Introduction
This article, based extensively on the work by Professor
Yair Furstenberg,[1]
explores the very notion of the well-known ban against writing down the Oral
Tradition. It is generally accepted that rabbinic literature essentially remained
in an oral form since Sinai; and that only from around the period of the
redaction of the Mishna in 210 CE was it finally permitted to be written
down for the first time.
However, Furstenberg writes in his Abstract that:
“multiple Talmudic anecdotes point to a complex
reality that does not align with what seems as an explicit prohibition.”
To resolve this complexity, Furstenberg suggests that we need to understand that two distinct “book cultures” existed between the rabbis of Palestine and Babylonia at that time.
Two sources in the Bavli
There are only two references in the Babylonian Talmud
(known as the Bavli)[2] that
record a ban against writing down the Oral Tradition. In the main source (Temura
14b), the Talmud Bavli writes that Rav Dimi wanted to send, in writing,
a new Halacha he had heard, to the sages of Babylonia, but the Bavli
claims that the Palestinian sages raised three objections:
והא אמר רבי אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר
אבא א"ר יוחנן כותבי
הלכות כשורף התורה והלמד מהן אינו נוטל שכר
דרש רּ יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה
דר"ל כתוב אחד אומר (שמות לד, כז) כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתוב אחד אומר
(שמות לד, כז) כי על פי
הדברים האלה לומר לך דברים שעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב ושבכתב אי אתה
רשאי לאומרן על פה
ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כתוב לך את הדברים האלה אלה אתה
כותב אבל אין אתה כותב הלכות
a) “Those who write down halakhot are like those who
burn the Torah, and one who learns from them receives no reward.”
b) The Torah (Exodus 23:27) says:
כְּתׇב־לְךָ֖ אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה
כִּ֞י עַל־פִּ֣י ׀
הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֗לֶּה כָּרַ֧תִּי אִתְּךָ֛ בְּרִ֖ית וְאֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
“‘By word of these things…’
to teach you that that which is oral you may not say in writing…”
c) “‘Write for yourself these matters’
[ibid. Exodus 23:27]— these you may write down [i.e., the words of the Torah] but
you may not write down halakhot.”
The Palestinian
rabbis who are said to have uttered these three statements are thus duly claimed by the Bavli
to prohibit the writing of any aspect of the Oral Tradition.
The problem is that
we also have multiple other sources that indicate, to the contrary that many
parts of the ‘oral’ Torah were indeed written down!
The different
writing cultures of the Palestinian and Babylonian rabbis
Fuerstenberg boldly
writes:
“I will argue that the ban on writing Oral Torah is
a late construction of the redactor of the Babylonian Talmud and reflects only
its own study culture… The Bavli systematically revised earlier Palestinian
traditions…” (Furstenberg 2022:2).
Accordingly, the later Talmudic editors or redactors
(known as Stamaim, from the post- Talmudic period of Savoraim)
“systematically revised” earlier rabbinic sources from Palestine, where writing
down ‘oral’ tradition had been commonplace. The Babylonian redactors did this, in order to
comply with the Babylonian approach and culture to keep rabbinic traditions in
their oral form.
“By tracing the traditions from their earliest
Palestinian contexts to their revised form in the developed Babylonian sugyot [Talmudic
sections][3], we
may identify the changing practical and ideological settings” (Furstenberg
2022:2).
The actual view of the Palestinian rabbis
The Palestinian rabbis (in the Jerusalem Talmud or Yerushalmi)
strongly maintain that more material than just the Ten Commandments was given
at Sinai. As to this extra literature, in whatever form it was given:
“they are not concerned to regulate how this
additional material should be transmitted” (Furstenberg 2022:3).
Thus, the Palestinian rabbis had no objection whatsoever to
writing down the Oral Tradition.
The only writing the Palestinian rabbis objected to was the
“inappropriate writing of scriptural texts,” lest they change the authoritative
version of the Torah text itself, but they never objected to writing
down rabbinic texts and teachings. The Palestinian rabbis were only
worried about too many ‘casual’ Torah texts perhaps conflicting with
authoritative texts, and the fact that these ‘casual’ texts may be subjected to
disrespectful treatment. They had no issues with writing down the Oral or
rabbinic Traditions. However, this Palestinian conception of the various
categories of text was soon to change, because:
“By the time these proscriptive traditions were
incorporated into the Bavli, they had been reinterpreted according to the
cultural code of their new milieu as concerning a different (almost opposite)
issue entirely. In the Bavli it is particularly the text of the Oral Torah that
may not be written down, in order to maintain the original distinction between
the two forms of Torah, Oral and Written…
Following the trail taken by these Rabbinic
traditions from the Land of Israel to Babylonia will allow us to see
transformation of one of the most basic aspects of rabbinic culture of study.”
(Furstenberg 2022:3).
The paper trail from Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) to
Bavli (Babylonian Talmud)
Of our three earlier Bavli statements (from b. Temura
14b) concerning the alleged opposition by Palestinian rabbis to Rav Dimi
sending Halachot in writing to the rabbis of Babylonia, the latter two
quotes are from a parallel Bavli source (b. Gittin 60b). But
these sources can trace their literary roots even further back to their
original (two) sources in the Yerushalmi.
Analysing how this ‘cross-cultural’ transfer from Yerushalmi
to Bavli changed fundamental nuances in the understanding of the status
of writing down ‘oral’ tradition, may shed light on the different ways each Talmudic
centre dealt with this idea.
“The analysis of the Yerushalmi sugyot allows us to
reconstruct the complex array of original Palestinian motifs that were later
incorporated and adapted in Bavli Gittin, and to assess their original meaning…
[T]he Palestinian tradition does not include any
prohibition against writing Oral Torah.” (Furstenberg 2022:7).
The Yerushalmi[4]
sources adopt a far-reaching approach in that they suggest that not just the
Ten Commandments were conveyed at Sinai, but even sections of the Mishnah,
Talmud, and Aggada!
While this may be somewhat more radical than the way Sinai
is usually understood (and perhaps the topic for another discussion), nevertheless,
what strikes one is that the Yerushalmi contains no reference to a
prohibition against writing down the Oral Tradition – something the Bavli
claimed it did!
This indicates the possibility that the Bavli, or its
redactors, reworked these Yerushalmi sources to include the alleged
Palestinian prohibitions against writing down the Oral Tradition – when in fact
no such traditions seem to have existed in the Yerushalmi:
“While Yerushalmi Pea/Hagiga expands on the scope of
the teachings received in Sinai beyond the written Torah, it lacks the two
prohibitions[5]
against writing oral Torah. The Yerushalmi is concerned with the nature of
revelation and not with the forms of transmission” (Furstenberg 2022:11).
The Yerushalmi and its Palestinian rabbis had no
objection to writing down the Oral Tradition. The later Bavli redactors,
or Stamaim, for some reason, read the Yerushalmi sources very
differently from the way they would have been understood by Palestinian readers
(and even by readers today). Yes, the Yerushalmi expands the way
it views the nature of revelation at Sinai (by incorporating ‘extra’ material),
but no, it does not prohibit the writing down of the Oral Tradition.
Furstenberg goes into much more complex detail which is
beyond the scope of this article but he ultimately makes the point that:
“No wonder, then, that Rabbinic sources show various
Sages writing down halakhot, seemingly unperturbed by and not falling afoul of
any prohibition. After all, this prohibition was introduced only in the later
Babylonian rendering of the Palestinian tradition” (Furstenberg 2022:16-17).
The third source
The third source referenced in Temurah (numbered “a)”
in this article) pronounces that:
“Those who write down halakhot are like those who
burn the Torah, and one who learns from them receives no reward” (Temura 14b).
The source for this statement in the Bavli is again
taken from the Yerushalmi (Shabbat 16.1) but, as Furstenberg
shows, it similarly does not prohibit writing down Halachot. Instead, it
refers to writing down sections of Torah, including writing on pieces of
parchment things like blessings with G-d’s name, Aggadah with quotes
from the Torah, and Torah Targumim (translations) in a way that may end
up being disrespectful when the parchment gets damaged or worn. But - once
again - the Yerushalmi source does not reference writing down the
Oral Tradition and certainly not does it prohibit it.
“It comes as no surprise, then, that the question of
writing down halakhot – that do not regularly include citations or paraphrases
of scripture – is never raised in the Palestinian sources…The Sages in the Land
of Israel had no reservations about this. The Sages worried about the fate of
sacred Scripture, but any concern they might have had about pages of halakhot
going to waste did not pass the threshold for legislation…The way in which
Bavli Temura recasts the Palestinian traditions turns the Yerushalmi’s outlook
on writing on its head.” (Furstenberg 2022:22).
According to the reworking of the Babylonian redactors, the
concern is no longer that of the original Yerushalmi that sacred
scriptural texts may become disrespected if committed to writing, but now it
becomes a concern for the writing of the oral rabbinic tradition.
The concept of binary transmission of two Torahs
Furstenberg then makes a significant and fascinating
observation:
“Through this thoroughgoing reinterpretation of its
sources, the Bavli subsumes the entirety of the Oral Torah under a single
universal prohibition, based on the image of binary transmission of the two
Torahs” (2022:22).
The argument generally presented is that by mandating that
only the Torah is permitted to be written down and not the Oral Tradition, one
essentially distinguishes between two Torahs. However,
“As we have seen…Palestinian sources concerning the
prohibition of writing do not betray such a concern” (Furstenberg 2022:23).
And according to the Babylonian perspective:
“In addition to the prohibition of writing Oral
Torah, the Bavli developed the notion that the Written Torah must be maintained
in its original form. While the Palestinian tradition permitted writing
Scriptural pericopes separately, the Bavli espouses the position that if one
writes down Scripture it must match its complete, original form. The two Torahs
must remain faithful—not only in content but also in form—to their revelation”
(Furstenberg 2022:23).
In keeping with this Babylonian study culture, even later
on, in post-Talmudic Babylonia, the Babylonian Geonim still clung
to their commitment to the oral nature of the Talmud:
“by valuing oral versions of the Talmud transmitted
by the official reciters of the academies over the written ones” (Furstenberg
2022:26).
Contesting the binary nature of the Torah
It was the Bavli and not the Yerushalmi, that
promoted the binary concept of two forms of the Torah. Furstenberg writes in
his Abstract:
“While Palestinian sources forbid inappropriate
writing of scriptural texts, in fear of the physical obliteration of Scriptural
material, the Bavli reinterpreted these prohibitions as securing the original
division between the two forms of the Torah.”
However, not everyone agreed with the conceptualisation of
there being “two Torahs”:
“The idea that Moses received two Torahs at Sinai—a
Written Torah and an Oral one—is present (and contested) already in the
earliest strata of Rabbinic literature” (Furstenberg 2022:27).
The Sifra,[6] comments on the verse “‘These are the
statutes, laws, and teachings (torot)’ (Lev. 26:46). This implies that there
were two Torahs (“Torot” is plural) given at Sinai:
“…one in writing and the other orally. R. Akiva
said: But were two Torahs given to Israel? Were not many Torahs given to
Israel?... Teaching that the Torah was given with its halakhot, details, and
interpretations via Moses at Sinai.
This Sifra shows that R. Akiva challenged the
perception of the binary nature of the Torah emphasizing instead that its
entirety is beyond simple division into two categories. This seems more in
keeping with the approach of the Yerushalmi where, as we noted earlier,
even what it terms Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggada were somehow conceived to
be included within the rubric of the Sinai Torah.
Conclusion
Furstenberg’s insightful contribution to scholarship is
worthy of consideration. It seems that this notion of the prohibition against
writing down the Oral Tradition, which is generally taken as a universal
position, is only apparent in the Bavli. His reading of the original
sources in the Yerushalmi, however, belies such a notion. This is
something that appears to have gone unnoticed until now.
His argument is well-based not only on Talmudic sources, but on historiography as well,
because:
“As pointed out by [Yakov] Elman, each [Talmud][7] center
seems to have resembled its surrounding culture: the sages in Babylonia
encountered a high degree of orality within their Sasanian intellectual
atmosphere, whereas in the Land of Israel, in the Graeco-Roman context, there
was a well-established tradition of writing and publication” (Furstenberg
2022:28).
Further reading
Kotzk
Blog: 197) BABYLONIAN INFLUENCES ON THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD:
Kotzk
Blog: 198) WERE THE EDITORS OF THE BAVLI MORE POWERFUL THAN ITS WRITERS?
[1]
Furstenberg, Y., 2022, The Invention of the Ban against Writing Oral Torah in
the Babylonian Talmud - forthcoming in AJS Review.
[2]
Gittin 60b and Temura 14b.
[3]
Parenthesis is mine.
[4]
Yerushalmi, Pe’a 2.6 (17a); Yerushalmi, Hagigah 1.8
(76d). The Yerushalmi often copies the same discussion in multiple
tractates.
[5]
The two prohibitions that Gittin 60b took from the Yerushalmi,
and which were later incorporated into (the three components of) Temura
14b (footnote mine).
[6]
beHar, 8.12.
[7]
Parentheses are mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment