Sidra is the only academic journal dedicated to the research of oral tradition literature , including all aspects of rabbinic literature throughout the ages. The journal is published bi-annually. To date, hundreds of articles by the best researchers in the country and the world, in all areas of Talmudic literature, have been published here.
On Cultic Holiness: Between the Bible and Rabbinic Literature
The Torah describes two distinct modes through which sanctity may be constituted: law and ritual. On the one hand, holiness is a quality acquired through obedience to the commandments; on the other hand, it is a tangible quality established through ritual means: God sanctifies the Tabernacle through His presence, and the priests sanctify the Tabernacle and its vessels through the anointing oil. This form of holiness is a property transmissible by contact, much like impurity, as expressed in the legal formula: “Whoever touches X shall become holy/impure.” This dual aspect is mirrored in holiness’s opposite—impurity, which arises, on the one hand, from sin (“moral impurity”) and, on the other, from bodily conditions (“ritual impurity”). Yet, whereas the laws governing the transmission of impurity from object to object by contact were elaborated extensively in Second Temple and rabbinic literature, the laws of holiness transmitted by contact gradually faded over the generations. This transformation is reflected in the radical reduction of the biblical rule, “Whatever touches the altar shall be holy” (Exod 29:37), into the Tannaitic halakhah that “the altar sanctifies [only] that which is fit for it” (m. Zevahim 9:1). Scholars who have noted the tension between legal and cultic holiness have interpreted this reduction as evidence of a broader religious development: a movement from the irrational to the rational, from the physical to the abstract, from the amoral to the moral, or from the demonic and magical to the monotheistic. Yet such descriptions miss the fundamental transformation that the notion of contagion underwent over time: from a negative conception, centered on fear of dangerous holiness whose contact entailed harmful consequences and therefore required removal, to a positive conception, in which the “contagious” power of holiness became a ritual instrument—an integral stage in the sacrificial process itself. The idea of contagious holiness was not erased, diminished, or neutralized, but rather translated and transformed into a deliberate and constitutive legal act within Tannaitic literature. Contagious holiness is thus not an “archaeological survival” frozen in the world of the sages, but a cornerstone of their halakhic edifice. The first part of the article (sections I–III) surveys the evidence for the doctrine of holiness in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature; section IV examines its displacement in the ancient translations of the Torah; and sections V–VI trace the transformation of the idea of contagious holiness in rabbinic literature.
The Prayers of Moses: A Study of Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 90
This article addresses the literary nature of Midrash Tehillim by carefully reading the midrashic pericope dedicated to Psalm 90. Our study demonstrates that while the pericope is basically constructed as a collection or anthology of derashot on the psalm’s verses, simultaneously both the opening unit and the conclusion reveal clear evidence of literary redaction possessing a hermeneutical-conceptual agenda, principally concerning the nature and character of “A Prayer of Moses, the man of God.” The first proem, along with its adjacent aggadic expansions, indicates the pericope’s primary interpretive goal, identifying “A Prayer of Moses, the man of God” with Moses’ prayers following the Israelites’ sins in the desert. These expansions emphasize the argumentative and blunt nature of the prayer that crescendos in the derashah which depicts “Moses, the man of God” as a man who gives commands to his wife. At this point, the second proem is introduced and along with the two adjacent parables it diverts the conceptual discussion to the self-devotional aspect in Moses’ prayer and to his role as the intercessor between God and His people. The unit ends with another derashah that identifies “A Prayer of Moses” with Moses’ request that the Shekhinah shine upon the Israelites—a request that is ultimately fulfilled by God. The pericope’s closing derashah deals with the Israelites’ unmediated request of God that He shine His Shekhinah upon them—“And let the graciousness of the Lord our God be upon us,” a request that He fulfills. In this way, the closing transcribes the pericope’s main theme—Moses’ prayer that the Shekhinah shine upon the nation of Israel—and creates closure.
The Validity of Divorce According to the House of Shammai in Light of Early Christian Sources
In Chapter 7 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians Paul dedicates a long and detailed discussion to marriage and divorce in the congregation in Corinth which this article analyzes in light of Tannaitic literature. In the framework of his discussion Paul quotes from a tradition of Jesus on divorce. Traditions attributed to Jesus on divorce and their relationship to tannaitic literature have been discussed at length in the research literature, however, almost always the point of departure for these discussions are the traditions as they are quoted in the Gospels. The common thread of the traditions attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is the terminology of adultery. For example, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). According to these traditions it is clear that the connection between husband and wife cannot be broken. Only in the Gospel of Matthew is divorce possible, and only if the wife commits adultery. The Jesus tradition as it is brought by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (7:10-11) is different. Paul does not mention adultery at all, and like the House of Shammai, he describes divorce as an undesirable action, however, if it is done, the divorce is valid. According to our analysis, the tradition of Jesus’ position on divorce as quoted by Paul is not only the earliest redacted version that has survived in early Christian texts, but also represents the most original form of Jesus’ position on divorce. In the Gospels, the tradition developed further, and the opposition to divorce intensified. Therefore, remarriage after divorce was described as adultery causing the rejection of divorce as an option (except in the versions in the Gospel of Matthew). However, reading Paul in comparison to the House of Shammai reveals that the tradition of Jesus brought by Paul conforms to the attitudes concerning divorce in the Second Temple period; these attitudes were aptly described by the Prophet Malachi: “for I detest divorce said the Lord, the God of Israel”.
The Development of the Talmudic Refutation Formulae "Ve-ha Amar Rav Ploni" in the Babylonian Talmud
The dialectical system of objections among amoraic sages in the Babylonian Talmud appears to rest on two seemingly contradictory assumptions. On the one hand, the Talmudic sugya presumes that amoraim possess comparable levels of authority and therefore may legitimately disagree with one another. This presumption is reflected in the rhetorical objection frequently voiced by the Talmud: “Are you raising the words of one sage against another?” (gavra agavra ka-ramit?!)—a phrase that functions as a methodological protest against such comparisons. On the other hand, the Talmud regularly violates this very principle: in about 350 instances, it raises objections from the statement of one amora against that of another, often introduced by the formula “But did R. X not say…?” (ve-ha amar Rav Ploni!) This article offers a comprehensive analysis of this methodological tension and proposes a new interpretive framework to account for it. The inquiry sheds light on the internal logic of Talmudic discourse across both the amoraic and stammaitic strata. In addition, the analysis suggests new avenues for understanding the shaping of halakhic authority and the evolution of legal decision-making in Talmudic Babylonia.
Did the Ba'al Midrash Haggadol Use Qohelet Rabbah or an Earlier Midrash? Philological Comparisons between Midrash Haggadol to Qohelet Rabbah and Vayyiqra Rabbah - Part Two
There is a scholarly consensus that Midrash Haggadol used the composition known to us as "Qohelet Rabbah". In a recent article I questioned this consensus on the basis of a specific instance of textual analysis. But of course one instance cannot justify conclusions regarding entire compositions; can we find additional other evidence relevant to this question? This type of analysis is not at all simple, mainly because Midrash Haggadol does not hesitate to change and "correct" his source. Therefore, if you find in one pair of parallels differences between the text of Qohelet Rabbah and the text of Midrash Haggadol, we cannot conclude that Midrash Haggadol used a different source and not Qohelet Rabbah. Perhaps he used Qohelet Rabbah and changed it. It is also possible that Midrash Haggadol in general did use Qohelet Rabbah, but this specific passage was taken from a different composition. Similarly, a specific instance of a close parallel between Qohelet Rabbah and Midrash Haggadol does not prove that the Midrash Haggadol used Qohelet Rabah. After all, quite obviously, Qohelet Rabbah did not change his source in every line: in this case Qohelet Rabbah and an earlier midrash on Qohelet presented the same text and Midrash Haggadol used the latter. The same hesitations that arise regarding one pair of parallels are also present when the comparative study includes several pairs of parallels – especially if the choice of the cases in question is done purposefully. On the other hand, it seems that if you examine all the parallels between Qohelet Rabbah and Midrash Haggadol and in the great majority of them you see that there are no real editorial changes, it is appropriate to conclude that Midrash Haggadol is based on Qohelet Rabbah. And if the great majority of them contain editorial changes, it is appropriate to conclude that Midrash Haggadol is not based on Qohelet Rabbah. I did not examine in this article all the parallels between Qohelet Rabbah and Midrash Haggadol. I contented myself with thirteen parallel sections; I started from the beginning and stopped when I felt that the amount of proof that had been generated was indicative. It is worth emphasizing the methodological importance of studying a continuous unit that is large enough so that the laws of logic and probability transfer the conclusions based upon this unit to the entire composition. My conclusion at the end of the article is unequivocal: the midrash we know by the name Qohelet Rabbah was not used by Midrash Haggadol. In order to preclude hesitations concerning this conclusion because of the putative practices of Midrash Haggadol when generating his composition, I also compared passages from Vayyiqra Rabbah to their parallel passages in Midrash Haggadol. Here, too, I looked at thirteen parallel sections. The purpose of these studies in Vayyiqra Rabbah is to see if the affinity of Midrash Haggadol to the parallel text in Vayyiqra Rabbah is similar to the affinity of Midrash Haggadol to the parallel text in Qohelet Rabbah. The present publication, the second part of the article, contains the comparisons between Vayyiqra Rabba and Midrash Haggadol.
Influence of Oral Culture on Development of Form of Jewish Legal Documents
This article attempts to provide an explanation as to how the Shtar (Jewish legal document) acquired its typical features: first-person wording, date indication at the head of the document with the addition of the day of the week and the year in the Shmita (sabbatical) cycle. The central assertion is that these characteristics result from a desire to adhere to the practices followed in the course of legal processes conducted orally in courts of law. That is why the wording of the Shtar in the first person and placement of the date at the top reflect the accepted format of oral human communication, and the time elements indicated on the Shtar are corresponding to those used when obtaining oral evidence from witnesses .The reason for this adherence is that in all matters concerning the development of the Oral Jewish Law, the Jews of the period in question avoided written material outside The Holy Scriptures, because of fear of written material of Christianity and the various sects that might slip into the The Holy Scriptures . This created an oral culture in Jewish circles giving rise to a suspicious attitude towards legal written documents. The oral culture in Judaism may also have been created by its lack of an ancient literary culture such as in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
suspicious attitude to written documents
The Historical and Conceptual Development of Levirate Betrothal
This article will discuss the act of ma’amar, levirate betrothal. The nature of ma’amar is the subject of Tannaitic debate in a baraita in the Palestinian Talmud. The Tannaitic Sages present three different opinions as the nature of ma’amar based on derivations of the Biblical verses. This approach differs from that of the Babylonian Talmud, which views ma’amar as a Rabbinic enactment. This study examines the three different approaches of the Tannaitic sages regarding the mechanism by which ma’amar operates and explains that these approaches reflect models of partial betrothal. This understanding emerges from an analysis of the explanations of the early amoraim to a wide range of Tannaitic sources regarding levirate marriage, as well as regarding other non-standard marriages such as the marriage of a deaf-mute or of a minor. The concluding section attempts to identify when these models were replaced by the model of Rabbinic enactment and suggests an explanation as to why this change took place.
Between Mishnah and Baraita: Baraita Collections and the Development of Yerushalmi Sugyot
This article undertakes a reassessment of the use of baraitot in the Talmud Yerushalmi, focusing on the significance of baraita collections as the structural underpinning for talmudic discussions, with a specific examination of Tractate Demai. Prevailing scholarship posits that the Yerushalmi predominantly relies on baraita collections, particularly the Tosefta, as the foundational layer for interpreting the Mishnah. However, a meticulous analysis of Yerushalmi sugyot, considering both their layered textual composition and the diverse employment of baraitot, reveals a more nuanced perspective. The study delves into four prominent sugyot in Demai where a compilation of baraitot is extensively employed, specifically in instances where baraita sequences are cited and systematically discussed. These instances suggest that such usage is characteristic of comparatively later strata in the Talmud. Moreover, in some cases the earlier amoraic layer, engaged in Mishnah interpretation, appears encircled by subsequent strata which is in fact a commentary to parallel baraita sequences. According to this image, it is early amoraic Mishnah exegesis that forms the backbone of Yerushalmi sugyot, to which baraita materials were added with some later interpretation, rather than the other way around. Thus, this article calls for a reconsideration of the development of Yerushalmi sugyot and of the role of baraita materials within it. It suggests that the formal recognition of this corpus as an authoritative text deserving independent, systematic interpretation alongside the Mishnah evolved gradually during the Amoraic period.
Ashtori HaParchi’s Map in Kaftor Vaferach and its History
Ashtori Haparchi’s Kaftor Vaferach contains a significant amount of geographical material, but the author is not recognized as a cartographer and the map that included in his book is practically unmentioned in research literature. This article examines two maps that are associated with Kaftor Vaferach: the so-called Milan map and the Bassola map. The Milan map is found at the end of the Milan manuscript of Kaftor Vaferach and was drawn by the same scribe who copied the book. The Bassola map was transferred, under unknown circumstances, to the 16th century travel book of the Italian Jew, Moshe Bassola. For a long time, researchers assumed that this map was based on and referred to Bassola’s own travels. These two maps have not been addressed together and their relationship has not been clarified. The article depicts that although there isn't enough evidence that Ashtori drew his own map, at some stage, the above-mentioned maps were made. This article demonstrates that, surprisingly, the Bassola map is more precise and closer to Ashtori's original, even though it is not physically part of a copy of Kaftor Vaferach. From an analysis of the handwriting and the captions on the maps it seems that each is based on a different manuscript. The Milan map is based on the Milan manuscript to which it is appended and the Bassola map has an affinity to the Oxford manuscript of Kaftor Vaferach. However, the latter map was not copied directly from the Oxford manuscript but from a similar manuscript that the library of Yitchak Sholall, the last Nagid. The article tracks the whereabouts of Bassola map from the Nagid’s library to Moshe Bassola's book and shows that it was one of several documents that Bassola included in his book, demonstrating the close relationship between Bassola and Sholall. The same copy of Kaftor Vaferach in Yitchak Sholall’s library was the vorlage of the editio princeps of Kaftor Vaferach in the mid-16th century. However, as in other instances of Hebrew maps and drawings, the map was omitted in the printed book. Fortunately, it survived in Bassola's work.
A Note on the Historical Development of the Hermeneutic Rule of Klal Prat and Klal with Reference to bBQ 63b-64a
One of the more difficult sugyas in the Talmud is found in bBQ 63b-64a, a sugya which has been called “one of the strangest sugyas in shas”. The difficulty derives from a drasha of the Tanna de-bei Hizqiya that applies the hermeneutic rule of כעין הפרט to Exodus 22:3. But, as the gemara itself asks, this text doesn’t seem to provide the basis (כלל פרט וכלל) for deriving כעין הפרט. This article makes sense of the drasha by understanding it as reflecting an earlier stage of the Thirteen Rules of R. Yishmael, by which klal u-prat, prat u-klal, and klal prat u-klal are all interpreted as כעין הפרט.
Fixed Measure Policy in the Teachings of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai
This article is about fixed measures in the teachings of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.
The Proofreader’s Pen: an Early Yerushalmi Manuscript with Interpretive Glosses
This article deals with one manuscript of Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Shabbat, discovered in the Cairo Genizah (שבתא in Ginzei Yerushalmi). About 30 marginal notes occurred in the margins of this volume, written in Hebrew and Greek, that have not been understood to date. In fact, these notes are interpretive glosses that translate rare words written in the Talmudic text. Scholars did not understand the meaning of these glosses because of their unusual form of writing: the Hebrew notes were written from left to right, while the Greek ones – in most cases – were written from right to left. These glosses are explained in detail in the article alongside some other features of this volume.
Between "issura" and "mamona" – To the Roots of Differentiation
The differentiation between "issura" (prohibition) and "mamona" (money) as divided areas of halakhah is rarely discussed in research. This article traces the roots of this distinction in the Babylonian Talmud. The distinction appears on behalf of certain Amora (as opposed to stam Talmud), only in five issues. On these issues in the BT, and in their parallels in the PT, it appears that the early Talmud apparently did not distinguish between "issura" and "mamona". The distinction is recognized and developed, beginning with the third generation of the Babylonian Amoraim, and especially by Rava and his disciples. It turns out that the common denominator of all the five issues is halakhic doubts. At the end of the article we attempt to explain why the conditions of uncertainty are the appropriate halakhic space for the establishment of the dividing wall between the "(of) prohibition" and the "financial" sections of halakhah.
The Evolution of the Text of the Fourth Benediction of the Grace after Meals as reflected in the Cairo Genizah Fragments
This paper follows the evolving textual variants of the fourth benediction of the Grace after Meals, on the backdrop of the limited information provided in Talmudic literature, and in light of the abundant materials available in the Cairo Genizah fragments. Scholars previously hypothesized that the early versions of the benediction included only the words “Blessed are You, LORD [our God, King of the Universe], who is good and beneficent,” but this hypothesis lacked substantiating evidence. As we demonstrate here, an analysis of the textual variants in the Cairo Genizah provides newfound support for this hypothesis. The integration of this short benediction into the Grace after Meals presumably led to a sense of disharmony vis-à-vis the other three extensive benedictions; this in turn spurred a series of developments and expansions, reflected in the many textual variants of the benediction in the Genizah fragments. However, as the benediction expanded, a further discord emerged between the fourth benediction and the others with regard to the introductory formula “Blessed are You…,” and with regard to the principle mandating the omission of this formula at the beginning of a benediction which immediately succeeds another benediction. The early Genizah versions of the benediction reveal hesitations regarding this introductory formula; some of these hesitations can in fact be identified in Talmudic pericopes which can now be properly understood in light of these Genizah fragments. Two primary approaches emerge from these sources: one entails the omission of the phrase “King of the Universe” from the introductory formula, while the other omits the introductory formula altogether and conjoins the benediction to the preceding text via alternate means. Ultimately, the fourth benediction was expanded until it became equal in length to the other benedictions of the Grace after Meals. At the same time, the attempts to omit the formulae “Blessed are You” and “King of the Universe” were rejected, resulting in a “long” benediction in practice, but a “short” one from a liturgical halakhic standpoint.
Did the Ba'al Midrash Haggadol Use Qohelet Rabbah or an Earlier Midrash? Philological Comparisons between Midrash Haggadol to Qohelet Rabbah and Vayyiqra Rabbah - Part One
There is a scholarly consensus that Midrash Haggadol used the composition known to us as "Qohelet Rabbah". In a recent article I questioned this consensus on the basis of a specific instance of textual analysis. But of course one instance cannot justify conclusions regarding entire compositions; can we find additional other evidence relevant to this question? This type of analysis is not at all simple, mainly because Midrash Haggadol does not hesitate to change and "correct" his source. Therefore, if you find in one pair of parallels differences between the text of Qohelet Rabbah and the text of Midrash Haggadol, we cannot conclude that Midrash Haggadol used a different source and not Qohelet Rabbah. Perhaps he used Qohelet Rabbah and changed it. It is also possible that Midrash Haggadol in general did use Qohelet Rabbah, but this specific passage was taken from a different composition. Similarly, a specific instance of a close parallel between Qohelet Rabbah and Midrash Haggadol does not prove that the Midrash Haggadol used Qohelet Rabah. After all, quite obviously, Qohelet Rabbah did not change his source in every line: in this case Qohelet Rabbah and an earlier midrash on Qohelet presented the same text and Midrash Haggadol used the latter. The same hesitations that arise regarding one pair of parallels are also present when the comparative study includes several pairs of parallels – especially if the choice of the cases in question is done purposefully. On the other hand, it seems that if you examine all the parallels between Qohelet Rabbah and Midrash Haggadol and in the great majority of them you see that there are no real editorial changes, it is appropriate to conclude that Midrash Haggadol is based on Qohelet Rabbah. And if the great majority of them contain editorial changes, it is appropriate to conclude that Midrash Haggadol is not based on Qohelet Rabbah. I did not examine in this article all the parallels between Qohelet Rabbah and Midrash Haggadol. I contented myself with thirteen parallel sections; I started from the beginning and stopped when I felt that the amount of proof that had been generated was indicative. It is worth emphasizing the methodological importance of studying a continuous unit that is large enough so that the laws of logic and probability transfer the conclusions based upon this unit to the entire composition. My conclusion at the end of the article is unequivocal: the midrash we know by the name Qohelet Rabbah was not used by Midrash Haggadol. In order to preclude hesitations concerning this conclusion because of the putative practices of Midrash Haggadol when generating his composition, I also compared passages from Vayyiqra Rabbah to their parallel passages in Midrash Haggadol. Here, too, I looked at thirteen parallel sections. The purpose of these studies in Vayyiqra Rabbah is to see if the affinity of Midrash Haggadol to the parallel text in Vayyiqra Rabbah is similar to the affinity of Midrash Haggadol to the parallel text in Qohelet Rabbah. These comparisons are contained in the second part of this article, to be published in the next issue of Sidra.
From Responsa to Monograph: On the Modification of Rav Saadia Gaon's Responsum
This article focuses on the transformation of the Geonic Responsa during the Middle Ages. Using a responsum by Rav Saadia Gaon (10th century, Baghdad) as a case study, we will follow the shifts made in the responsum from the first stage as a response to a query, to its adoption in a monographic style. The paper also uses comparative research with the responsa of Islamic culture.
'A psalm; a song at the dedication of the House of David': Sources and Adoption Phases for the Last Addition to the Daily Morning Prayer
The adoption process of Psalms Chapter 30 into the Morning Prayer, prior to ‘Baruch She’amar’, by the pre-expulsion Sephardic Rite, was followed by its insertion into Mediterranean, Hassidic, and Ashkenazi Rites. This process was spread over some 700 years, between the 13th century and the beginning of the 20th century. It started in Spain and ended in Germany. It is reasonable to assume that by the time of the expulsion, in 1492, the reciting of the chapter just began its inclusion in the Catalonian Rite. It is further reasonable to assume that the motivation of its original inclusion in Spain was related to the numerous joy expressions included in it, turning it into a proper prologue for the ‘Psukei Dezimra’ prayer section. Following the expulsion from Spain, the prayer rites in the Ottoman Empire adopted its inclusion, since most of the expelled Jews resettled there, and distributed their prayer books, printed in 16th century Venice, there. The foundation of the Hassidic movement by the end of the 18th century was accompanied by the adoption of the Lurianic Rite, which was based on the Sephardic 1524 Venice prayer book. This has brought about the adoption of the reciting of Chapter 30, as well, by the Hassidic Rite, immediately upon the publication of the first Hassidic prayer books. These first prayer books accompanied the inclusion of the chapter with Kabbalistic explanations. Just a few years later began the inclusion of the chapter in Eastern Ashkenazi prayer books, as well. This inclusion began in prayer books published in small Eastern European towns, attesting to the exposure of people, who moved between local synagogues, to the inclusion of the chapter. Later, the inclusion of the chapter in prayer books occurred also in those published in large cities, with a process moving from east to west (Warsaw, Vilnius, Lvov, Budapest, Vienna, and Berlin). Within Germany, the adoption of the chapter in the local ‘Sephat Emet’ prayer books emerged gradually until 1916.
From In-Laws to Intimate Enemies: The Debate Regarding tzarat habat in Palestinian Sources and the Evolution of Attitudes towards Beit Shammai in Palestinian Sources
This article traces rabbinic discourse surrounding the debate between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai regarding the tzarat habat, “the daughter’s co-wife,” in classical rabbinic sources of the Land of Israel. The first section analyzes the discussion in t.Yevamot 1:8-12 and m.Yevamot 1:4. The Tosefta consists of two units which present contrasting traditions regarding the implications of this dispute. The first unit portrays this disagreement as having posed a threat to the social integrity of the rabbinic community which persisted for generations after the Houses themselves ceased to be functional. The second unit in contrast describes how the Houses lived together harmoniously in a single, pluralistic community, overcoming threats to unity posed by their disagreements. The Mishnah presents a reworked version of this second Toseftan source, which downplays the radical pluralistic implications of the original text. The second section presents a literary and historical analysis of the Yerushalmi’s version of the story of Dosa ben Harkinas and his ruling on tzarat habat. This story is perhaps the most extreme critique Bet Shammai in all rabbinic literature. Through its portrayal of Jonathan ben Harkinas, the last Shammaite, it launches a broad attack on the Shammaites and their methodology. They are presented as a deviant sect, who casuistry leads them to false conclusions and to moral and social failure.
The Difficulty: “What Does this Teach Us” in the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic vs. Stammaitic Usage
The difficulty “what does this teach us (מאי קא משמע לן)” appears 176 times in the Babylonian Talmud, but is ascribed to amoraim in only nine of these cases. In its original amoraic usage, (1) it is always raised against another amoraic opinion; (2) The problem is always that the amoraic statement being questioned is unnecessary, for it was already known. The term used to express the difficulty is, “We have already learned this (תנינא)”— implying that this halakhah was already taught and need not be repeated. The difficulty is a literary one and does not express any opposition to the content. The amora raising the difficulty accepts the content of the amora’s statement with no reservations but questions the very need to teach it, for the same halakhah was taught in the past. I should emphasize that in amoraic usage this difficulty is not synonymous with the difficulty “that is obvious (פשיטא).” The former expresses repetitiveness, the latter obviousness. The anonymous editors of the Babylonian Talmud, the “stam hatalmud/stam/stammaim” do not only add scores of such difficulties to the Talmudic record, but also deviate in many cases from the amoraic usage I described above. The stam directs this difficulty against tannaitic sources, mishnah and baraita, and even against interpretations and resolutions that were offered by the stammaim themselves. Moreover, the stammaim add other technical terms to the amoraic term “תנינא” that accompanied the difficulty: “We have already taught this once (תנינא חדא זימנא)”, “This is a mishnah (מתניתין היא),” “This was taught explicitly (הא בהדיא קתני לה)” and other such expressions. The claim made by amoraim that the amoraic source was already taught in a tannaitic source is transformed by the stammaim into a claim that one amoraic source was already taught in another amoraic source: “Behold Rav X [himself] said this another time.” The stam even goes so far as to use the term without any accompanying terms signaling repetitiveness, thereby using this difficulty as synonymous with the difficulty, “This is obvious (פשיטא).” At times the term is used simply as a demand for clarification and not even as a difficulty. Above all, the stam shifts the difficulty from being a literary-linguistic one, to one concerning the halakhic content of the statement. In the wake of the difficulty, the amora’s statement is at times even rejected. This study bears some important methodological ramifications. The significant differences between how amoraim and stammaim use and understand this term again substantiates the chronological gap between the amoraic and stammaitic strata in the Babylonian Talmud. It further bolsters the historical reliability of the terms used and statements issued by amoraim. Moreover, this study affirms the notion that the Babylonian Talmud underwent gradual editing (“generation after generation”) and raises difficulties on the theory that the entire Babylonian Talmud was edited only at the end of its formation, as I explain at the end of the article. Finally, this study brings to the fore the phenomenon of the lack of consistent use and phrasing of technical terms in the stammaitic and saboraic strata of the Bavli.
Secondary Editing of a Sugya in the Bavli Influenced by a Sugya in the Yerushalmi?
This article examines a sugya that appears in three places in the Babylonian Talmud: Bavli Sanhedrin (20a-20b), Bavli Moed Qatan (27a) and Bavli Nedarim (56a-56b). After careful analysis and comparison, I demonstrate that the sugya in Bavli Sanhedrin and Moed Qatan is one and the same; however, in Bavli Nedarim there are a number of variants that cannot be explained by scribal errors. Comparing the sugya to the parallel in the Yerushalmi I come to the conclusion that the original Babylonian sugya is preserved in Bavli Sanhedrin and Moed Qatan, and the editors of the sugya in Nedarim have been influenced by the parallel in the Yerushalmi. It is this influence that caused changes to be made in the sugya in Bavli Nedarim and explain its present form.
"I Was Gazing Between This Water and That Water": The Story of Ben Zoma's Encounter with R. Joshua in the Babylonian Talmud
This article analyzes the story of Ben Zoma's gazing upon the upper and lower waters, as is related in the BT (Hagiga 15a). It focuses on the relationship between the narrative and the two halakhic questions posed to Ben Zoma, questions that foreshadow and immediately precede the encounter between Ben Zoma and R. Yehoshua: one that deals with animal castration, and the other with a pregnant virgin. The insertion of the questions into the aggadic section describing Ben Zoma's entry into the "pardes" and his vision is puzzling, and this article argues that they are a covert interpretation of Ben Zoma's mysterious gazing upon the waters. The thematic relationship between the two questions – that consider the issue of sexual control and its boundaries – links up with the image of the contiguous upper and lower waters. This image is understood as part of a mythic tradition that presents this pair as possessing chaotic and destructive sexuality. In its final section, the article discusses the story of David's digging of drainpipes as it appears in the BT (Sukkah 53, a-b). that also interprets the mythic picture of the gushing of the lower waters, as expressing the threat of chaotic sexuality.
'I will Grant You Rains in their Seasons' – Past, Present or Future?
From ancient times, the covenants in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were understood as having a dual function: one, a principled promise of reward for fulfilling the words of the covenant, and a warning about the calamity of its transgression. The second is a "plan" for the history and eschatology of the Jewish people: sin, punishment, and redemption. The subject of this paper is the commentaries of the sages on the blessings in the Sifra and Sifrei Deuteronomy. In general, the commentary corresponds to the basic view of the Sages as a promise for the future. However, a more careful study reveals a variety of voices that are not necessarily compatible with this view and have been pushed aside, and dispute with outside criticism. In addition, the paper discusses some fundamental issues in the reduction of the Halachic Midrashim and the concepts and beliefs of the Sages.
Is the Essence of the Commandment of Shofar in the Sound or the Physical Horn?
The commandment of shofar blowing has evolved an incredible amount from the source in scripture to the rabbinic halakha. This article deals with an immensely important development within the commandment: the importance of the physical shofar structure within the context of the broader commandment. A comparison between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds in their respective passages regarding the legal status of shofars sanctified for temple use or shofars used for idolatrous practices teaches that there is an accepted stance amongst both Babylonian and Palestinian Amoras (Rava and Rabbi Elazar respectively) that the essence of the commandment lies in hearing the sound of the shofar and has nothing to do with its physical form. However, the stamaitic layer (the later, anonymous editors of the Talmud) of the Babylonian passage explains this viewpoint quite differently, so much so that it only emphasizes the physical form to be the essential element of the Shofar, utterly ignoring the previous opinion that the essential piece is the sound. An examination of the sources which discuss a shofar that had a hole in it and he closed it up indicates a significant exchange of traditions concerning the question of the essence of the commandment of shofar. The outlook of the Mishna is that the essential element is the shofar’s sound. However, a Braita (external Tanaitic source) found in the Babylonian text presents that both standpoints found in the Mishnah (Tanna Kama and R. Natan) require the shofar to be physically whole in order to fulfill the commandment. In the parallel Braita in the Palestinian text, the stance taken by the Tana Kama matches the view held in the Mishna – that the commandment’s essence is the sound – unlike the Babylonian interpretation of it. In addition, the Palestinian edition also interprets the sentiment of R. Natan that the commandment is in the sound.
The Shift in the Study of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Pilpul
Despite a handful of significant articles examining pilpul and its definitions, terminology, parameters, and applications, the topic has been substantially neglected. In this study I critically review some of the previous approaches towards pilpul, to better define its terms, concepts, and principles. In addition, I will describe the shift away from pilpul in the Eastern lands, that occurred earlier than it occurred in Ashkenazic lands, already at the end of the 17th century. The transition can be established through various talmudic and halakhic writings which emerged from the school of R. Jacob Hagiz.
Between the Biblical and the Apocalyptic
The Scapegoat ritual in Mishnah Yoma chap. 6 is based on Lev 16 but is much longer and contains many details not found in the biblical narrative. Scholars dealt extensively with the various phases of the Scapegoat motif in post biblical literature, and the relations between biblical and apocalyptic Azazel (or Asael, Azael). But the Mishnaic narrative was usually not part of these discussions. It served scholars merely as a vehicle to reconstruct lost traditions and practices (mainly in comparison to similar traditions in contemporaneous Christian texts, such as Barnabas and Justin Martyr). Thus, the narrative in Mishnah Yoma chap. 6 was not analyzed on its own terms and was not studied in the context of tractate Yoma and of Mishnaic Temple narratives at large. Therefore, scholars did not ask which parts of the Mishnaic narrative were taken from older literary traditions, which came from Temple realia and which were formed in the Tannaitic study house. This article attempts to fill this lacuna. First, it reviews the various non-biblical sources of the Mishnaic Scapegoat ritual. Then it analyzes the details of the Mishnaic ritual and distinguishes between their different roots: Ancient Near Eastern traditions on the one hand and apocalyptic literature on the other hand. In the context of the latter, it shows that the sages were conscious of the apocalyptic roots of these traditions and thus placed them side by side with the biblical ritual without melting them together. This is the reason why the Mishnaic ritual has two different conclusions: the biblical one, which ends in the sending of the goat to the desert, and the apocalyptic one, which ends with throwing the goat off the cliff. Ultimately, the article suggests that this is a case study to understanding the ways the Mishnah internalizes and domesticates non-biblical traditions.