 |
| Depiction of rows of students in the Academy at Sura. |
Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman (1943-2018) of Yeshiva
University was one of the pioneer researchers on Babylonian
influences on the Babylonian Talmud. He showed that many concepts such as
astrology, angelology and demonology found in the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud
Bavli) - which are often assumed to be uniquely Jewish - are not found in the
parallel Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi). Based on this and many
other factors, he concluded that there were many concepts which were popular in
Zoroastrian Babylonia which were adapted and adopted by the Bavli - and
this accounts for their absence in the Yerushalmi and other Palestinian
sources.
“[T]he Palestinian authors of the Talmud
[Yerushalmi][1]excluded,
almost entirely, the popular fancies about angels and demons, while in
Babylonia angelology and demonology, under popular pressure influenced by
Zoroastrianism, gained scholastic recognition.”[2]
In this article, based extensively on the research of
Professor Jeffrey L. Rubenstein[3],
we will investigate another difference between the Bavli and Yerushalmi
– their descriptions of the Beit Midrash or House of Study as
well as their cultures of learning.
AGGADA AND BABYLONIAN BIAS:
Rubenstein analyses aspects of Aggada (the narrative
sections of the Talmud) which are particularly found in the Bavli and
not in the Yerushalmi or other parallel Palestinian texts, as these differences
would be good indicators of general Babylonian bias. Narratives are always a
window into the ethos of a society.
Rubenstein writes:
“[W]here we have both a
Palestinian and Babylonian version [of a narrative][4],
we are on relatively firm ground in identifying the motifs and themes that
appear exclusively in the Bavli version as Babylonian.”
Although there were definite cross-cultural exchanges
between the sages of Babylonia and those of the Holy Land, particularly during
the first four Amoraic (Talmudic) generations, nevertheless, each
culture maintained its unique characteristics and worldview.
We are going to explore how the Bavli accentuated
certain concepts and ideas far more than the Yerushalmi, and we will
analyse why these texts are depicted so differently.
THE HOUSE OF STUDY:
The Bavli emphasises the institution of the Academy,
Study-House or Beit Midrash. What follows are some examples of
parallel Babylonian and Palestinian texts in this regard:
1. RABBI TARFON:
Both the Bavli and Yerushalmi describe the
admirable way in which R. Tarfon honoured his mother.
According to the Yerushalmi:
“Once, the sages came to visit him (R. Tarfon, at
his home)...and she (R. Tarfon’s mother) told them of his (exemplary) deed(s).” [5]
However, according to the Bavli:
“He (R. Tarfon) went and
praised himself (for honouring his mother) in the study house.”[6]
In the Bavli version, it is R. Tarfon and not
his mother who describes the honourable behaviour - and the affair takes place
not when the sages come to visit R. Tarfon’s home but, instead, in the Beit
Midrash.
The Bavli chooses to portray the setting for the
event not at R. Tarfon’s home as per the Yerushalmi, but rather in the Study-House.
2. R. CHANINA BEN DOSA AND THE SCORPION:
Both the Bavli and the (Palestinian) Tosefta
describe R. Chanina ben Dosa being bit by a scorpion (or snake) while praying.
According to the Tosefta:
“R. Chanina was standing and
praying [the Shemona Esrei] when an Arod[7]
[scorpion/snake] bit him. He did not stop praying. [Later] his students went
and found [the Arod] dead on top of [the opening to] his hole. They said, ‘Woe to
the man who was bitten by an Arod, woe to an Arod who has bitten Ben Dosa.’”[8]
However, according to the Bavli:
“He placed his heel over the
mouth of the hole and the Arod came out and bit him, and died. Rabbi Chanina
ben Dosa placed the Arod over his shoulder and brought it to the study-house.” [9]
Again, the Bavli version frames the event as being
connected to the Study-House while the Yerushalmi allows it to
have occurred in the open.
3. CHONI HAME’AGEL (THE CIRCLE-DRAWER):
Both the Bavli and Yerushalmi tell the story
of Choni haMe’agel who was walking along the road and saw a man planting a
carob tree. He asked the man why he was planting a tree which could only be benefitted
from after seventy-years. The man responded that he was leaving it for his
descendants.
The story continues with Choni falling asleep for seventy years
and when he awoke he indeed saw the son of the man who had originally planted
the tree, gathering its fruits.
According to the Yerushalmi:
“When he (Choni ha Me’agel) entered the Temple courtyard (Azara)
it would fill with light.”[10]
However, according to the Bavli, Choni then went to
the Study-House
and it shone with light (or was enlightened) although the sages did not believe
it was actually him after all these years. He died soon thereafter.[11]
Once more, the Bavli introduces the notion of the Study-House
into the narrative while the Yerushalmi allows the events to unfold wherever
they occurred.
PROJECTION AND REFRAMING:
These sources portray a Babylonian predilection towards the Study-House
which is depicted as an organised and large Academy. According to the research
of Jeffrey Rubenstein, David Weiss Halivni, Shamma Friedman and many other
scholars, the post-Talmudic editors of the Babylonian Talmud, known as Savoraim
(or Stammaim) may have reframed and projected their larger and more
public Academies with which they were familiar with, onto the previous Amoraic
(Talmudic) era - where (according to the research) the Amoraim
generally taught in closed scholarly circles; and they taught in Hebrew (not
Aramaic); and their literature and records (as collated by Rav Ashi and Ravina,
the first redactors of the Babylonian Talmud) were in a terse style without
dialectical analysis (shakla vetarya) and similar to the terse style of
the earlier Mishna, Beraita and Tosefta. (See previous
post.)
On this view, it was essentially around the period of the
later Stammaim that the larger Academies and Study-Houses were
put in place. And these Stammaim - while editing the Talmud - projected
the primary role of the Beit Midrash with which they were accustomed,
onto the previous era.
This accounts for why the Bavli, under Stammaic editorship, describes
the Amoraic Beit Midrash or Study-House as a hierarchical
institution with many students, sometimes sitting in rows and rank, with the
more scholarly towards the front.
However, historically we know that this was a
development from the post-Amoraic era of Stammaim (and was even more well-established later by the Gaonim (589-1038).
EXTRA BENCHES IN THE BEIT HAMIDRASH:
The story of the deposition of Rabban Gamliel from his
leadership position of Nasi or Prince, for being disrespectful of
R. Yehoshua, tells of four-hundred (or seven-hundred) extra benches being added
to the Study-House after he had left. They also removed the guard from
the door who had previously kept unworthy students out.[12]
Rubenstein points out that:
“Such descriptions resemble
the rabbinical academy as portrayed in Geonic sources.”
STAMMAIC CULTURAL PROJECTION:
Based on these observations, we have the assertion that the
later editors or Stammaim reframed the smaller more elitist, scholarly and closed
study groups of the Amoraim of the Talmudic period (200-450) to resemble
the larger, more open and public academies with which the Stammaim were familiar.
Such descriptions in the Bavli of huge academies are
predominantly absent from the Yerushalmi.
Rubenstein writes that although there is one(!) source in
the Yerushalmi that describes a large academy (its version of the story
of the deposition of Rabban Gamliel[13]),
besides that source:
“...it is only in the Bavli
where we find descriptions of rabbinic institutions that resemble the highly
developed academies of the Geonic era...
The Stammaim seem to have
functioned in rabbinic academies similar to those described in Geonic sources.”
CHARACTERISTIC DIALECTICAL ARGUMENTAYION OF THE BAVLI:
In many places in the Bavli, we find that its
characteristic style of argumentation and dialectics are lauded as part of good
scholarship. A good sheilah (question) deserves a good teshuva
(answer) and this is officially recognized as a sign of scholastic ability
worthy of a Talmudic sage.
OBJECTIONS AND SOLUTIONS:
When Rav Kahana arrives in Israel from Babylonia, he demonstrates
his academic prowess to the students of Reish Lakish:
“He told them this objection
and that objection, this solution and that solution. They went and told Reish
Lakish. Reish Lakish went and said to R. Yochanan: ‘A lion has come up from
Babylonia. Let the master look deeply into the lesson for tomorrow.”[14]
The Bavli records that Rav Kahana was pushed
backwards in the rows when he fails to object or engage in dialectics, and brought
forward when he does. Dialectics was the very life force of the Babylonian sages.
WITHOUT DIALECTICS THERE IS NOTHING:
In fact, the absence of dialectical argumentation can even
bring death. The Babylonian Talmud records that R. Yochanan died because he did
not have a study partner who could object to and argue with him as Reish Lakish
did.
R. Yochanan bemoans his new study partner, R. Eleazar ben
Pedat, for not engaging sufficiently in dialects:
“Are you (R. Eleazar) like the
Son of Lakish? When I made a statement, the Son of Lakish would object with
twenty-four objections and I would solve them with twenty-four solutions...He
could not be consoled (or: he went out of his mind). The sages prayed for mercy
for him and he died.”[15]
DIALECTICS IN THE YERUSHALMI:
In contrast to the Bavli, Rubenstein writes that:
“ In the Yerushalmi I have
found no comparable stories or traditions that emphasize ‘objections and
solutions’...”
Thus the obsession with study dialectics is a Babylonian anomaly
and not part of the study culture of Eretz Yisrael. It forms the backbone of
the Bavli but is notably absent from the Yerushalmi.
BABYLONIAN ‘STUDY-HOUSES’ AND
PALESTINIAN ‘MEETING HOUSES’:
Although both Bavli and Yerushalmi
do reference the Study-House (Bei Midrasha) and the Meeting-
House (Beit Vaad) - as mentioned, there
certainly was a cultural exchange between Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael - it seems that the Bavli emphasised the Beit
Midrash over the Beit Vaad. The Stammaimic editors of the Bavli
institutionalised the Study-House into a formal Academy, while the Yerushalmi
left it as either Synagogue (Beit Knesset) or general Meeting-House.[16]
AKHNAI’S OVEN:
In the famous story of Akhnai’s
Oven where the river is said to have flowed uphill, the Bavli
records the walls of the Study-House inclined as if to fall – while the Yerushalmi
refers to the columns of the Meeting-House trembling.
BABYLONIAN WIVES ARE MORE OF A
DISTRACTION THAN PALESTINIAN WIVES:
The Bavli often depicts the
wife as a source of distraction from Torah study. There are many cases of
husbands leaving their wives for extended periods of time in order to further
their Torah study.[17]
However, as Rubenstein points out:
“[T]he
tension is less pronounced in the Palestinian parallels...
It appears
that the Bavli stories reflect a more academic and scholastic rabbinic culture
than that reflected in Palestinian sources.
Bavli
stories portray rabbis functioning in a highly structured and competitive
institutional environment.”
MOSHE RABBEINU VISITS THE BEIT HAMIDRASH:
This extremely powerful emphasis on study, besides sometimes
straining the personal relationships within the marital unit, is also reflected
in a narrative concerning Moshe Rabbeinu. Even he is said, as it were, to have battled to
compete within the dialectical Babylonian study culture!
There is a well-known story in the Bavli of Moshe
Rabbeinu journeying forward in time to sit in the academy of Rabbi Akiva (of
the even earlier Mishnaic period). Moshe sat in the eight row together
with the inferior students and he could not understand the discussions taking
place in the rows closer to the front.[18]
ANALYSIS:
Based on the research referenced earlier, the notion of
overflowing academies may have been another projection and reframing of Amoriac
(Talmudic) literature by the post-Talmudic editors or Stammaim (Savoraim).
[See links provided below.]
Not only did the Stammaim reflect the existence of
their larger academies onto the previous Amoraim, but they also introduced
the argumentative style of the sugya which was similarly a projection of
their own style of Babylonian dialectics.
Additionally, the research shows that the Stammaim
introduced Aramaic as the mother tongue of the Talmud, whereas the original
statements as collated by Rav Ashi and Ravina at the close of the Talmudic
period would have been short teachings, in Hebrew, and along the lines of the
earlier Mishna, Beraitot and Tossefta literature.
These post-Talmudic Stammaic innovations largely
distinguish the Bavli from the Yerushalmi which was not subjected
to such editorial activity.
FURTHER READING:
[1]
Parenthesis mine.
[2]
Louis Ginzberg, Jewish Law and Lore (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1955), p. 22.
[3]
Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, On the Culture of the Bavli.
[4]
Parenthesis mine.
[5] y.
Kiddushin 1.7, 61b.
[6] B.
Kiddushin 31 b.
[7] Or
‘Arvad’.
[8]
Tosefta, Berachot 3.20.
[9]
Berachot 33a. Translation: “With regard to the praise for one who prays and
need not fear even a snake, the Sages taught: There was an incident in one
place where an arvad was harming the people. They came and told Rabbi Ḥanina
ben Dosa and asked for his help. He told them: Show me the hole of the arvad.
They showed him its hole. He placed his heel over the mouth of the hole and the
arvad came out and bit him, and died. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa placed the arvad
over his shoulder and brought it to the study hall. He said to those assembled
there: See, my sons, it is not the arvad that kills a person, rather
transgression kills a person. The arvad has no power over one who is free of
transgression.”
[10]
y. Ta’anit 3.10, 66d.
[11]
b. Ta’anit 23a.
[12]
b. Berachot 27b-28a.
[13]
Which Rubenstein believes may anyway be a corruption of the Bavli source.
[14]
b. Bava Kama 117a.
[15]
b. Bava Metzia 84a.
[16]
Jacob Nachum Epstein, Introduction to the Text of the Mishna (Jeruslem:
Magnes Press, 2nd edn, 1964 [Hebrew]), pp. 488-89.
[17]
b. Ketuvot 62b.
[18]
b. Menachot 29b.
No comments:
Post a Comment