What Is Talmud? : the Art of Disagreement / Sergey Dolgopolski
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What Is Talmud? The Art of Disagreement Sergey Dolgopolski What Is Talmud? fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd i 4/27/09 3:51 PM fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd ii 4/27/09 3:51 PM What Is Talmud? THE ART OF DISAGREEMENT Sergey Dolgopolski fordham university press new york 2009 fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd iii 4/27/09 3:51 PM Copyright © 2009 Fordham University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. Fordham University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dolgopol’skii, S. B. (Sergei Borisovich) What is Talmud? : the art of disagreement / Sergey Dolgopolski. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8232-2934-5 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Talmud—Methodology. 2. Talmud—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Talmud—Philosophy. 4. Reasoning. 5. Rhetoric. I. Title. BM503.6.D65 2008 296.1'2506—dc22 2008043310 Printed in the United States of America 11 10 09 5 4 3 2 1 First edition fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd iv 4/27/09 3:51 PM To the blessed memory of my mother z”l, my most important teacher lòòz ytrwm ymal fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd v 4/27/09 3:51 PM fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd vi 4/27/09 3:51 PM contents Preface ix Acknowledgments xi Introduction i part one: what is talmud? 1. What Is Talmud? 7 2. The Talmud in Heidegger’s Aftermath 14 3. The Art of (the) Talmud 69 4. Talmud as Event 117 part two: THE WAYS OF THE TALMUD in its rhetorical dimension 5. The Ways of the Talmud in Its Rhetorical Dimension: A Performative Analytical Description 179 part three: the art of disagreement 6. The Art of Disagreement 233 Notes 275 Works Cited 319 Index 327 fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd vii 4/27/09 3:51 PM fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd viii 4/27/09 3:51 PM preface It is no secret that prefaces are written after the work is already done. Although the preface is placed at the beginning of the book, I am writing it to highlight my current position in my larger intellectual journey and the role this book plays within it. This book grew out of my interest in the rhetoric of religious discourse, in particular the rhetoric of the Talmud, the main normative text of Jewish tradition originating in late antiquity. Because the Talmudic tradition devel- oped in the same intellectual times and places as did Western philosophical and rhetorical traditions, I began to wonder how their approaches came to differ so much, and why one of them became dominant while the other remained largely unknown. In particular, why does the Talmudic approach to disagreement as a goal in itself seem exotic and esoteric while Western philosophy’s goal of reaching agreement in any discussion, intellectual or political, shapes common parlance? These questions intrigued me, and this book is my way of addressing that unfamiliar side of Western civilization, the side of disagreement as an end rather than as a means. Entering the area of the unfamiliar realm of Talmudic disagreement as a goal of discourse required me to reconsider the familiar boundaries—only recently established in the twentieth century—between studies in phi- losophy and studies in the Talmud. Doing this required my undertaking a complicated and complex intellectual journey into two hitherto separate ix fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd ix 4/27/09 3:51 PM x Preface fi elds—rabbinics or the academic study of the Talmud, and studies in Ger- man and Jewish philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—and establishing a mutual connection between them. Having done so in the pres- ent work, in my next book I am eager to probe more deeply and widely into late ancient texts in order to develop a mutual hermeneutics of Talmudic, philosophical, and rhetorical traditions of thinking. Let me conclude this preface with a conversation that both subtly exem- plifi es the question about the connection between the Talmud and philoso- phy and hints at the future directions of my intellectual journey: A critical historian of twentieth-century philosophy once asked me, “We lived at the epoch of Enlightenment, at the time of Technology, and at the time of Metaphysics. Do, or did we, live at the time of Talmud?” In a sense, this book is a long answer to that short question. Yet, here is my short answer: We do not and we do, and perhaps we already did. We do not, but only because we do live in the time of philosophy, and therefore we still strive for agreement to which philosophy ideally leads. We do, because Talmud as an intellectual project expands even outside of the quarters in which the Talmud as a book is learned, and because it repre- sents a signifi cant other for the philosophy of agreement. We did, or perhaps even will do, because Talmud reveals a radically dif- ferent sense of past that has nothing to do with hitherto philosophically or scientifi cally recognized ideas of time. Perhaps it has nothing to do with time either, and it is up to us to live or not to live to that radical past. fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd x 4/27/09 3:51 PM acknowledgments It is with great pleasure that I thank Daniel Boyarin, whose endless intel- lectual generosity, openness, courage, and inspiration helped me fi nish this work. I would like to thank Martin Jay, the head of the Department of His- tory at the University of California, Berkeley, for his continuing support of my project. I am very thankful to David Bates at the Department of Rheto- ric, UC Berkeley, whose suggestions and the sense of intellectual friendship he always cast made an enormously important contribution to bringing this work to completion. I am indebted to Pheng Cheah, Department of Rheto- ric, UC Berkeley, for very fruitful discussions of Kant’s and post-Heideggerian texts, and for his support in my intellectual endeavor. I am very grateful to Naomi Seidman, the director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the Gradu- ate Theological Union, for her continuing guest-friendship and existential support, which I felt from the very fi rst day of my arrival at Berkeley. I would like to thank Dina Stein, University of Haifa, for her great heuristic power, which was constantly surfacing in her readings of earlier drafts as well as in our multiple discussions of my work, from the very early stages of its writing. I am grateful to Jonathan Boyarin, Anthoni Lioi, Hindy Najman, Robert Gibbs, Herman Waetjen, and Devora Shoenfeld, who read earlier drafts or intellectually infl uenced me in different ways on various stages of this work. I am very grateful to Bruce Rosenstock, for his reading of the entire manuscript with the very careful eye of a historian of philosophy; for xi fup-dolgopolski-00fm.indd xi 4/27/09 3:51 PM xii Acknowledgments critical remarks that he offered; and even more for the discussion we had following these remarks. My endless thanks are due to Bud Bynack, who worked gently and thoroughly, for making my prose more English, both in idiom and in pace. I am also very happy to recognize both my intellectual indebtedness and gratitude to my colleagues, friends, and teachers: Edouard Nadtochii, the University of Lausanne; Serguei Zimovetz, former rector of the Moscow Institute for Psychoanalysis; Ishai Rozen-Tzvi, Hartman Institute in Jeru- salem and The University of Tel-Aviv; Michael Schulman and Eugenie Rez´abek, the Rostov University; and Dmitry Frolov, the Institute for Asian and African Studies at Moscow University. I am thankful to Igor Koubanov, the University of Freiburg, for his moral-intellectual support of my project. I thank Benjamin Wurfgart, for his reading of an early draft of the second chapter and for very useful suggestions that he gave to me. This work would not be the way it is without the fi rm support I received from the UC Berkeley Judaic Collection librarian, Paul Hamburg, to whom I remain very grateful. I thank my new colleagues at the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Kansas, Lawrence, who welcomed me in my new position so nicely and provided the excellent working environ- ment and time needed to revise the manuscript. I thank Mr. Jory Gessaw for proofreading a chapter and sharing with me his opinions about my argu- ment. My extended gratitude goes to Aldene Fredenburg for a very careful copy editing done to the text. Getting this text ready for publication was made partially possible through a very generous grant from the Associa- tion of Jewish Studies Cahnman Publication Subvention Grant Award. I also thank Yad Vashem Archive authorities for granting permission to an image from their collection for the front cover design. Last but not least, I cordially thank my dear wife, Lilia Dolgopolskaia, and our daughters, Polina and Elen-Sarrah. Without their patience, daily support, encouragement, and love, this book would not be written. I dearly thank my mother, blessed be her memory, who is my fi rst and most impor- tant teacher. I am very grateful to her for all the lessons she gave me and, now posthumously, continues to give through her deeds, echoed in people who knew her.