Eisen Dissertation Formating

Stammaitic Activity versus Stammaitic Chronology; Anonymity’s Impact on the Legal Narrative of the Babylonian Talmud Joshua Even Eisen Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2013 Joshua E. Eisen All Rights Reserved Abstract Stammaitic Activity Versus Stammaitic Chronology; Anonymity’s Impact on the Legal Narrative of the Babylonian Talmud Joshua E. Eisen This dissertation explores the nature of the contribution of the Stammaim to the narrative of the Babylonian Talmud (BT). The primary suggestion is to view the Stammaim as the authors, narrators, and editors who contributed the anonymous Stammaitic activity to the text. The goal is not to dismiss the possibility of a Stammaitic period, or a period of heightened Stammaitic activity. Rather, it is to broaden the scope of possible chronological provenances for Stammaitic activity. Once broadened, it becomes necessary to view the notion of ‘Stammaitic’ as one defining a literary style regardless of whether it might also refer to a chronological period. The idea of the style comes first. After a Stammaitic style emerges, and once there is a period of time where the deployment of such a style becomes heightened, then – and only then – is it possible to define a period based upon the style. Nevertheless, the style is hardly confined to any period either before or after the Stammaitic period as it is currently understood. Once I have addressed the issue of a Stammaitic style that cuts across the periods, I posit that anonymity fuels the engines of three other features that are worth considering when reading a BT text: canonicity, multiplicity, and pluralism. In considering anonymity, one must analyze the impact of anonymous elements on the narrative as a whole, and specifically what the anonymity does to or for the text. When assessing what makes this or that text canonical, degrees of canonicity emerge for the different elements of a BT text. Understanding the impact of anonymity (and attribution) assists in assessing those degrees – whether based upon manuscripts or the internal workings of the text – and how degrees of canonicity are more easily manipulated by an anonymous voice. One interesting possibility also emerges that allows for anonymous actors to infuse canonicity into a tradition by manipulating attribution. Regarding multiplicity, I argue that the authors and editors of the BT pursued a general agenda of including a greater rather than fewer number of attributed sages. While any one sage of great importance can infuse authority (and canonicity) into a tradition and the words associated with it, the inclusion of a broad range of sages from different places increases the potential ‘market’ for the text as a whole. In discussing pluralism, I deal with the manner in which the laws and customs are laid out in the BT as well as the substance of the laws and customs themselves. They are presented in such a way that the legal system that is the BT can easily operate within dominant, primary legal systems where the BT is clearly subordinate. I also suggest the possibility that the BT was crafted to be subordinate. There are many ways to read a text. In the case of the BT, I argue that an analysis of the text is well served by consideration of anonymity and the other three features. I approach the issue of the four features, as well as the matter of Stammaitic style versus Stammaitic chronology, theoretically in the first five chapters, after which I dedicate chapters to raw analyses of different types of texts and groups of texts as they help elucidate the earlier theoretical discussion. Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….. ii Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 1 Chapter I: Stammaim versus Stammaitic Activity…………………………………………….. 18 Chapter II: Anonymity……………………………………………………….…………………. 99 Chapter III Canonicity…………………………………………………………………………. 139 Chapter IV Pluralism……………………………………………….………………………….. 178 Chapter V Multiplicity………………………………………………………………………… 220 Chapter VI Nedarim: 5b – 6a………………………………………………………………….. 243 Chapter VII Gittin: 82a – 82b…………………………………………………………………... 297 Chapter VIII: V’la pligi Structures…………………………………………………...…………… 336 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….. 359 Bibliography….....………………………………………………………………….. 367 i Acknowledgements Although they appear at the beginning of books and papers and dissertations, acknowledgements are often written after the text has been crafted and is ready for publication or submission. This acknowledgement is the same in that regard. It is different in that my deepest acknowledgement is for Rabbi David Weiss-Halivni, the sage and man of cloth, first and foremost, and thereafter for Professor Halivni, the academic. I acknowledge the academy and the Professor’s contributions thereto; I acknowledge the primacy of primary texts, such as meqorot u’mesorot, and the secondary nature of secondary analyses of such texts, as this dissertation has shaped up. I came to study with Professor Halivni because of a quirk at Columbia Business School that allowed me to take ‘Critical Formation of the Talmud’ for credit (since I was not allowed to take a German language class, my first choice). Quickly I understood that Rabbi Halivni was creating a work based upon a system, designed to last for millennia, that is the heritage of the rabbinic sages. He was not, and never did appear to me to be, concerned with the possibility of creating a work to be discussed by academics for decades or even a century or two. While his deconstruction is inevitable, it is best accomplished with the understanding that rabbinic voices are not formally deconstructed within the tradition and rarely strive for a rarefied place in the modern academy (regardless of when modern is). While part of this dissertation is a friendly and amateur step in an articulated academic review of Professor Halivni and his Stammaim, it is also an apology for Rabbi Weiss-Halivni and his place in the Yeshiva. As a direct result of ii my relationship with the Rabbi/Professor, I acknowledge that the modern academy has a long way to go before it can be proven – in the business sense – as a lasting pillar of the intellectual heart-thought and mind-feel of humanity in its broadest sense in the way the rabbinic institution has been for millennia. When placing the flesh of my academic hunts onto my tables of business, family, thought, personal tradition, or any other metaphorical table, I acknowledge that it is also possible to have one table, and for all the aspects of an enlightened man to be spread in one place at one time. For Professor Halivni, there is no separation between the Yeshiva- ish and the Academic; for him, meqorot u’mesorot is as much part of the library as it is of the bet hamidrash, regardless of how he or anyone might value one relative to the other. As a former student of archaeology, I have come to learn that inevitable is the contradiction between the way (physical) evidence is understood in the Academy and the biblical stories and texts that underpin faith. This contradiction – for me still in my understanding of how the Academy operates – is chronologically and substantively relevant through the time of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, if not much later. Professor Halivni’s commitment to Ravina and Rav Ashi as major figures in or at least during the formation of the Babylonian Talmud is based more on tradition and a text by a relatively late Rabbinic sage (Sherira) than on a humanities-style scientific probe of the evidence. This commitment is the basis of Halivni’s expression of the idea that “ravina v’Rav ashi sof hora’a” (Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of ‘instruction’). It thus emboldens him in maintaining the importance of the chronology of the Stammaim in order to uphold the distinction between what took place before and after Ravina and Rav iii Ashi. It is this that allows Halivni to straddle the Yeshiva and the Academy, and for his life’s work to ultimately find its place on the eternal shelves of the Yeshiva, if not in the digital storehouses of the modern library. It is also proper that I acknowledge those who helped me reach this point. Dr. Morris Charner was my first principal. From him I learned the most basic of hierarchies; he was at the top. He was a man who loved the idea of education. I acknowledge Yonah Fuld, my principal from the fifth through eighth grades, for his fierce commitment to justice. From him I learned that the university is just another option, right there with the military, theological training, an apprenticeship, and so on. All human pursuits are valid so long as they are fueled by a zeal secured by integrity. Yonah Fuld tried to teach me then what ultimately took me years to figure out: no one person has all the answers, and sometimes there are no answers and only actions. There are times when we eschew discussion for action. The first person to make me think about literature was Jeff Edelstein, my twelfth grade English teacher. Although by any standard, I totally slacked and learned almost nothing in twelfth grade, compared to the eleventh grade my accomplishments were enormous. I especially acknowledge Jeff for allowing books to court me outside the classroom and for getting me to read poetry and short stories in addition to comic books. I acknowledge Professor Joel Lidov, who not only taught me Ancient Greek, but who also got a seventeen year-old kid to study intensely and to understand that the study of language was but a prerequisite for serious future study – after the raw texts can be iv mastered. I acknowledge Professor Schoenheim, who taught me Latin, as well as Homeric Greek and classical mythology. Most striking about my appreciation for Professor Schoenheim is my ever-evolving understanding of her focused pursuit of excellence in the details.

Load more