task

explaining,

the

knowledge and perceptions implicitly conveyed in the structured patterns of Late Antique Judaism and its texts entails viewing matters both synchronically and diachronically at the same time. On the one hand, we explore the congruence or homological

fit

between these perceptions and those implicit elsewhere in other structured

patterns

of

the same Judaic

community;

chief

among

these other patterns will be the social structure. That is, for each

Judaic

group

we

expect

a

congruence

between

various

mappings, the social map being a primary factor biasing others. But that biasing must be appreciated comparatively, as a position relative

to

others on

a

continuum

of

available

possibili ties

given by the historical-cultural context. So, for example, these shifts in Talmudic Rabbinism must be analyzed in relation to the state of affairs of Mishnaic Rabbinism. And both can be assessed only in light of the shared perceptions of the world implicitly conveyed

by

decision

to compare

Judaic

the

modes

scriptures

is

methodologically thereby

may

which

in this

no

aesthetic

demanded

we analyze

by our

the

they

study

have

four

inherited.

distinct

preference ; theoretical

relationship

of

Late

rather,

So it

perspective. the

the

Antique is Only

social map

to

other shared perceptions and mappings in Late Antique Judaism. The Study and Its Results Those documents ultimately

constituting

the Hebrew

most important among them, the Pentateuch ‫״‬Torah of Moses") provided available

to

communities

and in

part of what was both

authoritative

Late

Antique

for

Judaism.

rabbinic But

Bible,

and,

(understood to be the

in

historically

and

non-rabbinic

the

perceptional

worlds of these various Judaic groups, the biblical documents are also an object (among others) of perception, even if, at the same time, they influenced such shared perceptions of the world. How

verses

are interpreted, depends upon the various groups ‫׳‬ 1‫ו‬ structured patterns of perceiving th16s

in the same voice,

same vocabulary, same formularies, etc. There, in fact, is little or nothing speech-like about their "sayings." That is to say, the editors of Mishnah

have imposed the same linguistic patterns and

structures throughout some

reason

the

important,

example, any attempt to even

distinctive

utterly

document.

fails.

individuality see

oral In

So while names are is not.

traditions,

as

then,

from

the

in well

for

sources or

the

Mishnah

internally uniform and self-consistent as and separate

Thus,

in Mishnah antecedent

language,

for

Synoptics, is

as

at

once

distinctive

language-world outside and antecedent to

itself. The

substance

Leaving

aside

of

Mishnah leaves

tractate

Avot,

much

each

of

the

same

Mishnah‫ ׳‬s

effect.

sixty-two

tractates provides a complete treatment of its generative subject and problem, as Neusner has demonstrated. That is, each coherent and unitary essay which

introduces

the subject and issues initially defined. may

allow

for

commentary

Talmuds -- virtually imagine

adding

"chapters"

consideration in yet another

tractate.

the manner in which the subject is like

remarkable consistency.

the

to

any

tractate

â tractate

The same

may

relevance

the not

without

not be said

But across

developed and

a

develops

none appears open-ended. One could

additional

analyzed,

While

is

fully

and interpretation -- witness

reopening and redefining its problem.

problems

and

tractates,

the

types

of intention,

So in this substantive sense,

especially its constituent tractates, seems a closed

of show

Mishnah, document,

that is, self-consistent and complete in itself. As some

equally with

mishnaic language and Mishnah‫ ׳‬s modes of analysis are in

sense closed realms, the

closed

system.

world of the

so its subject matter deals Mishnah concerns itself

Temple cult 64

and

almost

Temple state,

with

an

wholly earlier

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture defined

by the Pentateuch and supposedly realized under Ezra and

Nehemiah.

Of the six major divisions {"Orders") of Mishnah,

fifth deals with sacrifices, second

with

festivals as celebrated in the Temple

synagogue), Temple civil

the first with Priestly

the

and

criminal

matters,

but

The

assumes

a

judicial system centred in Temple institutions. Temple issues.

Yet

such

paramount.

as

So

in many other

Sotah

and

tractates

Nedarim,

fourth

treats and

The

the

third,

ostensibly

not

of the Order

Temple

of

concerns

are

outside

a

all of the document is consistent with a Temple

and most of it exclusively so.

statement

the

while some of Mishnah is intelligible

Temple context, setting,

(rarely

legislative

Order of Women, considers divorce and marriage, Women,

the

sixth with matters of purity affecting home and

with purification via the cult.

and

the

dues,

may

be

said

of the rabbinic

Significantly, the same canon

of

scriptures.

Indeed, precisely the homologous relationship between the rabbi's Bible

and their Mishnah is our major point,

to which

we

shall

return below. The

self-contained,

underlies

the

everywhere

initially

is

self-consistent curious

substantively

fact

character of that

dependent

Mishnah

while upon

Mishnah scripture,

particularly upon the legal materials of the Pentateuch, hardly

cites

Mishnah

or otherwise acknowledges its dependence upon

biblical texts.

the

Mishnah Horayot 2: 5 is exemplary in this regard;

in addition it reflects Mishnah‫׳‬s Temple centricity. A.1. They

[the members

of the court] are not

the offering specified in Lev. cause

liable

[for

4 : 1 2 ~ 2 3 !‫ י‬x f thfiy unwittingly

transgression of the law]

testify as a witness; see Lev. 5:1], 3. and concerning uttering [a rash oath; see Lev. 5:4], 4.

and

concerning

the uncleanness of the Temple and its

holy things [Lev. 5 : 2-3 ] . B. ‫״‬And the same [exemption] applies to the nasi as to them," the words of R. Yose the Galilean. C. R. Aqiva says, ‫״‬The nasi is liable for them all, D. "except for the hearing of a public adjuration; 65

applies

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture E.1.

"for the king

does not judge, and

they do

not judge

him; 2, him

"he

does not testify, and they do not testify against

[E. 2

missing

in Kaufmann, Lowe and Parma C mss. ]. "

(trans, J. Lightstone, Yose the Galilean [Leiden: E,J. Brill, 1979] p. 81.) The point of departure Horayot

is

Lev.

transgressions

4:1-26.

unwittingly

for an understanding 14

Here

committed

scripture by

the

High

of

Mishnah

deals

with

Priest

(Lev.

4:1-12), the people as a whole (Lev. 4:13-21 ) and the nasi "prince"; however,

Lev.

4:22-26).

differs

responsibility

Mishnah‫ ׳‬s

slightly.

Verses

of a High Priest

conception 1 -12

and

and nasi

(the

of

Leviticus

4,

22-26

concern

the

who have

unwittingly

caused the people to sin by means of official proclamations on their

part.

Verses

13-21

are

interpreted

as

specifying

the

obligations of a court in similar instances. Both the High Priest and the court must bring a bullock as a sin offering; the nasi's sin-offering is a he-goat. Hence, Leviticus 4

leaves room for a

distinction between the High Priest and court, on the one side, and

the nasi,

on

the other.

Accordingly,

Mishnah

Horayot

rules that the court and High Priest are liable only respective proclamations bring about "a transgression if it is done wantonly

the

unwittingly the penalty is The Mishnah mention

penalty a

if their for

is extirpation

sin-offering"

which

and

in

2:3.

if

(trans. H. Danby,

[Oxford, 1933 ], p 464; cf. Mishnah Horayot 2:7);

is made of the nasi

2:3

I turn now

no

to Mishnah

Horayot 2:5, the text cited above. The three transgressions enumerated in A above, according to Lev. 5:1-13,

incur not a standard sin offering,

offering" (,wlh wywrd).

but an "indexed

In the latter case the sacrifice

varies

according to the financial resources of the individual. Those who can afford to do so must brinç a female lamb or cjoat ( X»ev «

5*6)*

The poor may provide less costly offerings such as doves or meal. A, then, rules that the court is not responsible in the specified cases, offering.

because The

these guilty

transgressions

incur

party is not liable for a

66

only

a

varying

standard

sin-

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture offering,

which

is

the criterion of Mishnah Horayot

2:3

(see

commentaries to Mishnah of Maimonides, Bertinoro, and Albeck). What

of the nasi,

silent?

concerning whom Mishnah Horayot

It is not clear

from Leviticus

2:3

is

that he entirely shares

the status of a court or High Priest. On the one hand, he is liable

for

a

sin-offering

for

unwittingly

leading

the

people

astray (Lev. 4:24). On the other hand, the nasi does not bring a bullock, as do the High Priest and the court. His offering is a he-goat, which is more on the plane of what a wealthy commoner would offer for an indexed offering. The view attributed to Yose at B totally identifies the nasi with the court; that attributed to

Aqiva

cases

at C-E does not. For the latter, the nasi is liable in

in

which

‫״‬Hearing

the

a commoner is subject to

voice

of

a

adjuration" is an

varying

offering.

exception

on

quite

independent grounds (i.e., E). On the whole, therefore, Mishnah Horayot 2:5 concerns itself with sorting out the exegetical problems arising from Lev. 4:1-26 when

viewed in light of Lev.

entirely

and

generate

5:1-6.

Exegetical issues underlie

the mishnaic

passage.

Yet

nowhere

in

Mishnah Horayot 2:5 is reference to Leviticus 4 to be found. Like Horayot 2:5, £ ! £L1,

«‫״״‬.j-«.

JI

rirtn

order

and

much of Mishnah, indeed almost all of the —. je

much or

jl‫״‬L«ä

the

j __ JL1•.

sixth,

-»‫«ורד‬.-

systematically

.,3 ,‫ •״ו‬- -... ‫ ד‬...... ‫״‬,., •‫״־‬

develops

Pentateuchal law. Other tractates, like the body of Ohalot, bring to

scripture

proceed The

their own

idiomatic

generative

conception,

and

to develop matters of the former in light of the latter.

remainder of Mishnah sees in scripture at the very

least

a

corpus of un impeachable facts. In light of this state of affairs, so

assiduously

to avoid citing

or acknowledging scripture

only be deliberate and significant.

Since in language and

of analysis Mishnah exhibits a closed, I

attribute

the

can modes

self-contained character,

lack of references to scripture to

the

same.

Namely,

here too Mishnah would retain its closure, its nature to

require

reference

to

nothing

outside

of

itself,

even

to

scripture. Structure and the Social Construction of Reality So what substantively, namely,

the feigned

or even theologically,

independence of Mishnah 67

poses a problem, from

scripture,

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

viewed in larger structural terms appears readily

intelligible.

This is especially so when one considers that those same circles responsible

for Mishnah

fixed

the canon

of Hebrew

Scriptures.

Both fixed and closed wholes, Mishnah and scripture, structurally mirror

each

other;

each

lends

weight

and

credibility

to

the

perceptions of a world implicitly and explicitly conveyed by the other. The

world thereby constructed in shared perceptions of

early rabbis is represented imaginatively by an idealized system.

Sacred

order

is organized about the central

concentric circles of holiness. complete and whole. at

least

if

sacred world. is

of

Within that world are repeated

eternal

fully

in

in

What is outside is anathema, chaos, unclean, timeless,

the

guarded by purity rules. Herein God‫ ׳‬s plan for realized;

it requires

more, no future messianic conveyed

altar

Within that divine circle all is

it is allowed to penetrate the boundaries

patterns of cult, Israel

the

Temple

the

two

and 1 ‫וי‬

fulfilmenl

great

literary

anticipates That

is the

endeavours

of

nothing message earliest

rabbinism, Mishnah and the rabbis‫ ׳‬biblical canon. As I have consistently attempted to show, shared perceptions of

reality,

word,

whether

ritual,

and

communicated explicitly or literature,

retain

their

implicitly

in

saliency

and

verisimilitude because of the relationship to social experience. Social institutions are thereby made to "feel" particularly

well

suited to "the way things really are" in the world. The

early

rabbis in so imagining

the contours of sacred

scriptural canon and

Mishnah

space mirror

their social institutions

in and

experience of the 2nd century CE. The evidence for earliest rabbinism allows little to be said of

their

number

social

of

traditional authority. appears

environment.

claims.^ ®

But one may confidently

They would

have had

no

norms for defining rabbinic roles, The

immediate

social

context

of

make

established, institutions, or early

rabbinism

limited to the close circle of master and disciples.

the larger social environment, especially

135

fabric

Judean

of

brought

we know

that the wars of 70

about significant

society,

a

Of and

dissolution

of

the

sparking migration of much 68

of

the

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture

Jewish

populace.

provided

The circle of master and disciples

an island of order in this sea of chaos.

insular structure,

fifth century BCE had effected the documents

maintenance insulated

of

have this

the early rabbis adumbrated in the

mind a Temple state that, in their view, both

will

Here in

domains

about

that

universe the

colony

rested

Temple

of

the colonists of the

in the earthly

reflecting

an ordered

realm

Jerusalem.

For

and Mishnah,

the

upon

and

a

upon

taxonomy

of

neutraliz ing

resulting anomalies, ambiguities, and impingments from without, similar to the perception that the rabbinic circles must achieve with respect to the chaos about them. Boundary-crossers would have proven to be a danger to this emergent rabbinic organization, which lacked longstanding and

institutions

that

established

for

them

a

clear

norms social

identity and role. Thus they forbade intercourse with surrounding culture,

while

perceptional their

they

created

universe both

scriptural

canon.

their

in Mishnah

Jews

outside

bounded and

in

their

and the

homologous contours

circle,

who

of

spoke

Greek, who venerated books written in or translated into Greek, who

apologized

for

Israelite

tradition

with

reference

to

Hellenistic thought, who assimilated foreign divine beings to a Yahwehistic Gentiles

divine

were

all

realm, deemed

or

who

either

had minim

extensive

commerce

( sectarians),

with

apikorsim

(lit., Epicureans), or hisonim (those "outside" ) . 1‫ל‬

As

I

have

Graeco-Roman rabbinic from

argued earlier in this essay,

Diaspora

shared little or none of

concerns insofar as their

that of the rabbis.

social problematic

Diaspora communities had

intercommunal contacts and solidarity, local social modalities,

Jewry these to

in

the

earliest differed maintain

transcending longstanding

and retain as well meaningful concourse

with the Gentile world. Thus boundary-crossers were valued across social,

cultic and theological realms.

Itinerant Holy Men,

the

Torah scrolls (understood as a relic of YHWH's word), dead saints and

martyrs,

boundary

and

their

tombs

of heaven and earth,

effected

commerce

across

the

just as did Diaspora Jewry across

social boundaries.

69

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture After circa 200 CE, 1 ® rabbis entered

both in Palestine

their Diaspora;

and

Babylonia,

they came to define

and

assume

roles for themselves in the Jewish communities. With these Jews rabbis too lived in the variegated, heterogeneous social world of Late Antiquity. As their social experience changes, so too does the character of their literature, the Talmuds and Midrashim, and 19 the meaning encoded therein. The closure of scriptural canon and

Mishnah

compilations. world,

on

gives

way

Rabbis,

the

one

to

open-endedness

after

hand,

200

and

CE,

then,

reflect

in

later

enter

different

rabbinic

a new

social

patterns

thought, on the other. To these hypotheses we now turn in next chapter.

70

of the

CHAPTER

FIVE

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and the Fragmentation of Scripture

Mishnah,

via

its

self-sufficiency;

literary

and

formal

traits,

feigns

complete

the redactors of Mishnah maintain this air of

systemic closure,

just

as

they

defined

a

closed

and

complete

canon of scripture and defined in both their biblical canon and Mishnah a bounded, closed and independent sacred realm about an ideal Temple.

Mishnah‫ ׳‬s apparent independence of scripture, in

spite of its substantive dependence upon the Pentateuch, does not seem

to be a paradox ; it is not

a case of

"doublethink, " to

borrow an Orwellian phrase. Rather, Mishnah thereby constitutes a structural

homology

( 1 ) of

the

scriptural

canon,

(2)

of

the

idealized Temple system about which Mishnah and Torah talk, and (3) of the social organization and social location of earliest rabbinic circles. The

Palestinian

and

particularly the aggadic

Babylonian

Talmuds

and

Midrash,

(homiletical) Midrashim,

radically 1

depart from these

traits of Mishnah. They do so in language,

literary traits, and substantive agenda. 2 The rabbis who produced these post-mishnaic

documents also inhabited

a social

quite different from the world of Mishnah‫׳‬s tradents. Talmudic rabbis entered the world of the Diaspora, themselves

to

its

structures,

perceptions

of

the

world

transformed

accordingly,

and,

3

universe In short,

accommodated

their

shared

finally,

produced

literature in accord with, and which rendered plausible,

these

basic, realigned perceptions of the nature of things. I base this view of post-Mishnaic rabbinic literature upon some

general

traits

basic

to

both

the

Talmuds

Midrash, traits which markedly distinguish

and

(aggadic)

these documents

from

Mishnah. First, where Mishnah revived and reconstructed what it believed to be the Hebrew language of the perfect Temple state, the Talmuds and Midrashim business principally

conduct

in Aramaic, 71

their ongoing

redactional

the lingua franca of the Near

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

East,

and

liberally

mix

Hebrew

and

where Mishnah‫ ׳‬s language

is bounded,

and

—

truncated

throughout

poetic than prosaic — itself

rather

notwithstanding

passages.

circumscribed, in

this

sense

Second,

formalized it

is

more

post-Mishnaic rabbinic literature permits

more its

indeed

Aramaic

discursive own

highly

and

narrative

formalized

and

prose,

structured

character. Third, Mishnah asserts formally its dependence on no other

documents;

Talmud

and

Midrash

proceed

as

if

they

were

merely commentaries on Mishnah and scripture respectively. As

regards

matters

of

substance,

Mishnah

defined

its

universe as a closed system, that of the Temple; both Midrash and the

Talmuds

accept

no such restricted agenda,^

despite

their

formal status as commentaries upon scripture and Mishnah. Mishnah seeks to define and develop whole systems, scripture,

especially

and indeed views

Pentateuchal law,

the Talmuds and Midrash often concentrate on the single verse,

word,

Talmuds‫׳‬

or

issue,

and

the

as effecting the same; thought,

then proceed to some other.**

The

and Midrash‫ ׳‬s scriptures (mishnaic and biblical) are

a

repository of such singular holy words, phrases, and the like,

a

repository into any corner of which one may delve at any time for sustenance. What

follows will expand upon a number of these points

further explore the meaning and significance of them, together.

and

when taken

The argument proceeds via the analysis of a number of

representative texts. Midrash and the Fragmentation of Scripture Sifra debe Rav, Masekta deNedavah Pereq II : 10-13 provides an apt point of entry to our discussion of Midrash. Disputes about the date

of

final

compilât ion

and

redaction

of

Sifra

notwithstanding,® many passages of Sifra closely follow Mishnah, 7 often citing lengthy portions of the mishnaic text. On the other hand,

many

Talmudic

parallels to Sifra-pericopae depend upon o So materials in Sifra stand close to q Mishnah and, among other materials, like Tosefta, form a bridge their sifraic

versions.

between Mishnah and the Talmuds. Indeed, like Tosefta, which also cites

and

depends

upon

Mishnah, 72

Sifra

uses

Hebrew,

a

marked

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture difference between the larger

body

Sifra

(and other

of early

"tannaitic" Midrashim) and

non-legal

rabbinic

Midrash,

which

primarily uses Aramaic. This proximity to Mishnah makes Sifra‫ ׳‬s pronounced departure from Mishnah in other respects all the more significant. 1n We turn, then, to Sifra Nedavah, Pereq 11:10-13. 11:10 A. ‫״‬From the tent of meeting" (m'hl mw'd; Lev. 1:1) -B. [at

[thus] teaching [that] the voice [of God] would halt

the boundaries of the tent],

and it would

not

sortie

outside the tent. C.

One

may [be inclined to think] that the reason

[it

did not extend beyond] was that the voice was weak (nmwk). D.1.

Scripture

voice" (Num. 7:89) 2.

says

(tlmwd lwmr),

‫״‬And he heard

the

—

That [is],

scripture does not say,

"voice,"

but

rather, "the voice," E. which is explained in the Hagiographa. F. And how is "the voice" explained in the Hagiographa? G. ‫״‬The voice of the Lord is powerful, "the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. ‫״‬The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars of Lebanon. ‫״‬The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire." (Ps. 29:4-5,7) H.

If

so, why is it said,

‫״‬From the tent of meeting?"

(Lev. 1:1) I.

[Scripture intends] to teach that the voice

halted,

and did not sortie outside the tent. J. of

[And] in like manner you say,

‫״‬And the sound (wqwl)

the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the

court, [like

the

voice of God Almighty when

he

outer

speaks]."

(Ezek. 10:5) K.

One

may [be inclin6d to think J that the reason [the

sound of the Cherubim‫ ׳‬s wings halted at the outer court] was that the sound ‫״‬was weak •

9 3

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture L.

Scripture says, ‫״‬Like the voice of God Almighty when

he speaks." (Ezek. 10:5; Weiss adds bsyny) M.

If so,

why is it said, ‫״‬As far as the outer court?"

(Ezek. 10:5) N.

[Scripture

rather,

when

it

teaches

not that the sound

reached

as far

was

as the outer

weak;]

court,

it

halted. A. ‫״‬From the tent of meeting" (Lev. 1:1) B.

One

may

[be

inclined to think]

—

that

[the

voice

emerged] from the entire Sanctuary. C.

Scripture

says,

"[And I shall speak with you] from

above the mercy seat." (Ex. 25:22) D. ‫״‬If ‫ י‬from above the mercy seat,‫ ׳‬one may [be inclined to think,]

1

from above the mercy seat‫ ׳‬in its entirety.

E. "Scripture says,

,

From

between

the

two

cherubim‫׳‬

Exod. 25 : 22)," the words of R. Aqiva. F.

Said R.

Simeon b. Azai, ‫״‬I do not take exception to

the words of the master, but supplement his words. G.1. ‫״‬The Divine Glory (hkbwd), about which it ,

is said,

Do I not fill the heaven and the earth?‫( ׳‬Jer. 23:24)

—

2. "see how beloved [by God] is Israel, such that this expansive Divine

Glory

is made to

be so

confined

as

to

appear to speak ‫ י‬from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim‫׳‬." (Exod. 25:22) H.1.

R.

Dosah says,

‫״‬Lo, it says (hry hw' 'wmr), , For

man shall not see me and live‫( ׳‬Ex. 34:20); 2.

"during

their lives they do not see

[the

Divine

Glory]; (Weiss adds:'bl) they do see [it] at the time (Weiss missing }>' t) of their death. 3. who

go

"and thus it says, down

,

Before him shall bow down all

to the dust, and he who cannot

keep

himself

alive‫׳‬." (Ps. 22: 29 ) I.1. in Weiss), 2,

R. ,

Aqiva says, "Lo, it says (hry hw' 'wmr missing

For man may not see me and live‫( ׳‬Ex. 34:20)

—

"even the beasts who carry (Weiss adds, the Throne

of Glory) do not see the Divine Glory." 74

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture J.

Said R.

Simeon b. Azai, "I do not take exception to

the words of the master, but supplement his words. K.1. " , For man may not see me and live‫( ׳‬Exod. 34:20) 2. "even

the ministering angels,

—

who live eternally,

do not see the Divine Glory," 11:13 A. "Saying" (Lev. 1:1) B.

—

Say to them things [hitherto]

hidden,

[since]

for

your sakes it was told to me. C.

For thus we have found,

that for all of the thirty-

eight years during which Israel wandered [in the wilderness, God] did not speak to Moses, D. had

,

as it is said (

mr),

"So when all the men of

perished and were dead from among the people,

war

the Lord

said to me." (Deut. 2:16-17) E. Another interpretation (dbr 'hr) -F. "Saying" (Lev. 1:1)

—

G. Go and speak with them and report [their response] to me. H. [And] whence (Weiss adds, w) [do we learn] that Moses would go out [of the tent of meeting] and speak with them? I.

As it is said,

‫״‬And he would come out, and tell the

people that which he was commanded." (Exod. 34:34) J. [And] whence (Weiss adds, w) [do we learn] that Moses would report [the people's response] before the Might[y One] (hgbwrh)? K.

Scripture says, "And Moses reported the words of the

people to the Lord." (Exod. 19:8) L.

Eleazar b.

Ahbai (Weiss and Vat.

31 : ‫י‬hbwwy) says,

"One may [understand scripture to mean that God] would speak with him for his own needs [only]. ,

M. ‫״‬Scripture says,

saying‫( ׳‬Lev. 1:1) --

N. "[meaning,] say to Israel. 0, [only] bSbyl

"[And] He would not speak with him for his own needs (1' hyh mdbr yt'l

hyh

mdbr

x

ymw mdbr hyh ,

mw wl'

ymw lswrk

hyh mdbr

( We iL ss here r6p6âbs X X • 13 ^ E‫־־‬K ) 9 3

%

,

mw

‫י‬ lsrk

We 15S » ,

smw) . "

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture The whole of 11:10-13 ostensibly treats two word-units of Lev.

1:1. 11:10-12 deal with a commonplace, r

hl mwyd

technical term, prefix,

m

(from).

conveyed

in

assumed.

Indeed,

(Tent of Meeting), and its prepositional

That the context is God speaking

the immediately

preceding words of

the

to

next scriptural term,

1'mr

Moses,

Lev.

1:1,

Pereq 11:1-10 takes as its point of

wydbr yhwh ‫י‬lyw ("and the Lord spoke to him"). consider

only

the pentateuchal

is

departure

11:13 moves on to

("saying"),

again

a

commonplace in the Pentateuch. Scholars peculiarity Midrash‫ ׳‬s verses

rabbinic scriptural

onslaught.

in

Midrash

of in

the

and

Lev.

Midrash generally here

invoke

language in

explain

1:1,

Pentateuch,

order

perhaps

to

more than most

lends itself to such

concomitant method of scholarly

a

resist

this theoretical and methodological approach. to

be

questions,

sure.

chief

However, such explanations

among them:

particular manner?

the other

theory

analysis.

place,

some

I

of here

It has its

beg

too

many

Why is scripture treated in

this

This I see as anterior to queries

concerning

what linguistic quirk of scripture phrase might have evoked the substance of a midrashic passage. In other words, at issue are ( 1 ) the

cultural

literary endeavour,

meaning

and

significance

of

this

form

of

(2) the perceptions of the nature of things

which are encoded in this literary form, and (3) the relationship these

covertly

communicated

cultural system of which

perceptions

have

to the

they are a part. Consider,

larger

then,

the

more general literary and formal traits of the midrashic passage. First,

scripture

is broken down into its smallest units of

any

semantic significance.

are

one

or two words,

Introducing each midrashic

indeed

sometimes only a

larger scriptural context may or may not be assumed, may

The

and may

or

not be relevant to the substance of the midrashic treatment.

So one faces an dippâi^cnt• pâirâciox • of

pericope

particle.

scripture,

the

pericope,

pericopae

principal

of

the

The‫ ״‬Xc11‫״‬cj[©r S6m3nti> 1 o stx*uotxxx‫׳‬os

ordering of words in a verse, in

chapters,

provide

midrashic compilation,

the which

verses

in

a

organizational moves

to

one

scriptural unit after another and often names its larger subunits after those of scripture.

But these larger semantic structures,

76

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture which

give scripture its idiomatic meaning,

are,

as

it

were,

veiled by the midrashic literary form.

The latter allows us only

peeks

context.

at individual word-units out of

in another way, the midrashic meaning

by

deconstructing

To

passage eclipses the

biblical

put

things

scripture‫ ׳‬s own

text ‫ ׳‬s

meaningful

syntactic structures. instead, it presents disconnected semantic units,

which

out

of

context

may

now

mean

much

more

than

scripture permits. So

Mishnah concerns itself with the substance of scripture,

but formally ignores scripture. ignores

The midrashic passage before

scripture‫ ׳‬s substance in significant ways,

commences always from a scriptural point of then,

appears

secondary to,

departure.

and a derivative of, and significance.

by

Midrash remains relatively

scripture,

scripture‫ ׳‬s contextual meaning, new and multiple meaning

But,

on the one hand,

Midrash,

scripture

without independent meaning fragmenting

us

but formally —

in reality, free

of

and may impute

to each biblical word, on the other;

thus Midrash‫ ׳‬s manner of citing scripture at the opening of each pericope. Scriptural word-units, other than from Lev. 1:1, also appear throughout are

our passage.

These supplementary citations generally

comprised of full phrases or clauses,

introductory

citation.

unlike

the

primary,

They may be culled from anywhere

within

the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. In most cases, the appearance within

these

supplementary

verses

of

the

primary

word-unit

accounts for their selection in the pericope at hand. Neither

the primary citation nor the

supplementary

appear within a discursive essay or comment. the

midrashists locate these biblical texts at precise junctures

within not

verses

Quite the contrary;

a

only

formulaic

larger highly formalized literary structure highly

formalized

language.

Again,

but the

also

largely

midrashic

passage

appears in this regard both like and unlike Mishnah. evinces highly formalized and formulaic language.

—

indeed

comprised before

of us

Mishnah too

This Midrash‫ ׳‬s

forms and formularies differ significantly from Mishnah‫ ׳‬s. Much of the text before us is cast in the following or variations of it. 9 3

pattern

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture 1. primary scripture; 2. teaches x: 3. one may reason y; 4. scripture says + secondary scripture; 5. teaches not y; 6. If so, why is it said + primary scripture? 7. to teach x. This

simple

pattern

may

be

used

to

build

somewhat

larger

structures. For example, elements 3 through 7, or simply elements 4+5,

may be repeated.

raise

In the former expansion, the pericope may

in turn for consideration y,z,a,b,c,

etc.

In the latter,

the construction may adduce a series of secondary biblical dealing

with

y.

texts

More complex still is the assimilation of

the

above pattern and its variations to Mishnah's dispute form (i.e., rabbi

x

elements

says

... ; rabbi

3 through

y says

7 or

4-5 may

. . . ) ; multiple each

bear

versions

attributions

different rabbinic masters. Usually no substantive

to

disagreement

is present, a requisite of a ‫ י‬true ‫( ׳‬mishnaic) dispute. In all, one may

account

introduction

to

for virtually

the entirety

Sifra Nedavah

(Pereq

of

the

homiletical

1 -2, Parashah

I-II) with

these variations upon the basic pattern charted earlier. Two other, less complex formal structures also appear in the 1, primary scripture ; 2. interpretation (with or without secondary scripture). One may schematize the second as follows: 1. primary scripture; 2. means x; 3. whence do we learn y; 4. secondary scripture. A

variation

through

of the latter pattern repeats items

y.n.

3-4,

for

y.1

Again each version of 3-4 may bear an attribution,

giving the appearance of a dispute of a collection of sayings. All not only

three

structured patterns and their variations

throughout Sifra but in other

Tannaitic Midrashim. and

homiletic

Editors,

passages

moreover,

in these 78

same

Halakic

or

appear

(so-called)

have cast both halakic forms.

So

one

cannot

of

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture facilely the

account

substance

of

for their use or significance by appealing the Midrash.

And

certainly

substance of any one midrashic passage,

the

halakic or

tp

particular homiletical,

neither determines nor is determined by the forms in question. In 11 sum, the forms have a meaning and significance of their own. First word

and foremost,

of scripture,

replete

with

remains

one

items

3

the patterns imply that each and every

quite apart from its context,

revelatory

meaning.

This,

is in

among

other

purpose of the rhetorical inquiries

itself things,

commencing

of both the first and final structures

charted

at

above.

Namely,

this verse teaches x and not y, because some other verse

teaches

y;

therefore, this verse must have

its

own

idiomatic

oracular function, namely to teach x. Second, reason

or,

there

is a certain lack of

to put matters

processes

of

reason

as

differently, a

mode

of

confidence in the

in unaided

self-sufficient 1 2

scriptural

exegesis.

Especially problematic is the situation in which exegesis quite reasonably limits itself to the context of the primary scripture. Again items 3 and following in the first and final patterns are especially

indicative

in this respect. One may

(mistakenly)

reason y, if one reasoned without reference to (some secondary) scripture. particular reason

Self-contained verse,

proves

scriptural necessary

moves

off

problematic

verse

remains

reason, in when

even when

illegitimate the

context

the locus of

sparked

by a

directions.

Thus

of

thought,

the

primary

barring

the

freedom to jump associatively out of context to some

other scripture containing the primary word-unit in question. The meaning of the divine oracle is elucidated only when the tight structures of both discursive reason and the syntax of scripture are breached. particular neither

to the homiletical introduction to Sifra

nor

to only that document. As intimated, the same or similar patterns pervade the legal sections of Sifra as well as other compilations of the Halakic (Tannaitic) Midrashim. There too like significance and meaning accrues to the structured patterns. Without entering into a comprehensive

study of the Halakic 9 3

Midrashim

and

their

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture complement of forms, I offer as

further suggestive evidence two

passages, one from the legal section of Sifra, Masekta deNedavah, the

second

from

another

compilation

entirely,

Mekilta

deRabbi

Ishmael, Masekta dePisha. A. ‫״‬From the herd" (Lev. 1:1) B.

[intending]

to

exclude

—

[an

animal]

which

has

been worshipped. C.

And, lo, is it not reasonable [by reason

argument a. female

fortiori ] ? Just as money earned by a

prostitute,

whose

apparel

is

an

male or

permitted

offering], is [nevertheless itself] unfit the altar,

of [as

an

[to remain] upon

[then in the case of an animal] which has been

worshipped, whose accoutrements are unfit [as an offering], is it not reasonable that they declare

[ the animal ] unfit

[to remain] upon the altar? D.

Or

[might

one

not

reason

to]

the

opposite

[conclusion]? Just as [in the case of] money earned by male or female prostitutes, which

[it] is forbidden

[to leave]

upon the altar, their apparel is [nonetheless] permitted [as an offering], [then in the case of an animal] which has been worshipped,

which

[beforehand]

is

permitted,

is

it

not

reasonable that its accoutrements [as well] be permitted? E.

[ You

cannot

argue

so

as]

you

[ will ] have

abrogated "you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, or take it for yourselves." (Deut. 77:25) F.

[But] I [on the contrary] apply that

Deut. 7:25],

"you shall not covet

[verse at

the silver or the gold

that is on them, or take it for yourselves, " to that which is not alive, but in the case of that which is alive [as in our case],

since

[beforehand] it is permitted,

let

its

accoutrements be permitted [as well]. G.1. (Lev. 1:2)

[Therefore]

scripture

to

that

says,

‫״‬From

the

herd"

— 2.

exclude

which

has

been

worshipped.

(Sifra, Nedavah, Parshata 2:9) The passage,

typical of much of Sifra, evinces an elaboration of

the first formal structure charted earlier: 80

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture

PERICOPE SECTIONS

PATTERN 1 ) primary scripture 2) teaches x

B

3) one may reason x

C

4) or one might reason not x

D

5) secondary scripture

E

6) required to teaches y

P

7) primary scripture

G. 1

8) teaches x

G.2

Items 5-6 here seem at first glance secondary, unnecessary reference to some 3+4

since 3-4 renders

secondary scripture.

The force of

is that the primary scripture establishes clearly that about

which at

reason can remain equivocal only.

The secondary scripture

5 is a second attempt to demonstrate the superfluity

of

the

primary scriptural reference. But this too fails, as 6 indicates ; in the end,

one must fall back upon the first biblical citation,

for no other verse, more

complex

and certainly not reason, will suffice. This

pattern may be less tight and elegant

than

those

seen earlier, but the overall effect and meaning are similar. Our

final

example,

(Mekilta

deRabbi

resembles

Sifra

structured

pattern

throughout patterns therein

taken

from

Nedavah, of Bo

and

document

dePisha,

Parshata

2:9.

Bo

8),

entirely closely

Furthermore,

the

8 appears

at numerous junctures 11 Ishmael. That is to say, the

the Mekilta deRabbi

discussed are more

another

Ishmael, Masekta

the perception

generally

of matters

characteristic

of

communicated

some

phase

or

entire family of documents, the Halakic or Tannaitic Midrashim. Mekilta

Pisha,

Bo

8 takes as its point of

departure

the

injunction at Ex. 12:15 against eating leaven on the Passover. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; ( 'k bywm

hr'Hwn)

you

shall

put

away

on the first day

leaven

out

of

your

houses. (Exod. 12:15) The Mekiltan passage considers the phrase, "on the first day." A. ‫י״‬On the first day,‫ ׳‬etc.

—

B. " [ this means ] beginning with the eve of the holy day. 81

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

C. ‫״‬Do you say [the verse means] beginning with the eve of the holy day,

or might it not be [scripture's intent

that leaven be removed] on the holy day itself? D. "Scripture says,

‫ י‬You shall not offer the blood

of my sacrifice with leaven‫( ׳‬Exod. 34:25). E. "[That is to say,] do not slaughter the passover [offering on the eve of the festival], while leaven still exists," the words of R. Ishmael. F.

R. Jonathan

says,

‫״‬One

does

not

require

[ the

exegesis based on Exod. 34:25]. G. ‫״‬Lo,

it is already

stated

[at Ex.

12:16],

,

No

work shall be done on those days.‫׳‬ H. "And burning [the method of destroying leaven] is a type of work. I.1. ‫״‬Therefore, when

(mh) scripture says,

,

On the

first day,‫׳‬ 2. " [ its intent is, ] beginning with the eve of the holy day." J. R. Yose the Galilean says, " v 0n the first day you shall put away leaven from out of your houses.‫׳‬ K. "[This means] beginning with the eve of the holy day. L.

‫״‬Do you say thus [ Oxford and Munich mss. : from

the eve of the holy day], or rn 1 çj t it no t 06

[ s or 1pt