chapter 4 In Search of the Essence of a Talmudic Debate: the Case of Water Used by a Baker

1 Introduction

This chapter discusses a very short sugya about the status of water used by a baker for wetting his hands while making dough for unleavened bread at Passover. What should be done with this water during Passover, when one is forbidden to possess leaven? This very minor Talmudic topic is treated in parallel texts in the Mishnah and Tosefta and is mentioned briefly (2–3 lines) in both Talmudim. This provides us with an opportunity to delve into the ex- plicit and implicit interpretive assumptions of modern scholarly approaches to reading Talmudic literature as well as to demonstrate the advantages of my own approach. The relationship between the corresponding texts in the Mishnah and the Tosefta is debated by two leading scholars, Shamma Friedman and Robert Brody. Their dispute concerning this case study reflects the different approach- es to parallel Tannaitic sources they imbibed in their respective schools, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (Brody) and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York (Friedman). In my view, both are overly eager to prove that the differences between parallel texts in the Mishnah and Tosefta do not reflect disagreement between the sources’ authors, but are the result of editorial considerations or of the vicissitudes of oral transmission. I will argue that it is possible to ascribe disagreement to parallel sources without passing judgment either on their chronological order or on whether one of the sources is a direct response to the other.1 In the second part of the chapter I show how my approach affects the un- derstanding of the Bavli’s ‘forced explanation’ or its “sources interpreted in

1 As already mentioned in a footnote in the previous chapter, the main difference between my and Judith Hauptman’s approaches to parallel Tannaitic sources, both of which occasionally identify a disagreement among parallel sources, is that she insists that in order to do so, one musts be able to place the sources in a definite chronological order, so that one source is a direct literary reaction to the other. See Rereading the Mishnah, p. X. For a detailed discussion about her approach see the next chapter.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004430044_006 In Search of the Essence of a Talmudic Debate 63 ways opposed to their simple meanings”.2 The Bavli’s ‘forced explanations’ have drawn the attention of many scholars;3 I use this case study to test several approaches, and offer my own conclusions. In this chapter I demonstrate how all the components of a typical Talmudic discussion — Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi and Bavli — can be juxtaposed in order to reconstruct the particular discourse in which these sources partici- pate. In other words, we will see how one can use other Tannaitic sources, such as the baraitot in the Talmudim, to achieve a more accurate understanding of the relationship between Mishnah and Tosefta. In addition, we will see how this understanding influences our perception of the forced explanations of the baraitot which the Talmudim offer.

2 Reading Tannaitic Sources as Arguments

The following texts in tractate Pesachim deal with the water used by a baker:4

2 This is Jeffery Rubenstein’s definition in his introduction to David Halivni, The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, p. XX. 3 The main approaches will be detailed below. 4 These translations are based on Brody’s, except for the causal clause in the Mishnah and Brody, Mishnah and .”מפני שמתכנסות ובאות לידי חימוץ“ :in the Tosefta. The Tosefta reads Tosefta Studies, 143, translates “because it collects and causes leavening”, but the Hebrew formulation indicates that the water used by a baker is passive in this sentence. Therefore the instruction aims to prevent the water from becoming leavened and not to prevent the water to cause leavening of the dough when it will be reused. The Mishnah’s causal clause which can be read as passive — ‘becomes leavened’ (see ,”מפני שהן מחמיצים“ ,is enigmatic Mishnah 2:7) or active — ‘causes leavening’. Therefore, Brody’s translation of the Mishnaic text is possible, but certainly not definitive. We should consider the possibility that the differ- ence between the Mishnah and the Tosefta is that the Mishnah aims to prevent reusing this water for baking, while the Tosefta’s aim is to prevent the water itself from becoming leav- ened. This explanation resembles the one I offer in my extended discussion; however, as I will demonstrate, my claim that these texts are in disagreement is valid even if we assume that both share the same approach, that is, that both aim to prevent water used by a baker from becoming leavened. The absence of any rabbinic commentary or parallel source that support Brody’s translation of the Mishnah in fact strengthens this presumption. The Tosefta’s view that the water used by a baker is prohibited because it becomes leavened is evident from its next instruction; see the commentary of Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-feshuta: Order Moed, 520, and his discussion there about the commentary of Yosef Razin (known as ‘the Rogochover’), Zafnat Pahaneach, Chametz Umatza 1:5 (Heb.; Warsaw, 1902), 54. This view is also evident in the rabbinic commentary; see Rashi, ad loc. s.v. hachi garsinan; Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Chametz Umatza, 5:15.