Tradition and the Formation of the Talmud by Vidas Moulie;

Tradition and the Formation of the Talmud by Vidas Moulie;

Author:Vidas, Moulie;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Published: 2014-04-16T04:00:00+00:00

* * *

1 One of the most influential earlier treatments is Louis Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud IV (Heb.; arranged and edited posthumously by D. Halivni; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1961), 19–31. More recent treatments include David Rosenthal, “The Transformation of Eretz Israel Traditions in Babylonia” (Heb.), Cathedra 92 (1999), 7–48 (30–36); Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 39–53; Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 151–201; idem, “Hellenism in Jewish Babylonia,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (ed. C. E. Fonrobert and M. S. Jaffee; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 336–63 (343–56). Also related is Sussmann’s argument, that in Palestine the Mishnah was studied on its own whereas in Babylonia it was studied as part of “Talmudic study” (even before “The Talmud,” as a text, was completed). See Yaacov Sussmann, “Manuscripts and Text Traditions of the Mishnah” (Heb.), Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Volume 3: Studies in the Talmud, Halacha and Midrash (Jerusalem: Perry Foundation; World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981), 215–50 (236–41).

2 Similar ideas appear in other ancient texts. See, e.g., the argument attributed to Isocrates in the Exercises of Theon: “Honor teachers ahead of parents. For the latter have been only the cause of the living but teachers are the cause of living well.” George A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 18.

3 See Ginzberg, Commentary IV, 24, and his useful explanation of the development of the tradition in the Tannaitic period. See also David Halivni, Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud: Tractate Baba Metzia (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003), 111 n. 2, who makes the same argument (without reference to Ginzberg) in order to solve the contradiction the stam points in R. Yohanan’s ruling; but Halivni himself (ibid., 113) concedes that this is unnecessary. Both are preceded by Joseph Hirsch Dünner, Ḥidushei ha-riṣad (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav, 1981–99), 150.

4 See, e.g., Wilhelm Bacher, Die Exegetische Terminologie der Jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905), 1.122: “Bezeichnung der mündlichen Lehre und ihres Studiums.” Similarly the word miqra, translated here as “Scripture,” is better interpreted as “the study of the written Torah” (see, e.g., Bacher, Terminologie, 1.117), but since the gap between this sense and the translation “Scripture” is narrower than in the case of mishnah, I use “Scripture” for the sake of fluency.

5 See t. B. M. 2:30 and y. Hor. 3:7 48b. Later in the same sugya in the Yerushalmi, there is a fuller parallel of our baraita, which appears also in y. M. Q. 3:7 83b and y. B. M. 2:11 8d, which lacks the interpretive gloss attributed here to R. Meir altogether, instead attributing to him the anonymous Toseftan opinion that the rabbi in question is the rabbi who taught the student first. On the Yerushalmi there, see Lieberman’s comments in Eliezer S. Rosenthal and Saul Lieberman, Yerushalmi Neziqin (Heb.


Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.