religions Article The Methodology Utilized in the Redaction of the Tripartite Structure of Sugyot from Tractate Eruvin in the Babylonian Talmud Uri Zur Moreshet Israel, Ariel University, Kiriat HaMada‘a, Ariel 40700, Israel; [email protected]; Tel.: +972-054-339-4717 Received: 3 June 2017; Accepted: 3 July 2017; Published: 13 July 2017 Abstract: This paper deals with the methodology utilized in the redaction of the tripartite structure of sugyot from Tractate Eruvin. The paper begins with a short review of the tripartite structure in various sugyot of the Babylonian Talmud. It presents the various methodologies utilized in the redaction of the tripartite structure of sugyot from Tractate Eruvin. The paper’s significance is in its presentation of the various methods utilized in redaction of the tripartite structure, accompanied by select examples from different texts in Tractate Eruvin. These methodological methods are also evident in other sugyot and they constitute an important research foundation for examining their application in additional sugyot in the different tractates. Keywords: Eruvin; methodology; redaction; tripartite structure; sugya 1. The Tripartite Structure in Sugyot of the Babylonian Talmud The most common and cherished stylistic-formative design utilized in sugyot in general, including in Tractate Eruvin, is the tripartite structure (Friedman 1978; Zur 1999).1 An entire study focusing on presentation of the tripartite structure in the different texts of Tractate Eruvin as a whole has been devoted to this matter (Zur 2016). The tripartite structure appears in many texts and in varied manners, and its main aspect is the formative-stylistic dimension, manifested in the content (for example, a phrase, give-and-take, etc.) or as an arrangement of three things together, for example three statements by a certain sage in one place in the text, sometimes despite the absence of any content-based connection between the statements (HaLevi 1970; Sirilio 1972; Weiss 1962, pp. 202–4), or three statements by different Amoraim.2 The tripartite structure is present in various texts as a form- and style-matching unit and as part of the redactors’ considerations in redacting the content of the Talmudic text (Valler 1995; Valler 1999). The study of different texts in Tractate Eruvin indicates that many texts have diverse modes of design, with one of the main variations being the tripartite structure. The tripartite structure is considered a complete formative-stylistic structure, one with a beginning, middle, and end.3 At times, awareness and recognition of this stylistic form can solve many problems or various types of difficulties that arise in the Talmudic text. In other words, if the commentators had been clearly aware of the possibility that the sugya includes a formative-stylistic aspect and that a certain sugya may be shaped in a tripartite structure, then they would not have had difficulty understanding, for example, why three citations are brought in the name of the same amora despite 1 (Jacobs 1983, p. 138): “The use of this number as especially is widespread in the Rabbinic literature.” 2 (Friedman, ibid., pp. 40–41). 3 (M. H. Pope 1962): “Next to the number Seven, the number most frequently used in connection with sacred matters is three. This number naturally suggests the idea of completeness-of beginning, middle, and end.” Religions 2017, 8, 126; doi:10.3390/rel8070126 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2017, 8, 126 2 of 16 Religions 2017, 8, 126 2 of 16 difficulty understanding, for example, why three citations are brought in the name of the same amora despitethe lack the of a lack content of a associationcontent asso betweenciation thebetween third citationthe third and citation the two and previous the two ones, previous for example ones, for in examplesugya 40b–41b, in sugya as 40b–41b, they would as they have would been aware have been of the aware possibility of the ofpossibility style-based of style-based repetition and repetition would andhave would had no have difficulty had no with difficulty it. In fact,with all it. theIn fact, different all the examples different in examples this paper in suggestthis paper a method suggestin a whichmethod the in tripartitewhich the structure tripartite of structure the text constitutes of the text aconstitutes form- and a style-based form- and solutionstyle-based for overcomingsolution for overcomingthe difficulties the causeddifficulties by unnecessary caused by unnecessary repetitions re inpetitions all the variations in all the variations of those examples. of those examples. Notably, Notably,the commentators the commentators who pondered who pondered problems problems or difficulties or difficulties that arose that in certain arose textsin certain usually texts explained usually explainedthese as they these were as they wont, were by wont, using by casuistry using casuis and withtry and no with regard no for regard the formative-stylisticfor the formative-stylistic design designin the tripartitein the tripartite structure structure of the of talmudic the talmudic text. Nevertheless,text. Nevertheless, it must it must be stressed be stressed that that some some of the of thecommentators commentators discerned discerned the the tripartite tripartite structure structure of of the the text text and and even even alluded alluded to toit it atat timestimes in their commentaries, or notice of the tripartite structure was impliedimplied “between“between thethe lines”lines” ofof theirtheir exegesis.exegesis. Some of the commentators referred to the tripartite structure indirectly or in an implied manner in various texts ((ZurZur 20162016a,, pp. pp. 71–74, 71–74, 94–99, 94–99, p. p. 140 140 n. n. 30, 30, p. p. 187 187 n. n. 46; 46; HaLivni HaLivni 1982 1982,, p. p. 138,138, n. n. 1*).1*).44 Their interpretations do not explain why the talmudic redactors acted thus, but it is clear that this was done for a certain purpose, and they seem to ha haveve realized that the redaction of the various texts stemmed from the wish to maintain a tripartite structure,structure, althoughalthough theythey dodo notnot saysay soso expressly.expressly. Some modern scholars also dwelt on the tripartite structure of various texts in several tractates of the Babylonian Talmud. There were those who expandedexpanded on the topic while others discussed it concisely, inin passing.passing. The tripartite structure of sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud ((FriedmanFriedman 19971997;; Friedman 20102010)) is the topic topic of of studies studies on on the the tenth tenth chapter chapter of of Tractate Tractate Yevamot, Yevamot, and and on on the the first first and and second second chapters chapters of Tractateof Tractate Bava Bava Metzi’a Metzi’a (Friedman (Friedman 1997, 1997 p. ,391, p. 391,n. 6; n.Friedman 6; Friedman 1978, 1978 pp. ,40–43, pp. 40–43, 47). Other 47). Otherstudies studies focus onfocus sugyot on sugyot in the first in the three first chapters three chapters of Tractate of Tractate Eruvin (Zur Eruvin 1999, (Zur pp. 1999 40, ,n. pp. 6, 368, 40, n.392–93; 6, 368, Zur 392–93; 2000; Zur 20002013;; Zur 20132015); Zur and 2015 on other) and chapters on other chaptersof the trac oftate the (Zur tractate 2016a, (Zur pp. 2016 23–366),, pp. 23–366), as well as as well in other as in places.other places.5 5 Some of of the the scholars scholars who who studied studied the thesugyot sugyot of Tr ofactate Tractate Eruvin Eruvin paid very paid little very attention little attention (when (whenat all) to at the all) tripartite to the tripartite structure structure of some of of some the ofsugyot, the sugyot, and even and this even only this indirectly, only indirectly, randomly, randomly, and unsystematically.and unsystematically. They They mentioned mentioned various various phenomena phenomena related related to the to trip theartite tripartite structure structure in texts in or texts as aor whole as a whole texts bearing texts bearing the tripartite the tripartite format formatin Tractate in Tractate Eruvin Eruvin(Zur 2016a, (Zur pp. 2016 54–62;, pp. 54–62;Weiss 1970;Weiss Weiss 1929; Weiss1962, p.1962 209;, p. Friedman 209; Friedman 1997). 61997 ).6 2. The Methodology of Redaction of a Tripartite StructureStructure The tripartite structure in sugyot of Tractate EruvinEruvin appears conspicuously and clearly in forty sugyot andand featuresfeatures a rangea range of differentof different stylistic stylisti forms,c forms, and in and these in fortythese sugyot forty thesugyot tripartite the tripartite structure structurecan be proven. can be Some proven. sugyot Some have sugyot a visible have tripartitea visible tripartite structure, structur but thise, could but this not could be proven. not be proven. Below, wewe shall shall select select examples examples of differentof different methodologies methodologies utilized utilized in the redactionin the redaction of the tripartite of the tripartitestructure structure in various in sugyot various of sugyot Tractate of Eruvin. Tractate Eruvin. (הפרדה וחלוקה ) Distinction and Separation .2.1 The methodology of distinction and separation in the sugyot is manifested in different ways. In one sugya (“Amar(“Amar AbayeAbaye…:... :Amat Amat Sukkah”), Sukkah”),7 7thethe sugya’s sugya’s redactors redactors had had before before them them an an array array of difficultiesdifficulties andand repliesreplies as as a a single single sequence sequence (or (or as oneas one unit) unit) in a in certain a certain topic topic (“Abaye (“Abaye stated stated in the in name the name of R. Naḥman: The cubit [applicable to the measurements] of sukkah and that applicable to an of R. Nah. man: The cubit [applicable to the measurements] of sukkah and that applicable to an ‘entrance’ ‘entrance’is one of five is [handbreadths].one of five [handbreadths]. The cubit [applicable The cubit to [applicable the laws] of tokil’ayim the laws]is one of of kil’ayim six [handbreadths]”) is one of six [handbreadths]”) [here and henceforth from the Epstein ed.].