Kotzk Blog

by Rabbi Dr Gavin Michal

I have always been drawn to the teachings of the Rebbe of Kotzk. His approach was predicated upon uncompromising truth and intellectual independence. This allowed him to be fearless and never to succumb to societal pressures. He knew that Judaism was so much deeper and more profound than the way it was perceived by the masses and bent by religious populism. These essays, although not necessarily Kotzker in essence, are certainly Kotzk inspired.

Showing posts with label Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud. Show all posts

Sunday, 18 September 2022

400) Was it forbidden to write down the Oral Tradition?

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.

376) Babylonian influences behind the Mourner’s Kaddish

The first mention of mourners reciting Kaddish is found in the 13th century Or Zarua

Introduction

Most discussions on the origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish as we know it today, only begin from around the twelfth century in Germany. It was there that the Kaddish - which had existed from much earlier times although not necessarily relating to mourning - was finally institutionalised as mourning ritual.

This article, based on the research by Professor David Brodsky[1], traces the development of the now widespread custom of reciting Kaddish for beloved ones who have passed away, and explores where the idea originates that a child can ‘redeem’ a deceased parent.

289) HOW ‘STUDY’ AND THE ‘STUDY-HOUSE’ ARE DEPICTED DIFFERENTLY IN THE BAVLI AND YERUSHALMI:

Depiction of rows of students in the Academy at Sura.

INTRODUCTION:

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:

[Babylonian influences on the Babylonian Talmud.]

[Did the post-Talmudic Stammaim contribute to Talmudic Aggada?]

[When a Yeshiva is not a Yeshiva - A Scholarly Debate.]

[Why did the Talmudic Sages Conceal knowledge of Jewish Civil Law? ]

[Tosafot – Dialectics of the Nations (Dialektikaca Sehel Goyim)?]

[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, 2^nd edn, 1964 [Hebrew]), pp. 488-89.

[17] b. Ketuvot 62b.

[18] b. Menachot 29b.

Sunday, 2 August 2020

288) DID THE POST-TALMUDIC STAMMAIM CONTRIBUTE TO TALMUDIC AGGADA?

INTRODUCTION:

Years ago when I was a yeshiva student, I was always upset when our teachers told us to skip over the Aggada sections on a page of Talmud. Aggada refers to the stories and narratives that are often interspersed amongst the more legal Talmudic texts.

I could never understand why they discouraged us from reading Aggada and no one could ever really explain what the issue was.

This article, which I have based on the research of Professor Jeffrey L. Rubenstein[1], may just shed some light on the matter, although I’m not sure my teachers would have known about this.

Rubenstein suggests that the post-Talmudic Stammaim may have contributed to much of the Aggadic literature in the Talmud. They could do so because they were, in fact, the editors of the Talmud.

WHO WERE THE STAMMAIM?

The Talmudic Period was from around 200 to 450 CE. For the next century and a half, we had the Savoraic Period which was followed by the Gaonic Period from 589 to 1038.

Not much is known about the intermediate period of the Savoraim other than that they were editors of the Talmud.

Professor David Weiss Halivni specializes in that intermediate period of the Savoraim and refers to the rabbis of that period as Stammaim which more accurately describes their role as editors of the Talmud.[2] The Stammaim were mostly anonymous. He contends that the Stammaim actually wrote the Talmud (Gemara) in the final form as we know it today.

The Stammaim would have based their deliberations on the ‘original’ Talmud compiled by the last rabbis of the Talmudic Period, Rav Ashi (d.427) and Ravina ( d. 420), which would have been a much smaller compilation than the one we are accustomed to today. It would have more resembled the style of the earlier Mishna and Tosefta, and - significantly - also without elaborate discussion and dialectics.

STAMMAIM AND AGGADA:

Rubenstein, following this thread from Halivni, has researched the notion that the Stammaim may also have been responsible for contributing to much of the Aggadic literature of the Talmud.

He writes:

“That the Stammaim took a deep interest in aggada is beyond doubt...

The fact that they included so much aggada in the Bavli [Babylonian Talmud] - a great deal more proportionately than the redactors of the Yerushalmi [Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud]- indicates that their concerns went beyond halakha [Jewish law][3].”

Then Rubenstein asks the question around which this article pivots:

“Were they [i.e., the Stammaim][4] collectors, transmitters and commentators, or also creators[5]?

Did they substantively rework antecedent Amoraic aggadic sources and even formulate new aggadot?

Or did they transmit Amoraic traditions in substantially the same form as they received them, adding analysis and comments, but not modifying the core Amoraic tradition to any significant degree?

Rubenstein believes the Stammaim not only contributed to, but may have created some of the Aggadic content of the Babylonian Talmud!

“Indeed, since aggada has less authority than halakha, we should expect the Stammaim to have been more active in the production of aggada. They might well have felt more free to modify aggadic traditions, to rework and change Amoraic aggadic sources, given the lesser stakes involved.”

Thus, as anonymous editors, the Stammaim may have taken more latitude to include their creative contributions in the form of Aggada since they did not need to be as scrupulous in that regard as they were when it came to recording actual legal texts.

THE END OF HORA’AH (LEGAL INSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT):

In this context, it is relevant and interesting to note that the Talmud itself states:

“Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of hora’a [Talmudic development and instruction]”[6]

Rav Ashi and Ravina were the last of the Talmudic Sages who instructed during the Talmudic (Gemara/Amoraic)[7] period. Because hora’a or legal development had ended, the Stammaim would have felt relatively free to engage in non-legal Aggada.

AGGADA, ARAMAIC AND DIALECTICAL STYLE:

But it wasn’t just in the sphere of Aggada that they were creative. The Stammaic[8] editors seem to have done more than merely introduce, innovate and rework Aggada, but were also instrumental in two other aspects of their presentation; enhancing the dialectical style of analysis and debate as well as a focus on Aramaic over Hebrew.

DIALECTICAL AND ANALYTICAL STYLE:

Rubenstein writes that after the period of hora’a or instruction/development had ended with Rav Ashi and Ravina, the Stammaim:

“...continued to subject Amoraic halakhic traditions to dialectical analysis.”

Thus the Stammaim, as editors, not only added to the Aggada but also introduced a more pronounced style of analytical or dialectical debate which has become the hallmark of Talmud study. As mentioned, the original Talmudic texts and traditions which the Stammaim worked on would have resembled a terser form closer to the Mishnaic style.

This is fascinating because the well-known dialectical or argumentative style that we have come to equate Talmud study with, may have been more of a contribution by the later Stammaic or Savoraic editors than the actual Amoraic participants themselves!

ARAMAIC LANGUAGE:

Furthermore, on this view, even the dominance of the Aramaic language used throughout the Gemara, may similarly have been largely the work of Stammaic editors reworking Talmudic texts that resembled the earlier Hebrew of Mishnaic and Tosefta texts! While certainly, Aramaic would have been the vernacular of Babylonian Jewry, it seems that the medium of study was still Hebrew – until the period of the Stammaim.

Rubenstein writes that from the Stammaic period we begin to see shifts:

“...from the Hebrew of Amoraic [i.e., original Talmudic] dicta to the Aramaic of the Stammaitic commentary;

from the terse style of Amoraic dicta to the verbose, expansive style of the Stammaitic analysis;

and from apodictic [i.e., beyond dispute][9] Amoraic pronouncements to the dialogical give-and-take of the Stammaim.”

Accordingly, the Stammaic contribution to the Talmud was extensive.

AGGADA IS OFTEN ANONYMOUS:

Our focus, however, is on the strata of Aggadic literature within the Talmud.

A common feature of Aggada is that it is often presented anonymously. If the Stammaim had drawn from earlier sources one would imagine they would have quoted the authors.[10]

A probable reason for the anonymity of the Stammaim was that once the Talmudic period of hora’a or instruction/development had officially been concluded with Rav Ashi and Ravina, it would have been audacious for the next generations of Stammaim to use their names.

This notion of anonymity is borne out by their very title ‘Stammaim’. Comparing the terms Amoraim (Talmudic Sages) and Stammaim (Editors): - Amoraim means 'those who say' (i.e., primary Talmudic sources), whereas Stammaim means 'closed, vague or unattributed sources' (i.e., anonymous and secondary sources) projected back onto the Talmud.

TELLTALE SIGNS OF STAMMAIC EDITING:

Rubenstein[11] points out several telltale signs which may indicate Stammaic activity.

These include:

The language used - Aramaic instead of Hebrew.

Grammatical forms of later Gaonic Aramaic as opposed to those of earlier Babylonian Aramaic.

Clumsy syntax.

Excessive length.

Repetition.

A phrase used overwhelmingly bt earlier Amoraim present in a statement of later Amoraim.

A ‘wandering’ thought process

A clustering of variant readings.

Rubenstein also analyses the same events portrayed in other contemporaneous rabbinic texts such as the Talmud Yerushalmi and compares them with how they are presented in the Babylonian Talmud.

He writes that he compared:

“ ... source-critical evidence, namely parallel texts from Palestinian compilations, to confirm that traditions were changed in the course of time. The question then becomes, Who introduced the changes, Amoraim or Stammaim?, and these criteria point to the Stammaim.”

R. SHIMON BAR YOCHAI EMERGES FROM THE CAVE:

A simple example of telltale signs of Stammaic activity can be seen in the change of language in the following Aggadic story[12] of R. Shimon bar Yochai emerging from the cave after thirteen years:

When R. Shimon bar Yochai sees his father-in-law[13] Pinchas ben Yair, the latter expresses concern that he looks weathered from his time in the cave. Pinchas ben Yair says: “Woe is me that I have seen you like this.” And R. Shimon bar Yochai retorts: “Happy are you for seeing me like this, for had you not seen me like this you would not have found me so [learned].”

At that point, the narrative shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic and an explanatory comment is added:

“For originally when R. Shimon bar Yohai raised an objection (qushia), R. Pinhas b. Yair solved it with twelve solutions (paroqei). Subsequently when R. Pinhas b. Yair objected, R. Shimon bar Yohai solved it with twenty-four solutions.”

Although the initial narrative is in Aramaic, the exchange takes place in Hebrew and then dramatically shifts back to Aramaic and also changes from the first to the third person.

The parallel versions recorded in the Talmud Yerushalmi and other Palestinian midrashim do not contain the commentary about the twenty-four solutions. This makes it very likely that the Aramaic commentary is a Stammaic insertion.

This is an example of a Hebrew Amoraic dicta being enhanced by Aramaic Stammaic explanations and comments. However, according to the research, this is just a mild example of a commentary to, and amplification of, a text because in some instances there is evidence of total reworking of a text and also the production of new texts.

After a number of other more technical examples, Rubenstein concludes that:

“[t]he contributions [of the Stammaim][14] are quite diverse, ranging from brief editorial notes, glosses and additions to the end of an earlier narrative and interpolations from other Amoraic sources to wholesale reworkings of Amoraic narratives and the production of new aggadot.”

RABBI YAAKOV ELMAN – OVER HALF OF THE TALMUDIC TEXT IS STAMMAIC:

R. Yaakov Elman of Yeshiva University comes to the same conclusion:

“This [Stammaic] framework, post dating the statements of identified figures [in the Talmud[15], introduces questions, often provides solutions, and, in general, controls the interpretation of the earlier sources.”[16]

But he goes much further by quantifying just how much editing the Stammaim actually did.

Elman writes that the editorial work of the Stammaim:

“...constitutes just over half [17]of the total text of the Babylonian Talmud and...frames the discussion of the rest.”

OBSERVATION:

As mentioned in the article in the link provided above, I looked up the definition of ‘Redaction’:

“Redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and altered slightly[18] to make a single document.”

According to the research of Rubenstein and Elman, it seems that the Stammaim have even overstepped the dictionary definition of editors and redactors, as their stylistic alterations were, to say the least, more than ‘slight’.

ANALYSIS:

The arguments of Professors Rubenstein, Halivni and Elman are fascinating and compelling. They also seem to fit into the historical notion that the Babylonian Talmud was redacted in its final form much closer to the end of the period of the Gaonim (1038) than to the end of the period of the Amoraim (450).

[See Everyone Knows When the Talmud was Written Down.]

However, not everyone agrees with this.

Professor David Kraemer, for example, strongly supports the more mainstream view that the Babylonian Talmud was not radically reworked by its editors, the Stammaim. He argues that the Talmud intentionally leaves the conclusions of its argumentation unresolved – to teach that truth is multi-layered and the result of a conversation with many voices.

He shows that dialectics and argumentative interpretation was always used by the Talmudic rabbis (although he does agree that it became even more common and widespread towards the later generation of Amoraim). And because there was an evolution of the process of dialectical argumentation, the dialectic style could not have been an invention of the Stammaic editors (although he does agree that the final editors made some radical determinations).[19]

Contrast David Kraemer’s view with the view of David Weiss Halivni:

“The luxurious and flowing texture of the Talmud is the achievement of the Stammaim; prior to them there were only short dialogues and comments strung along the Mishna and Braithoth. The Stammaim created the sugya, a semi-independent, sustained, multi-tiered ‘give and take’. They redacted the Gemara from incomplete and truncate [i.e., short][20] traditions.”

For the inquisitive student of Talmud - who is interested in the simple matter of ascertaining when the work second in importance to the Torah was essentially written and by whom - there is still much to be clarified.