6. THREE OF ADIN STEINSALTZ'S MISCONSTRUCTIONS OF THE

Jacob Neusner Bard College

When Adin Steinsaltz introduced his "Steinsaltz Talmud," he set forth a variety of points on which he misconstrues the character of the document. Here we address three of his most egregious misrepre­ sentations in The Talmud. The Steinsaltz Edition. A Rrftrence Guide (N. Y., 1989: Random House). In that book he purported to portray the document as a whole. But Stein saltz puzzled other scholars of the same subject by his apparent ignorance of a hundred years of schol­ arship on the Bavli and by his claim to be the first to "discover" and present it. When various critics took issue with statements in that Riference Guide, to my knowledge, Stein saltz has not taken notice of their criticism, nor has he as yet addressed the contrary propositions and the evidence adduced in behalf of those views. In a sequence of essays devoted to scholarly debate on ancient Judaism, this absence of debate is noteworthy. To advance the discussion of the issues of the characterization of the Bavli, I review three principal positions that Stein saltz takes in his "Steinsaltz Talmud" and layout a portion of the evidence that in those positions he drastically misrepresents the character of the Talmud. These three positions of his, stated in his own words, are contradicted by contrary propositions of mine, in the successive segments of this essay.

1. "THE TALMUD HAS No FORMAL, EXTERNAL ORDER" vs. THE TALMUD IS CAREFULLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY ORDERED

Stein saltz maintains that no coherent plan everywhere instructs the compilers or authors of the Bavli how to order their materials. I shall show that a strict protocol governs throughout, which Steinsaltz has not grasped. While he is unable to see the redactional considerations that account for the Bavli's inclusion of massive miscellanies-some- 108 times impeding systematic exposition of a given problem-we shall see that, even if the Bavli exhibits a certain miscellaneous character, in fact it follows a careful program.

2. "THE TALMUD DEALS WITH ALL POSSIBLE SUBJECTS IN THE WORLD" vs. THE TALMUD TAKES Up A COGENT PROGRAM

Steinsaltz alleges that the Talmud conducts a "search for truth with regard to the entire -in other words, with regard to all possi­ ble subjects in the world, both physical and spiritual." That is a manifest exaggeration. But it also misrepresents matters, for I shall show that in definitive structure, in its shank, which is to say, ap­ proximately 90% of the whole, the Talmud limits its systematic ex­ egetical work to a commentary to thirty-seven of the sixty-three tractates of the , encompassing a broad range of data, to be sure, pertinent to that commentary. Not only does the Bavli not deal with "all possible subjects in the world," but it does not even cover all the subjects set forth by the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the corpus of the Halakhah embodied in legal formulations associated therewith. And, as a matter of simple fact, the subjects that the Talmud takes up in a more than episodic or casual manner are dictated by the Mishnah and the Halakhah more generally.

3. "THE STRUCTURE OF THE TALMUD Is ASSOCIATIVE" vs. THE TALMUD Is CAREFULLY STRUCTURED ACCORDING TO A COHERENT PLAN

The same issue resurfaces in different ways, Stein saltz having a prob­ lem in cogently and lucidly expressing his ideas. Now he explains the character of the document by appeal to the mnemonics: "The struc­ ture of the Talmud is associative. The material of the Talmud was memorized and transmitted orally for centuries, its ideas are joined to each other by inner links, and the order often reflects the needs of memorization. Talmudic discourse shifts from one subject to a re­ lated subject, or to a second that brings the first to mind in an associative way." He does not know what he is talking about. A manifest and coherent plan governs the unfolding of every Talmud­ tractate, and it does not focus upon mnemonic but substantive con-