Chapter 4 Halevy and the Politics of the Talmud 4.1 Introduction In Dorot harishonim, Yitzhak Isaac Halevy made a number of valuable contribu- tions to the history of the formation of the Talmud, due to his exceptional tal- mudic erudition and commitment to modern historical methods. He wrote of the need to conduct research free of any preconceived notions: “The time has come for free inquiry into Hokhmat Yisrael and its history without bias – the events, eras, and matters as they really were. The time has come to collectively establish Hokhmat Yisrael on the same basis as all the other sciences. The writ- er’s personal inclination is nothing; everything depends on the merits of the ev- idence and analysis alone.”1 As Halevy’s history of the Talmud progressed past the lifetime of Rav Ashi, however, his commitment to “history without bias” wavered. He could no longer make the apparent narrative of the Talmud’s for- mation fit his ideological goals, which were: defense of the authority of the Talmud as an early text, with an early setam, assembled by an authoritative beit hava’ad; and, relatedly, promotion of the council-of-rabbis model as the superior one for Jewish communities in all times. As a result, we can see him nearly abandon the historical skills he previously used to such benefit and, instead, try to press the text into the service of his political and apologetic agenda. This agenda, which clearly colored Halevy’s research regarding the later part of the history of the Talmud’s formation, is by far the most signifi- cant weakness of his work. This chapter will explore Halevy’sanalysisofthe later parts of the history of the Talmud and show that, for that period, his apologetics and political goals took precedence over his commitment to schol- arly methods. 4.2 The post-Rav-Ashi activities The time after Rav Ashi’s death was the first period in Halevy’s history of the Talmud in which serious tension arose between the generally accepted histori- cal record and Halevy’s ideology. This was also a more obscure period than the previous one. The primary problem with Halevy’s theory that Rav Ashi was the 1 Halevy, introduction to Dorot Harishonim, vol. 2. Open Access. © 2021 Ari Bergmann, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110709834-005 132 Chapter 4 Halevy and the Politics of the Talmud Talmud’s chief editor is that the development of the Talmud clearly extended beyond Rav Ashi’s lifetime. (The date of his death is somewhat unclear, as there are contradictions among various sources; Halevy assumed that it was sometime between 422–423 and 426–427).2 Several sugyot quote amoraic dis- cussions that appear to have taken place after Rav Ashi’s death, as they discuss issues about Rav Ashi’s statements without his involvement.3 In addition, opin- ions attributed to Amoraim who lived after Rav Ashi are found in numerous su- gyot. These later Amoraim include Meremar (d. 432), Rav Idi bar Avin II (d. 451–452), Rav Nahman bar Huna (first half of fifth century), Rav Aha of Difti (mid-fifth century), Mar bar Rav Ashi (one of Rav Ashi’s sons; d. ca. 468), and Rabbah Tusfa’ah (see below for discussion of his date of death).4 Halevy ad- dresses this issue by claiming that Rav Ashi’s editorship included the greatest sages of his generation and thus extended until the death of the youngest of the group, Ravina bar Huna (see below for discussion of his date of death). Using b. Yoma 78a, which implies that Ravina bar Huna was already a great sage and renowned judge by the time of Rafram II (d. 442–443), Halevy argues that all sages who had stature to participate in the beit hava’ad during Rav Ashi’s lifetime were empowered to continue the process of editing until Ravina bar Huna’s death.5 This, according to Halevy, is the meaning of “Rav Ashi and Ravina – end of hora’ah” (b. Bava Metzi’a 86a).6 Rav Ashi and Ravina were named as representatives of their generations because they were the greatest leaders of their time.7 Another issue arose with that argument, however, because there were two Ravinas in the Talmud: the older Ravina (sometimes referred to by modern schol- ars as “Ravina I”), a student of Rava and senior colleague of Rav Ashi’s who died in 420; and the younger Ravina (Ravina bar Huna, “Ravina II”), nephew of the 2 Halevy, Dorot harishonim, 3:10. See also Lewin, ed., Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, 94. 3 See examples in b. Megillah 2a, b. Nedarim 16a, and b. Yoma 79a. 4 On Meremar’s date of death, see David Joseph Bornstein, “Meremar,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., accessed 21 May 2020, https:// yulib002.mc.yu.edu:2821/apps/doc/CX2587513694/GVRL?u=nysl_me_yeshival&sid= GVRL&xid=9ba7c65c. See also Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [in Hebrew], 144–182. On Rav Idi bar Avin II, see Hyman, Toledot Tannaim ve’amoraim, s.v. Rav Idi bar Avin Hasheini. On Mar bar Rav Ashi’s date of death, see David Joseph Bornstein, “Mar Bar Rav Ashi,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, accessed 21 May 2020, https://yulib002.mc.yu.edu:2821/apps/ doc/CX2587513225/GVRL?u=nysl_me_yeshival&sid=GVRL&xid=f3549e95. 5 Halevy, Dorot harishonim, 3:11–15 and 3:19–22. On Rafram II, see Lewin, ed., Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, 96. 6 Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [in Hebrew], 55 and 126n57. 7 Halevy, Dorot harishonim, 3:18–22. 4.2 The post-Rav-Ashi activities 133 earlier Ravina, who died near the end of the fifth century.8 As has been noted above, two manuscripts of b. Bava Metzi’a have the order of the names reversed, so that they say “Ravina and Rav Ashi – end of hora’ah.” Avinoam Cohen, Associate Professor of Talmud at Bar-Ilan University, argues that these two ver- sions result from two different opinions regarding the identity of the Ravina in this passage. The version that has Ravina’s name after Rav Ashi’sreferstothe later Ravina, Ravina bar Huna (Ravina II). The other version, with Ravina before Rav Ashi, identifies this Ravina with the earlier Ravina (Ravina I), contemporary of Rav Ashi. Rav Sherira believed that the Ravina mentioned in b. Bava Metzi’a was Ravina II, while Rashi identified him as Ravina I.9 Halevy’s position on this topic is rather ambiguous. Lewin, the editor of the critical edition of the Epistle, thought that Halevy followed Rav Sherira in identifying this Ravina as Ravina II.10 Yet, Halevy, like Rashi, seems to have interpreted the passage as referring to Ravina I. The earlier Ravina, Halevy thought, was one of two founders (along with Rav Ashi) of the beit hava’ad whose work lasted until the death of Ravina II.11 In his discussion of the matter in Dorot harishonim, Halevy notes that al- though the Epistle is silent about the year of the earlier Ravina’s death, two French rabbis gave 421–422 as the date: Rabbi Simha ben Samuel of Vitry (ca. 1170–1105), a student of Rashi’s, in his Mahzor Vitry; and Rabbi Samson ben Isaac of Chinon (lived in Chinon, France, 1260–1330), in his Sefer keritut. Halevy claimed that although Ravina (I)’s death preceded Rav Ashi’s, he was nonethe- less mentioned in b. Bava Metzi’a due to his prominent role in the founding of the beit hava’ad.12 8 On the Epistle’s stance regarding the identity of Ravina in b. Bava Metzi’a 86a, see Lewin, ed., Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, 69 and 95. On the many Ravinas in the Talmud and the difficulty of distinguishing between them, see Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [in Hebrew], 109–143. Halevy also notes that there were two sages named Ravina, and that it is sometimes difficult to ascertain to which of them the Talmud refers. See Halevy, Dorot harishonim, 3:3–16. 9 Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [in Hebrew], 109–143. Cohen argues that the earlier Ravina, i.e., the contemporary of Rav Ashi, was his partner at the beginning of the editing proceses. Cohen says that the earlier Ravina actually outlived Rav Ashi and died around the year 440 CE (approximately 18 years later than Halevy’s date). Cohen believes that the Ravina who continued Rav Ashi’s work was also the earlier Ravina, and that the earlier Ravina completed the work of editing the Talmud. Thus, although Ravina bar Huna appears in the Talmud, his contribution, according to Cohen, was a lesser one. See Cohen, 54–55. On Rashi’s opinion that the Ravina mentioned regarding the end of hora’ah was Ravina I, see Rashi to b. Bava Metzi’a 86a, s.v. sof. 10 Benjamin M. Lewin, Rabbanan Savora’ei vetalmudam,3. 11 Halevy, Dorot harishonim, 3:18–19. 12 Halevy, Dorot harishonim, 3:10. 134 Chapter 4 Halevy and the Politics of the Talmud Another major problem with Halevy’s theory about Rav Ashi is that the -seems clearly to con [ אדומלתםייתסא ] Epistle’s account of the closure of the Talmud tradict the Talmud’s statement on Rav Ashi’s role in the end of hora’ah.13 While the Epistle says nothing directly about Rav Ashi’s role in the process, it does con- tain two passages noting the date of the end of hora’ah.