REWRITING THE TALMUD: THE FOURTH-CENTURY ORIGINS OF BAVLI ROSH HASHANAH
Marcus Mordecai Schwartz
Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for
The degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Talmud and Rabbinics
The Graduate School of
The Jewish Theological Seminary 2011
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 UMI 3564343
REWITTING THE TALMUD: THE FOURTH-CENTURY ORIGINS OF BAVLI ROSH HASHANAH ABSTRACT
MARCUS MORDECAI SCHWARTZ
This dissertation argues that an assembly of passages of mid-fourth century redaction lays submerged below the textual surface of b. Rosh Hashanah. It claims that the third Babylonian amoraic generation (c. 290–320 C.E.) witnessed a cultural exchange that allowed some early versions of the tractate, in whole or in part, to meet in Babylonia. The influx of this Torah from the west, pooling together with the Torah of the east, began to have its effect in this generation and overflowed into the next. It was at this point that it made its greatest impact. The Babylonian amoraim of the fourth generation (c. 320– 350 C.E.) seem to have played a sort of redactional and/or editorial role. It appears that they took the materials from the two centers, combining and shaping passages into a form that began to resemble the Bavli that we know. Because of their roots in both Babylonia and Palestine, these passages share striking thematic affinities with redacted materials in y. Rosh Hashanah. On the other hand, the marked structural affinities between the Bavli and Yerushalmi versions of the tractate seem to be the product of a later era. Though some deeply important elements came later, including the Bavli’s large-scale structural architecture, This dissertation shows that the amoraim of the fourth century seem to have fixed the tractate’s heart and soul, if not its flesh and bone.
For Esther
Table of Contents:
Acknowledgements………..5
Chapter One: Introduction………..……..7
Chapter Two: Rav Hisda—Dates and Documents……….……….……….40
Hisda Appendix One: An Aggadic Example………113
Hisda Appendix Two: Hisda citations in B. Rosh Hashanah………...…119
Chapter Three: Rava--Center and Margins… ……… ………..……...…124
Rava Appendix One: Midrashic Synopsis……… ………189
Rava Appendix Two: Rava citations with Yerushalmi Parallels………..……….191
Chapter Four: The Nahotei--Returning Home to Find It……….………...194
Nahotei Appendix One: Nahotian quotations in Bavli Mo’ed………...232
Nahotei Appendix Two: Nahotian Reports in the Yerushalmi………..………...238
Chapter Five: Conclusion………..………242
Acknowledgements:
הליהת ץראו םיימש הנוק ןוילא לאל
Every creative human endeavor is collaboration. While the errors in this work are my own, its successes are shared. A large community of people stands behind this dissertation. First, I wish to thank my parents, Donald Schwartz and Ann Kibel Schwartz, who instilled me with a love of Jewish and general learning. My father read this dissertation at various points and his suggestions were always insightful. I am grateful to them both for all they have done for me.
Next, I want to thank my teacher, Richard Kalmin. A model of rigorous scholarship and humanity, his influence on my intellectual program cannot be overstated. The words “kind” and
“generous” do not convey the time, energy, and effort that he dedicated to guiding me through the work of this dissertation. I am deeply grateful for his continued support, help, and advice. I will always be his student.
I thank my committee: My friend and teacher Beth Berkowitz was profoundly helpful at a number of stages. Most prominently, she was the official second reader of this project, and suggested a range of creative directions for improvement and further thinking. Azzan Yadin urged me to expand my methodological perspective to my great benefit. I am grateful for his suggestions. David Marcus, who introduced me to the joys of philology, read this dissertation with an unstinting eye. I am grateful that he leant me his care and precision.
I was overjoyed to have my Rebbe, Judith Hauptman, join as the final member of my dissertation committee. Rabbi Hauptman has had an enormous influence on both my religious and intellectual development. My first encounter with source-critical Talmud scholarship was in her 1995-96 seminar on Bavli Yevamot. I can trace a direct line from the work I did that year to the work of this dissertation. That academic year was one of the most important of my life, and at its end, Rabbi
Though they did not sit on the committee, I want to acknowledge the influence of three more teachers. Neil Danzig, David Kreamer, and Joel Roth have all been deeply important intellectual and personal influences in my life. I will always be grateful to them.
I also want to thank Stephen Garfinkle, Bruce Neilsen, and Shuly Rubin Schwartz who all unfailingly gave their support during the course of my time at the JTS Graduate School. In particular, I want to acknowledge Dr. Schwartz’s encouragement. She was my direct supervisor when I worked for the JTS admissions department, and when I told her of my desire to return to the work of this
dissertation, she supported my decision even though it meant loosing me in that role.
A number of friends and colleagues contributed suggestions and advice at various points. Daniel Rosenberg and I spoke on and off though the work and he gave me a number of helpful suggestions along with moral support. Ethan Tucker gave me an advanced copy of his forthcoming paper on music and noise on Shabbat. A. Joshua Cahan provided me with chapters of his dissertation that were relevant to my own. Jenny Labendz and David Hoffman both read an early version chapter two. Abby Eisenberg gave me the encouragement I needed to continue this dissertation while we worked together in the JTS admissions department. I thank them all for their advice and friendship.
My young sons Isaac, Sammy and Jonah gave me the energy and joy to keep going even when I wanted to lay aside the burden.
Finally, last and most beloved, I want to thank my greatest friend and companion, Esther Reed. My success is her success. This dissertation is as much a tribute to her patience and support as it is to my effort. I have placed you as a seal on my arm, a seal upon my heart.
Chapter One: Introduction
The fourth century was a period of change and transition in the redaction history of Bavli Rosh Hashanah. This dissertation argues that the amoraic generations of the first half of that century were responsible for developing b. Rosh Hashanah’s major concerns, themes, tannaitic sources, and even the lion’s share of its amoraic content. Employing methods developed over that last three decades of Bavli scholarship, I have uncovered an assembly of passages of mid-fourth century redaction that lay submerged below the textual surface of b. Rosh Hashanah. Because of their roots in both Babylonia and Palestine, these passages share striking thematic affinities with redacted materials in y. Rosh Hashanah. On the other hand, the marked structural affinities between the Bavli and Yerushalmi versions of the tractate seem to be the product of a later era. This structure/theme distinction will be important throughout this dissertation; I will fully define what I mean by these terms below. Though some deeply important elements came later, including the Bavli’s large-scale structural architecture, I will show that the amoraim of the fourth century seem to have fixed the tractate’s heart and soul, if not its flesh and bone.
I began this project with the foundation that the Talmudic tractate Rosh Hashanah began to develop independently in Palestine and in Babylonia over the first few amoraic generations. I drew this working hypothesis, as well as a series of other assumptions, from the diverse conclusions of a range of scholars whose influence I acknowledge below, each properly cited in his or her logical place. To summarize briefly, I see convincing evidence that the third Babylonian amoraic generation (c. 290–320 C.E.) saw a moment of cultural connection that allowed some early versions of the tractate, in whole or part, to meet in Babylonia. The influx of this Torah from the west, pooling together with the Torah of the east, began to have its effect in this generation and overflowed into the next when it made its greatest impact. The Babylonian amoraim of the fourth generation (c. 320–350 C.E.) seem to have
played a sort of redactional and/or editorial role. It appears that they took the materials from the two centers, combining and shaping them into a form that began to resemble the Bavli that we know.
Working with these insights, I restricted my study to the period of the third and fourth generations of Babylonian amoraim. I investigated passages of b. Rosh Hashanah containing the statements of two prominent middle generation amoraim, Rav Hisda (third generation) and Rava (fourth). First, in passages containing either of these sages I separated the later anonymous-editorial material from the attributed amoraic statements. I then removed all attributed sources and traditions later than thefourth generation of Babylonian amoraim. I discovered that I was then consistently left with coherent, seemingly redacted, “middle-generation” amoraic passages most likely dating from the fourth century. I then subjected these passages to a thorough comparison with y. Rosh Hashanah. The results of these comparisons usually showed that the majority of thematic/content affinities that parallel passages of b. and y. Rosh Hashanah have for one another remained intact. However, the preponderance of structural and/or architectural affinities no longer obtained between Yerushalmi passages and those of my reconstruction.
Finally, to preempt the claim that the Nahotei, a group of sages whom the Bavli credits with importing a number of discrete Palestinian traditions to Babylonia, were chiefly responsible for the Palestinian materials we find in the Bavli, and that this could explain my results in an alternate way, I have also included in this project a comprehensive study of the Nahotei. In my study of Nahotian traditions in b. Seder Moed, the first of its kind, I have determined that these traveling Rabbis brought almost no novel Mo’ed-related Palestinian materials to fourth century Babylonia. Instead, they mostly seem to clarify, modify, or reassign the authorship of Palestinian traditions already known in Babylonia prior to their reports. The Nahotian theory of intellectual exchange between the rabbinic circles excluded, at least in b. Seder Mo’ed, my preferred hypothesis of broad-brush fourth century influence now stands as a more fitting explanation for the data at hand.
Below the reader will find a general introduction to this project in three sections. Section one describes the initial scholarly influences on the project and traces the above hypothesis in greater detail than in this brief abstract. Section two lays out some additional scholarship that touches on two areas crucial to this project: the influence of the early amoraim on the formation of the two Talmuds, and the role of middle-generation Babylonian amoraim in the redaction of the Bavli. Section three traces my methodology and its application over the course of the present study.
I. Initial Influences and Hypothesis
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, Richard Kalmin took up a banner previously lifted by Zwi Dor in the mid-twentieth century, and Isaac Halevy in the late nineteenth century; he argued that the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim adopted and adapted materials from Palestinian sources and gave them voice in Babylonia.1 Kalmin's careful argumentation has added a solid contemporary methodological foundation to the contributions of the earlier scholarship. He has taken care in documenting the increasing influence of Palestinian traditions and behaviors among middle-generation Babylonian amoraim. 2 In particular, Kalmin reaffirms Dor’s theory of a special relationship that existed between the circle of the mid-fourth century Babylonian Rava and the early
1 Yitzhak Isaac Halevy, Dorot Rishonim, Vol. 2a (Frankfurt am Main: 1901), or Vol. 5 (Jerusalem: 1966), 551-556, Vol. 3, (Pressberg: 1897) or Vol. 6 (Jerusalem: 1966), 117; Zwi Moshe Dor, Torat Erez-Yiśrael be-Bavel (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1971), 11-84.; Richard Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Palestine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4-10, 149-50, 173-86. Kalmin also notes that Dor’s view has become widespread among contemporary scholars. See the extensive literature he cites on p. 249, n. 6. 2 The amoraim are conventionally divided into eight generations. Alyssa Gray "Amoraim." in Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007) 89-95. I account the first and second Babylonian generations as “early,” the third and fourth as “middle” and the fifth to the eighth as “late.” The fifth generation belongs to the late period by virtue of its late-style behaviors. See Kalmin, sages, 171. See also pp. 127-40.
Palestinian Rabbi Yohanan.3 Kalmin is not the only scholar interested in middle-generation Babylonian amoraim.Several others have shown that Rav Hisda, another middle-generation Babylonian, had a similar special link to the Toseftan beraitot and other sources from the west.4 The access these sages had to Palestinian Torah significantly altered the trajectory of their learning and profoundly influenced the ongoing composition of Babylonian scholastic discourse.
Prior to this influx, the learning culture in Babylonia seems to have been largely concerned with developing and collecting Mishnah commentary.5 Naturally, attempts to interpret these early amoraic elucidations of the Mishnah proliferated in the middle amoraic generations, resulting in an organic engagement in Babylonian super-commentary: comments upon comments on the Mishnah.6 However, absent an influx of materials from Palestine, the other major behaviors that uniquely characterize the Babylonian middle-amoraic generations would likely not have developed naturally. These generations
3 Kalmin, 3-18, 173-86. On Rava, see pp. 175-76, 179, and 184; and Kalmin, sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 1994), 87-91.
4 With regard to the Tosefta, this is true at least in Seder Mo'ed. Yoel Florsheim, “Rav Hisda as Exegetor of Tannaitic Sources,” Tarbiz 41 (1971-72): 24-48. See also Geofrey Herman, “Ha-Yahasim bein Rav Huna l'Rav Hisda.” Zion 61, no. 3 (1996): 263-79; and Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007), 16-17, 26-31, 42, 114, and 153, n.5. However Catherine Hezser, review of Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Review of Biblical Literature
[http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5783_6103.pdf] (2007) points out with regard to the case mentioned on pages 26-31 of Schafer’s book, ‘The reference to Jesus (introduced with ‘another interpretation’) does not seem to be part of Rab Hisda’s statement here.”
5 Included in this are the comments of early Babylonian amoraim on beraitot directly related to the Mishnah. Baruch Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism in Transition: Samuel on Berakhot and the Beginnings of Gemara (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 445, 461-84; Jacob Nahum Epstein, Mavo le-Nusach ha-Mishnah, 2d ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1964), 166-233, 349-50. See also S.K. Mirsky, “The Mishnah as Viewed by the Amoraim,” in Leo Jung Memorial Volume (New York: 1962), 155-74.
6 Kalmin, sages, 43-58, shows that later amoraim treat Rav and Shemuel differently than do earlier ones. While early amoraim preserve distinctions between the relative authorities of these two important first generation amoraim, later amoraim tend to quote them with equivalent frequency and authority, treating them as sources rather than as figures. Kalmin argues that amoraic attitudes towards Rav and Shemuel changed over time and that the sources accurately reflect this change. Borrowing Bokser's language, I would call this an “organic” change: a change we would expect to see as the result of continuity in the culture rather than a change resulting from outside influence.
are characterized by the rise of the dispute form, the growing importance of the Toseftan beraitot (whether or not closely linked to the Mishnah), a proliferation of Babylonian amoraic statements interpreting the sayings of Palestinian amoraim, and a growing number of statements attributed to Babylonians that appear to rework traditions from the Yerushalmi and other Palestinian sources.7 These are far from inevitable developments. These four phenomena lead me to advance the hypothesis that there was a new access to, and acceptance of, Palestinian sources in the middle-amoraic period in Babylonia. When we consider these data in combination with other behaviors that Kalmin characterizes as “redactional,”8 we develop the picture of a growing transformation in Babylonian Torah. It is easy to imagine a milieu in which amoraim of the fourth century were conjoining admixtures of material from
7 Avraham Weiss defines the dispute form as a discussion that embraces a sequence of direct questions and answers that are clearly attributable to amoraim. See his Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli be-Hithavuto ha-Sifrutit (Warsaw, 1937), 2-3; Idem, Le-Heker ha-Talmud (New York: Feldheim, 1954), 18-32; and Meyer Feldblum, “Professor Avraham Weiss: Ha'arakhat Darko be-Heker Talmud ve-Siyyum Maskanotav," In Sefer ha-Yovel li-Kevod ha-Rav Dr. Avraham Weiss (New York, 1964). חיטי . David Charles Kraemer, “Stylistic -Characteristics of Amoraic Literature” (Ph. D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1984), seems to agree with Weiss's definition, defining argumentational forms in opposition to so-called “apodictic” statements, p. 19. On the development and proliferation of the dispute form, see Kraemer 80-136, for a detailed description, and 330-33 for a summary of his conclusions about these generations; see Weiss, Al ha-Yetzirah ha-Sifrutit shel ha-Amoraim (New York, 1962), 10-23, and nn. 35- 36. On the middle generation adoption of Tosefta, see Florsheim, 24-48. P. R. Weis, “The Controversies of Rab and Samuel and the Tosefta,” Journal of Semitic Studies (1958): 288-300, claims that knowledge of the Tosefta is discernible in Rav's, but not Shemuel's statements. His attempt to discern this nicely shows the tiny percentages of direct quotation of the Toseftan Beraitot by either figure. Bokser, 443-47, claims that Shemuel may have had knowledge of the Tosefta. This he bases on the similarity between the style of the “commentary” elements of the Tosefta and the “commentary” elements of Shemuel's statements relating to the Mishnah. Note, however, that he points to a single tradition of Shemuel's--he lists it as tradition no. 51--from his sample set in which Shemuel quotes a Toseftan beraita. When one looks to the direct quotations of, or references to Toseftan beraitot by Shemuel as recorded by Bokser, or in his Samuel's Commentary on the Mishnah (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 184, 199-201, the percentages are very small. Tirzah Z. Meacham, “Tosefta as Template: Yerushalmi Niddah,” in Introducing Tosefta (New York: Ktav, 1999), 181, implies--but does not make explicit--the dearth of Toseftan material in Babylonia prior to the middle generations. On the increasing preference for citation of Palestinian amoraim by middle-generation Babylonians, see Kalmin, sages, 46-47, 58-59, and 89-94. On the adaptation of Palestinian sources by Babylonians, see Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, and Dor, 15-16, n. 7; 16, n. 1; 24, 36, 66-73, 77, 79-115, and 127-40.
the two centers--perhaps even comingling proto-Talmudic collections--to create new products whose sum was greater than their parts.
Here then is the crux of the argument: the Bavli’s themes – its major subjective concerns, the tannaitic sources it employs and much of its amoraic content9— may have largely been set by the end of this middle period of the Babylonian amoraic activity. This reading of the evidence has some wide-reaching implications. Not least among these is a reassessment of the striking affinities that we see between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. In this, I am strongly influenced by the work of Alyssa Gray,10 without whose work such a reappraisal would simply be impossible.
Until Gray's recent work, the scholarly consensus was that the “editors” of the Bavli did not have the Yerushalmi in front of them as they went about the business of putting shape to their
Talmud.11 Gray, however, has convincingly shown that the prominence of the structural features shared by the two documents, at least as far as Avodah Zarah is concerned, is too strong to be the result of independent treatment of the same or similar sources.12 She has demonstrated that, both on the large scale and the small, the shared structures of the two Talmuds are not necessarily called for by the supposedly independently received sources under their treatment.13 Furthermore, Gray has pointed out
9 Since there is a drop-off of amoraic activity following the fourth generation of Babylonian amoraim. See Kraemer, 57, 69-70, 80-81, 109, 138, and 335-36; Kalmin, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1989), 43-65; and idem, sages, 55-57, 169-72, 275-81.
10 Alyssa Gray, A Talmud in Exile: the Influence of Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah on the Formation of Bavli Avodah Zarah (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005).
11 Ibid., 9-15. Many prominent scholars remain attached to this view. See, for example, Jeffrey Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 159, as well as Leib Moskovitz, “Designation is Significant: An Analysis of the Conceptual Sugya in bSan 47b-48b,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 27, no.2 (Nov. 2003): 248, n. 100. To be fair, Moskovitz seems more circumspect than Rubenstein.
12 Gray, 43-77, 101-42, 149-63, 176-88, and 239-42. 13 Ibid., 85-86. See also pp. 33-39.
a number of passages, in tractate Avodah Zarah, in which the Bavli picks up a thread of conversation where the Yerushalmi left off.14 She is also able to point to juxtapositions of similar halakhic and aggadic materials in both versions of tractate Avodah Zarah, as well as their occurrence in the same order and at the same or similar intervals along the same or similar thematic arcs. Here is evidence of her thesis that the editors/redactors of the Babylonian Talmud had the Yerushalmi available to them, and that they made extensive use of it.15 I am largely convinced by her claims. It appears that the Bavli was greatly influenced by the Yerushalmi. That is to say, a redacted Palestinian Rabbinic text, much like the Yerushalmi we know, seems likely to have been both accessible to, and influential upon, the final redactors of tractate Avodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud.
At the same time, Gray makes a series of more radical claims that I find less convincing. She claims that our Yerushalmi was the source upon which the Bavli drew, and that it came to Babylonia in a very late period, in the sixthcentury, and furthermore that the Yerushalmi is likely to have come to Babylonia by way of a scroll. Finally, she denies the possibility that any other sources--such as an “early” Talmud, or a “Quelle” or “Q” text could have played a role in developing the affinities that we see between the two Talmuds.16
14 Ibid., 172-73. As Gray notes, she is not the first to notice this phenomenon. See Zvi H. Chajes, “Imrei Binah,” in Qol Sifrei Mohara'tz Chaiot (Jerusalem: Divrei Chakhamim, 1959), 495-97, and Halevy, vol. 8, 128-30. See Gray's discussion of their arguments, pp. 11-12.
15 Gray, 43-52, and 69-72.
16 For her claim that our Yerushalmi was the text drawn from by B. Avodah Zarah, and her denial of theories of early Talmud, as well as her negation of the possibility of a “Q” text, see ibid., 15-33. Her arguments against a Yerushalmi “Q” text are extensive, but based, by and large, on Mark Goodacre's arguments against a New Testament “Q,” in The Case Against “Q,” (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2002). At the heart of Goodacre's argument, ultimately, is the fact that no text containing even a fragment of the proposed N.T. “Q” has ever been recovered. This is not the case with Yerushalmi “Q.” The Yerushalmi Neziqin parallels to other Yerushalmi tractates are exactly the sorts of texts that one would expect Yerushalmi “Q” to look like. See nn. 18-20. For her dating of the initial influence of the Yerushalmi on the Bavli and her “scroll
hypothesis,” see Ibid., 199-234. For two rather convincing examples of the argument that the transmission of Rabbinic literature must have been oral in a very late period, see E.S. Rosenthal, “Toldot Nusach u-Ba’ayot
In particular, I find too strong her claim that “our” Yerushalmi is the only candidate available as the source upon which the Bavli drew.17 Many aspects of Saul Lieberman’s work on Yerushalmi Neziqin have been drawn into question since his initial publication in 1931.18 However, one aspect that has never been disputed is his claim for the existence of two “complete Yerushalmis” in an early period.19 To begin our survey of this theory, we should note that Lieberman’s method was to compare parallel texts within the Yerushalmi.20 He identified all passages of Yerushalmi Neziqin that paralleled other passages in the Yerushalmi, listing 138 parallels. He then analyzed the relationship between the parallels. Lieberman's method of bringing all paralleled texts from other places in the Yerushalmi that match or fit the context of Yerushalmi Neziqin presents us with a significant phenomenon. Just as is the case in the majority of other Yerushalmi tractates,21 at some point the redactors of Yerushalmi Neziqin
’Arikhah be-Cheqer ha-Talmud,” Tarbiz 57 (1988): 1-36, and Ya’akov Sussman, “Torah shebe’al Peh: Peshuto keMashma’o- Kocho shel Kotzo shel Yod,” Mechqarei Talmud 3 (2005): 209-384. However, Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Lehit’havut Shinuyei Girsa’ot Ba-Talmud Ha-Bavli”Sidra 7 (1991) 67-102, sees in the same set of phenomena evidence for a written transmission of Rabbinic texts in a relatively early period. My preference for Rosenthal and Sussman’s description of oral transmission is limited to the amoraic period, rather than the somewhat later period described by Friedman.
17 See Gray, 21. She puts forth the argument that Occam’s Razor dictates that we reject early Talmud or a “Q” text as an explanation, “…since we can explain the similarities and differences between y. and b. Avodah Zarah without early Talmud, we do not need it as a global explanation.”
18 Saul Lieberman,“Talmudah shel Qesarin,” Tarbiz 2, suppl. (1931): pp. See the literature cited by H.L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 173-75.
19 This is not a claim about the “missing chapters” of the Yerushalmi, or even a claim that every tractate had both forms of the Yerushalmi. The claim is that two or more large Yerushalmis on many, if not all, tractates existed at some relatively early period, Lieberman, 4-6. See also idem, Sifre Zutta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1968), 125-36. See Sussman, “Ve-Shuv le-Yerushalmi Neziqin,” Mehqarei Talmud 1 (1990): 83-87, who confirms this aspect of Lieberman’s work.
20 Nearly three-fourths of Lieberman's text is given over to these parallels! Lieberman, Talmudah shel Qesarin, 21-83.
21 On this phenomenon, see Baruch Bokser, “An Annotated Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism, vol. 2, ed. Jacob Neusner (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1992), 178-81.
expanded their text by inserting passages from other Yerushalmi tractates that held relevance for the text of Yerushalmi Neziqin. Conversely, the redactors of other Yerushalmi tractates, going about a similar expansionary project, set down in their texts passages that had their origins in Yerushalmi Neziqin. However, all of the texts that appear in other tractates whose context places their origins in Yerushalmi Neziqin do not come from our Yerushalmi Neziqin, but instead appear to come from another version of Yerushalmi Neziqin. All of these texts share a style much more like the remainder of the Yerushalmi that we know, and unlike the unique style of our Yerushalmi Neziqin. Furthermore, all of the expansions imported to Yerushalmi Neziqin from other tractates look like Yerushalmi Neziqin in their style and form.
Although we should make some allowances for editorial revision in the process of transfer, the awkwardness that we see generally in the wake of such transfers leads to the conclusion that such revisions were minimal.22 Implication: there were at one point two more or less complete
Yerushalmis.23 This factor, unmentioned in Gray’s book, opens the door to the possibility that a different version of the Yerushalmi may have had an influence on the Bavli in an early period.
Finally, the sudden and striking proliferation of Palestinian traditions in the middle Babylonian amoraic period strikes me as too strong to lay the credit for all, or nearly all of the strong affinities between the two Talmuds in a relatively late a point in time, as Gray does. By stripping away all material post-dating this middle period from Bavli Rosh Hashanah, I have reconstructed a number of passages in which most of the striking thematic affinities the two Talmuds have for one another remain intact. Gray points to a large number of shared structures and themes between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. I posit that, for Bavli Rosh Hashanah at least, some number of shared thematic elements are, in
22 On this awkwardness in all its myriad manifestations, see ibid.
23 As noted, despite all the “lively discussion” surrounding Yerushalmi Neziqin, this particular point has never been drawn into debate since Lieberman's initial publication in 1931. See Strack and Stemberger, 173-75.
fact, located in a fourth century layer of the text. On the other hand, Grey’s claim of late (post fifth century) influence in b. Avodah Zarah does not, in my opinion, fully obtain in b. Rosh Hashanah. There it often seems restricted to shared structural affinities. 24 In other words, I claim that while the themes shared by some of the passages in both tractates were established by the fourth century, the Bavli’s shared structures in those same passages were likely established by its later editors.
II. Additional Scholarly Influences
To fully lay the foundation for this project, I find it right to review the influences on my thinking in two areas: A. The role of the early amoraim in the formation of the two Talmuds; and B. The role of middle-generation Babylonian amoraim in the redaction of the Bavli.
A. The Role of the Early Amoraim in the Formation of the Two Talmuds
I am indebted to Baruch Bokser’s groundbreaking work in this area. Bokser showed that the early Babylonian amora Shemuel had a decided interest in the Mishnah. Shemuel's comments, as recorded in the Bavli, refer to the Mishnah, and to beraitot closely associated with it, in particularly high percentages.25 Bokser took this to imply that in Babylonia the first flowering of that Talmud began with a strong emphasis on Mishnah commentary. Prior to Bokser’s study, Jacob Nahum Epstein had already noted that the Mishnah became a subject of intense study in Babylonia within a generation of its redaction.26 Epstein had claimed that this differed from the way the Mishnah was treated in
24 I will define what I mean by “structure” vs. “theme” below in the description of my methodology. 25 Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism, 253-82 and 426-28
26 Epstein, Mavo le-Nusach 211-34, 349-52; and Mevo’ot l’Sifrut ha-Amoraim (Tel Aviv, 1962), 12. See also Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews of Babylonia, 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1966-70), 1:163-63, 169, 174,
Palestine. Though the text was more carefully preserved in Palestine, there the Mishnah was viewed as an important part of a larger tannaitic curriculum, not a text to be studied in isolation.27 Bokser built on Epstein’s argument, convincingly presenting the converse: Shemuel, at least, attempted to study the Mishnah in near isolation from other tannaitic texts. Bokser’s most controversial (and for me, most inspirational) conclusion posits that the culture of Mishnah study in Babylonia may have led to Mishnah commentaries, one by Shemuel and perhaps another by Rav.28 These putative commentaries also supposedly referred to beraitot that were directly related to the Mishnah, but tended not to deal directly with the “Toseftan” beraitot.29
Taking a step back to assess Bokser's work, it must be noted that Bokser only indicates that the likely referent points of Shemuel's--and, therefore, perhaps also Rav's--statements are mishnaiot and related beraitot. In other words, it is generally more likely that in any given memra, they comment on a Mishnah or related beraitot, not that they exclusively do so. It is overly reductive to claim that the first “Babylonian Talmud” was only interested in Mishnah commentaries. Neither Epstein nor Bokser make such a claim. They speak of general trends: higher percentages of Mishnah commentary in the first Babylonian amoraic generation and a greater academic interest in Mishnah than in other subjects. From
176-77; 2:92-125, 284-87; 134-135. See also Jechiel Weinberg, “The Talmudic Exegesis of the Mishnah,” in The Isaiah Wolfsberg Jubilee Volume (Tel Aviv, 1955), 86-105.
27 Epstein, Mavo le-Nusach, 706-26, 771-803, and Mevo’ot l’Sifrut ha-Amoraim, 604-6. See also Avraham Weiss, Mehqarim be-Sifrut ha-Amoraim (New York, 1962), 1-5 and see/see also v. See also Sussman, “Torah shebe’al Peh”, 245-48.
28 Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism, 461-67.
29 See n. 6. See also Meacham, 184, and 219-20, who argues that the Tosefta imparts a structural element to the Yerushalmi. A. Joshua Cahan is currently at work on a dissertation that calls Meacham’s claims into doubt. Ultimately, whether or not the Toseftan beraitot provided a structural frame for the Yerushalmi is a secondary concern for me. To me, the major point of importance is that these sources seem not to have held much cultural currency in the early generations of amoraic Babylonia. Conversely, they seem to have held relatively more importance in coeval Rabbinic circles in Palestine. In the fourth century they gained a greater level of currency in Babylonia. This Toseftan rise in status correlates with Kalmin’s claimed
Epstein and Bokser's work we discern that the major project of the first generation of amoraim in Babylonia may have been the practice of commenting on the Mishnah. From Avraham Weiss we see that perhaps the major project of the next generation was collecting these comments of the first. Noting a trend toward the collection of the first generation's comments on the Mishnah by the second, Weiss envisioned the gradual accretion of these traditions among Babylonian amoraim of the first two
generations slowly forming a “proto-Bavli.” This first Babylonian Talmud was, supposedly, largely but not entirely, Mishnah commentary produced by the first generation and largely, but not entirely
collected by the second.30
Tirzah Meacham points to a very different project in Palestine.31 Although the interest in the elucidation of Mishnah remains in evidence as the central element of the general project, Meacham claims that the Toseftan beraitot held a higher level of interest for the producers of the Yerushalmi.32
30 The consistency of the behavior of the amoraim of these generations, together with the equally consistent different behaviors of later ones, points to the likelihood that these phenomena accurately reflect changes in Talmud Torah during the amoraic period, rather than the thoroughgoing hand of a later editor. See nn. 64-65.
31 Meacham, 84. Cahan disputes Meacham’s findings, suggesting a higher overall interest in Tosefta in Babylonian circles than in Palestinian ones. See above n. 29. I would like to suggest the possibility that further work might show that both Meacham and Cahan have a bit of the truth. Perhaps on deeper
investigation we would find that there was a greater interest in Tosefta in the early Palestinian generations of amoraim than in the early Babylonian ones. However, once we look at the Bavli’s treatment of Toseftan materials from the fourth century onward, we might discover a greater interest in these materials than was the case earlier in Palestine.
32 Jacob Neusner in Judaism in Society: the Evidence of the Yerushalmi: Toward the Natural History of a Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1983), 75-78, notes that 90 percent of the Yerushalmi is taken up with exegesis of the Mishnah. Whether or not his percentages can be trusted, he does not deny the importance of the Tosefta in Yerushalmi studies. The Yerushalmi, he claims, presents itself as a Mishnah commentary and seems largely to lack interest in direct exegesis of scripture. This stands in contrast to the way that Neusner views the Bavli, a document he sees as having a strong interest in the direct interpretation of scripture. See his Judaism The Classical Statement; The Evidence of the Bavli (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 94-114. This is the point he attempts to make in claiming that 90 percent of the Yerushalmi is commentary on the Mishnah: its discussions revolve around the Mishnah??and other tannaitic sources of the same genre, evincing a decided disinterest in direct interpretation of the Bible. He does not deny the deep importance of the Toseftan beraitot to the “program” of the Yerushalmi. Indeed he notes the
The production of commentary on these beraitot seems to have been of importance and they seem to have been an additional part of the curriculum in Palestine.33 According to Meacham, this importance can be seen in the Yerushalmi's use of “Toseftan” beraitot as a structural element. 34 That is to say, the Yerushalmi presents itself not only as an amoraic commentary on the Mishnah, but also one concerned with the “Toseftan” beraitot.
Meacham states, “Much of the amoraic discussion in yNid is directed by an idea in tNid; other than commentary on the Mishnah and actual cases, there is very little amoraic material which is not connected to tNid beraitot or ideas. It is therefore likely that tNid provided the outline for the discussions in yNid.”35
While acknowledging the truth of Meacham’s general observation regarding the import of the Toseftan beraitot in Palestine, I have some reservations about her conclusions. I think that Meacham sometimes blurs the distinction between form and content. For example, in the above quote she speaks of both “tNid beraitot [and] ideas” as a single thing. Meacham’s conceptual hendiadys may have misled her. Ideas that appear in both the Tosefta and the Yeushalmi do not necessarily originate in the Tosefta, but may have arisen independently in both sources, or from a shared source. In my view, making a claim of affinity (not to mention paternity) requires we show a similarity both of form and content, of language
citation of Toseftan Beraitot and their importance to the discussion of the Yerushalmi throughout Judaism in Society: pp: 64, 87-88, 91, 94, 103, 107, 124-25, 147, and 165.
33 See n. 18. On the differences between the roles of the Tannaim in Palestinian Rabbinic circles and
Babylonian ones (at least early on in the amoraic period), see Sussman, Torah Shebe’al Peh, 241, n. 52, and 270, n. 38, but see also 268, nn., 34 and 35.
34 See n. 29.
35 Meacham, 220. I also want to note that, despite an apparent similarity, there is actually little overlap between Maecham’s contention and Judith Hauptman’s early work in Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship Between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources (University Press of America, 1987). Hauptman
applied her (now) more conservative claim, which posited that certain beraitot may have made up an early layer in the redaction of many Talmudic passages, in a more restricted way. Hauptman never claimed that these beraitot imparted a structural frame to either Talmud.
and conception, not just one or the other. The following quote, from the same page as that above, is telling of her assumptions:
“Tosefta is a corpus closely resembling Mishnah in its order, subjects discussed, sages quoted, and time of redaction; what would be more natural for an editor to rely on than one tannaitic source as a commentary to another, and hence use it as the basis to organize amoraic
discussions?“
“What would be more natural” is a seductively facile phrase, but ultimately entirely subjective. We do not know what status the editors of the Yerushalmi assigned the Toseftan Beraitot, and, at least in this case, we are unable to draw conclusions about what they saw as “natural.” Nonetheless, Meacham does point to a real phenomenon, and the Toseftan beraitot seem to have held import for the Palestinian Rabbis as a part of their regular curricular diet.
By contrast, Bokser's work shows this not to be the case for Shemuel as he is presented in the Bavli, the majority of whose comments relate directly to the themes of the Mishnah, rather than to another tannaitic layer.36 Bokser further claims that what is true for Shemuel is likely also the case with Rav as well as other early Babylonian amoraim.37 On the other hand, Meacham's work on Yerushalmi Niddah makes the claim that amoraim in the Yerushalmi, even those contemporary with Rav and Shemuel, are presented as looking to the Toseftan beraitot for insight in their studies of the Mishnah. Meacham's work points to an element in the development of the Yerushalmi that is seemingly lacking among the early Babylonian amoraim. To state as clearly as possible: her observations suggest that, in addition to early amoraic Mishnah commentary, the Yerushalmi likely developed with amoraic
36 Indeed Bokser, Post-Mishnaic Judaism, 445-47, points out the stylistic and structural differences between the Tosefta and Shemuel's “commentary” on the Mishnah. He concludes that Shemuel was driven by his own series of agendas relating to the Mishnah and was not following the structure of the Tosefta or other beraitot in making his comments.
commentary on and discussion about additional tannaitic documents, including the “Toseftan” beraitot. With this in mind, it is worth considering the possibility that some of the Toseftan beraitot made their way to Babylonia embedded in a matrix of amoraic comment and discussion: in other words, as part of a Talmud.
My attempt here is to point out an affinity between Bokser’s work and Meacham’s suggestion. Bokser and Meacham's conclusions, though in both cases based on real phenomena and hard evidence, are to some extent speculative. Shemuel does seem to have spoken more of Mishnah than other
subjects, yet the idea that he produced a “Mishnah commentary” is a deductive leap. Though it is clear that the Mishnah provided Shemuel with a framework for his Talmud Torah, Bokser struggles to fit his teachings into the genre of “commentary.” It is not clear that Shemuel ever produced an ad locum commentary on the Mishnah. It is only clear that the Mishnah was the primary object of Shemuel’s halakhic meditations. Indeed the importance of Yehuda bar Yehezqel as a collector of statements by Rav and Shemuel that refer to the Mishnah makes the former conclusion somewhat less likely. After all, what is the necessity of a collector of statements that refer to the Mishnah if each such statement was already tightly tied to the text of the Mishnah? Likewise, Meacham shows the clear importance of Tosefta Niddah to the Palestinian Rabbis who studied Mishnah Niddah. Yet her claim that Tosefta Niddah provides Yerushalmi Niddah with a structural frame for amoraic discussion is not fully worked out. After all, contrary to her claims, ideas present in the Tosefta can appear with frequency in the Yerushalmi without necessarily imparting structure. Structure often has more to do with order of presentation than shared conception; Meacham sometimes blurs this distinction between structure and content. She also seems unclear as to whether this purported phenomenon came about as the result of genuine amoraic interest in the Tosefta, or whether it was the result of later editorial reformulation of amoraic discussion.
Either of these contemporary scholars’ conclusions on their own, striking though they are, should only be built upon with great caution. Yet, when taken together, Bokser and Meacham’s studies
are suggestive of a consistent picture of early amoraic difference in the two geographical centers of Talmud Torah prior to the fourth century. Putting aside for a moment the speculative conclusions of these two scholars and simply focusing on the evidence they have carefully collected, we encounter here what looks like a geographic difference regarding the focus of study at that time. In the east, the major subject of importance, almost certainly as far as Shemuel is concerned and likely also for Rav, was the Mishnah. In the west, the Toseftan beraitot, along with other tannaitic sources, were an important part of the curriculum. It is the intermeshing of these two scholars’ data that makes this probable difference in the focus of Talmud Torah in this period worth pursuing.
Another possible difference one can discern along geographic lines is the rise of the dispute form.38 Avraham Weiss claims that the dispute form was an element present from nearly the beginning of the amoraic period in Palestine, yet almost lacking in Babylonia amongst the early amoraim.39 Weiss claims that this form originated with early Palestinian amoraim, and that Rabbi Yohannan and Reish Lakish in particular played key roles in its development. David Kraemer's work on the development of stylistic forms among the amoraim will also be of importance in our discussion of this geographic difference prior to the mid-fourth century.40 Kraemer's work confirms the transitional nature of the middle generation of amoraim in Babylonia. His results demonstrate that this form flourished in those generations.41 Dispute forms seem to have represented a critical element in the Talmud Torah of Rabbi
38 See n. 7.
39 Weiss, Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli, 2-4, 5, nn., 10-12; and Al ha-Yetzirah, 10-23; and see n. 30. 40 See n. 7.
41 Kraemer, 80-136, 327-33. However, despite his care in distinguishing between the amoraim along chronological lines, he tends to lump the amoraim within a generation together without geographic distinction, even stating at one point, “certainly no obvious difference between the Babylonian and
Palestinian sages is apparent,” p. 38. (He refers here to amoraim prior to the fourth Babylonian generation. The context is an explanation of his restriction of his study to the Bavli). Despite this, he does note the exceptional nature of R. Yohanan and R. Shimon b. Lakish in the development of dispute forms, pp. 69-79, 325-29. He argues, however, that artificial elements in some of their dispute dialogue makes their traditions
Yohannan and Reish Lakish. This element is largely lacking in the literary remains of their Babylonian contemporaries. It is therefore likely to have been lacking from any early versions of the “Talmud” that may have existed in Babylonia in this period. The corollary of this is that dispute forms seem likely to have been present in proto-Talmudic compositions in Palestine. Although, as we have seen, Avraham Weiss and his student Meyer Feldblum already came to similar conclusions nearly a half century ago and more study is needed to determine the extent to which the dispute form had spread in the early Palestinian amoraic generations. Also, study is needed to determine the level of sophistication that the form took along both geographic and chronological lines. Kraemer tackles the latter quite well, but the former still needs more study.
A third point of distinction between the two centers in the early amoraic period is the influential career of R. Yohannan. The intellectual legacy of both Rav and Shemuel seems to have largely been in the hands of students and tradents.42 The Babylonian amoraic attitude towards and use of Rav’s and Shemuel’s traditions changed over the course of time.43 However, Weiss's work attributes an ongoing stylistic influence to Rabbi Yohannan. Weiss credits Rabbi Yohanan with the creation of the sugya
suspect and he urges caution. Kalmin goes further, stating that Weiss failed to fully make his case, sages, 97-103. While it may appear to undermine the case I make for the Johinine origins of the dispute form, I
ultimately agree that the extended dialogues between Reish Lakish and R. Yohanan must be approached with caution. However, the uniqueness in terms of their style of argumentation, which both Weiss and Kraemer point to, is a real phenomenon that is best accounted as evidence of authentically historical uniqueness. Indeed, even Kalmin ultimately acknowledges the real possibility that, while the extended dialogues may have accreted in a later period, the basic Johinine-Simonic disputes (i.e., the juxtaposition of two opposing views) are historically authentic.
42 See n. 5.
43 See Kalmin, sages, 52-59. Kalmin indicates that some early amoraim see Rav as more authoritative than Shemuel, while later amoraim do not; only early amoraim make distinctions between the authority of Rav and Shemuel in connection with their seats of residence; only post fourth generation amoraim try to harmonize their conflicting opinions; several early amoraim tend to cite one figure or the other, later amoraim cite them in approximately the same percentages; early amoraim tend to take great offence to perceived challenges to these figures authoritative status, not so for later amoraim; finally, special status is given to amoraim with special knowledge or understanding of Rav’s opinions only in stories involving early amoraim.
form, a form that was to have long-lasting import.44 Rabbi Yohannan’s and his students’ unique and continuing influence in matters of Talmudic style and form is a phenomenon that has been noted by a variety of scholars.45 Additionally, the anonymous editorial voice of the Talmud or “S'tam ha-Talmud” seems to have been present earlier in Palestine than in Babylonia.46 Zwi Dor has shown that the content of some anonymous statements from the Yerushalmi make their way into the mouths of middle
generation Babylonian amoraim in the Bavli. Unless these Babylonian statements are taken as pseudepigraphic, this fact demands a pre mid-fourth century dating, at least for those particular anonymous statements in the Yerushalmi. Given this, it is plausible that some amount of anonymous material may have been part of proto-talmudic compositions in Palestine.
B. The Role of Middle-Generation Babylonian Amoraim in the Redaction of the Bavli: Mid-Fourth Century Palestinianization and “Some Yerushalmi”
We turn now to discuss the theory that amoraim of the middle generations in Babylonia played a redactional role in the formation of the Bavli.47 The “middle generations” in Babylonia refers to the third and fourth generations of amoraim. Since Halevy’s publication of Dorot Rishonim, one view in modern scholarship of Rabbinics has been that this “middle” period of amoraim in Babylonia held a
44 See the works cited in n. 35. By “sugya,” Weiss seems to mean a matrix of tannaitic materials and amoraic meimrot incorporating amoraic and/or anonymous dispute dialogs. See Feldblum, גכ . Chanokh -טי Albeck came to similar conclusions, Mavo la-Talmudim (Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1969), 185.
45 See the literature cited by Strack and Stemberger, 86. 46 On the dating of the Stam ha-Talmud ha-Bavli, see n. 65. 47 See Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 4-8.
unique place in the annals of the composition of the Talmud.48 According to Richard Kalmin, these amoraim seem to play a “transitional role” in the formation of the Talmud in a number of ways. To recall, there are subtle hints that they may have been involved in some kind of redactional process.49 Kalmin lists seven ways that fourth generation amoraim appear to be “transitional” in ways that suggest they may have played a “redactional role.”50
They also tend to cite Palestinian sources as a regular part of their curriculum, unlike their first and second-generation predecessors.51 In addition to its affinities with Palestinian sources, this
generation evinces a kind of literary separation between itself and the amoraim who came before and after.52 Previously, Dor noted that the fourth generation amora Rava and his students seemed to have a special affinity with the traditions of R. Yohannan.53 Others have noted the special affinity that R. Hisda (third generation) had with the Toseftan beraitot. 54
This boils down to three points:
48 See the literature cited by Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 249, n. 6. 49 Ibid., 169-73.
50 Ibid., 169-70.
51 Kalmin, sages, see 46-47 for the fourth generation amoraim Abbye and Rava and their use of Palestinian traditions; 58-59 for the absence of R. Yohannan’s statements among first and second generation amoraim and their presence among amoraim of the third generation; 87-110 for a general discussion of Palestinian materials preserved by the Bavli and the unique place of the R. Yohannan traditions.
52 Here I refer to the phenomenon of Babylonian tradition chains usually leading from the first and/or second generation to the third or from the fourth to the fifth and/or sixth, but rarely from the first or second or third and beyond. Kalmin, sages, 171. See also pp. 127-40.
53 Dor focuses on Rava and his circle, showing his unique relationship with Rabbi Yohanan's traditions as well as his adoption of anonymous Palestinian materials (pp. 11-78). Dor also shows that Rav Pappa had an affinity for Palestinian traditions in the Yerushalmi, whether they appear with attribution to Palestinian amoraim or anonymously, 79-115. See also Halevy, 8: 128-30.
1. These middle-Babylonian generations seemed to have greater access to Palestinian sources than previous groups and they see those sources as having great cultural authority.
2. They stand at a moment of change in terms of literary forms: the adoption and adaptation of the dispute form and changes in transmission of traditions (the “break” in chains of tradition). 3. They seem to behave in a manner that Kalmin describes as redactional.
In his most recent book, Kalmin explains these phenomena along with the adoption of other more “Palestinian” behaviors by Babylonian amoraim as a general “Palestinianization” of the
Babylonian rabbinic community at this time.55 He notes that this mirrors a similar mid-fourth century “Syrianization” of Christian communities in the east, in which Western cultural practices were adopted and adapted by Eastern communities of scholars.56 The extensive contemporary scholarship cited by Kalmin shows it is probable that a rapid but short-lived Persian conquest of the regions of Syria and Palestine led to population transfers from the Western rim of the Near East to the more Easterly-lying territories that stood under Sassanian Persian rule.57 This upheaval and resettlement of scholars from the west to the east seems to have had a major effect, giving eastern communities access to previously unknown literature and altering the culture of Christian communities there. Kalmin claims the same is likely true of eastern Jewish communities.58 It is my contention that the affinities that we see between the sugyot, chapters, and even tractates of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, can date no earlier than this moment of cultural connection and begin in this period. Some early versions of Yerushalmi-like
55 Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 4-10, 149-50, and 173-86. 56 Ibid, 4-8.
57 See in particular pp. 6-7.
58 See, for instance ibid., 149-67. See also Jenny R. Labendz, “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature,” AJS Review 30, no. 2 (2006): 347-92. Schafer finds Rav Hisda to be especially prominent in Babylonian Rabbinic traditions about Jesus, pp. 16-17, 26-31, 42, 114, and 153, n.5.
materials may have come to Babylonia in the mid-fourth century as a result of these historical events. It is plausible enough that this new arrival could have been one of the major factors that led to the shift in the sources used as well as the new literary forms and styles so prominent among middle-generation Babylonian amoraim.
Finally, I must address the theory that the Nahotei, Babylonian amoraim who traveled to Palestine and returned to Babylonia with Palestinian traditions, were chiefly responsible for the
intellectual exchange between the two centers.59 The nineteenth century founders of the academic study of Talmud imagined the Nahota as a traveling businessman who, along with physical merchandise acquired at market in Palestine, hauled large numbers of tannaitic and amoraic traditions, to
Babylonia.60 Isaac Halevy (1847–1914) and Ze’ev Wolf Jawitz (1847–1924) both speculated that the Nahotei were responsible for the Palestinian ambience of the Bavli.61 In particular, Halevy’s
description of the Nahotei as itinerant scholars/traveling merchants influenced almost all depictions of these sages for the length of the twentieth century. Noting that the Bavli itself depicts these travelers as providing freestanding traditions rather than redacted passages, sources or sugyot, Kalmin, and Gray both reject the possibility that the numbers of traditions brought to Babylonia by these rabbinic
travelers could have been large enough to fully (or even mostly) account for the amount of Palestinian materials we see in the Bavli. 62 Gray dismisses the Nahotian theory because of the late period in which she argues the major exchanges of Rabbinic materials occurred. Kalmin does so because he sees the
59 My claim that they are mostly Babylonians who left for Palestine and then returned rests on firm ground. See below, p. 202, n. 244
60 Alyssa Gray, A Talmud in Exile: the Influence of Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah on the Formation of Bavli Avodah Zarah (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005), 5-7.
61 Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim (Israel: Mifalei Sefarim l’Yitso), 7:455-473. Jawitz, Sefer Toldot Israel (Tel Aviv: Ahiever, 1935), 7:159-164. Gray argues that their conclusions are deeply influenced by their reading of the Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon. See Gray, ibid.
transfer of Rabbinic sources as part of a broader shifting of populations, customs and literary works from the west to the east beginning in the mid-third century.
The most important Nahotei were Rav Dimi (flor. c. 310-340), Rav Yitzhak b. Yosef (flor c. 320-350), Rav Shemuel b. Yehuda (flor c. 290-320), Rabin (a.k.a. Rav Avin, flor c. 310-340) and Ulla (flor c. 290-320). It is striking that, with the exception of Ulla, all of these are middle generation Babylonian amoraim whose activity was limited to the first half of the fourth century. I view these travelers as playing a part in the changes that we see during these generations. To be clear, there is simply not enough evidence of large-scale traditions brought by the travelers to make a claim about their candidacy as the major importers of Rabbinics to Babylonia. Even if they were working “behind the scenes” bringing such traditions, they would still have functioned as part of the phenomena I note, not counter to it.
That said, it seemed right to me to settle this question by embarking on a new study of the Nahotei as one of the chapters of this project. Above I mentioned the Nahotian hypothesis as an alternate explanation that could have the effect of mitigating my results by presenting different framework for explaining them. In the final chapter of this dissertation I will do away with this possibility. I will argue that, although they represent one known vector that carried Palestinian Rabbinic materials to Babylonia in the fourth century, at least in b. Seder Mo’ed, they do little more than clarify, modify or reassign the authorship of traditions already known in Babylonia prior to their reports. In my investigations I have discovered that Nahotian reports, putatively received from Palestinian masters, most often conform to Babylonian preconceptions of Palestinian traditions. My hypothesis is that Nahotian reports were mostly concerned with Palestinian traditions already current in Babylonia before they began their journeys. Nahotian reports are quoted 103 times in Bavli Seder Mo’ed. Of those, 93 deal with traditions already known in Babylonia prior to the Nahotian report. Only 10 of the 103 represent new traditions, utterly unknown to the Babylonian Rabbis receiving the report.
My study of the Nahotei has also allowed me to re-conceptualize their project. I have drawn three new theoretical conclusions about the Nahotei that future discussion of this group of Rabbis will have to address. First, the Nahotei seem to have consciously limited their reports in b. Seder Mo’ed, for the most part, to commentary on rabbinic traditions previously in circulation in Babylonia. I argue that the Nahotian phenomenon is yet one more example of the deep investment that fourth century
Babylonian Rabbis made in the Torah of Zion. Second, I claim Nahotian activity is best understood when we seat it in a fourth-century pilgrimage context. The fourth century saw a marked increase in pilgrimage both among Christians, who were visiting Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and among
Zoroastrians visiting sacred fires in Pars, Azerbaijan and Media. Accounts from both these religious traditions depict fourth century pilgrimage as an opportunity to meet and confer with living people. I understand the Nahotei as Rabbinic pilgrims of the fourth century.
Finally, I will argue Nahotian reports may have aided the shaping of later Babylonian attitudes towards Palestinian Torah. There is currently a burgeoning field of scholars re-conceptualizing late-antique pilgrimage accounts as an early genre of travel writing. In my view, contemporary analytic lenses developed in the study of travel writing yield fruitful results when applied to the Nahotei. Using methods borrowed from this scholarship, I conclude that the reports of the Nahotei may have played a role in forming the first flowerings of an image that some Babylonian Rabbis held of Palestinian Rabbis and their learning as stalwart, if unimaginative, preservers of tradition. These conclusions paint a very different picture of this group of Rabbis than has previously been put forth. I hope my
reassessment will begin a conversation about the role that travels between the two centers played in classical rabbinic circles.
III. Methodology and Application
The upheavals and population transfers of the third century seem to have resulted in real differences between the Babylonian Rabbis of the fourth century and those before them. While the Mishnah had traveled in an earlier period from the former center to the latter, and altered the culture of the Babylonian rabbinic community, the quantity of material from Palestine that was current in
Babylonian Rabbinic circles of the late third to mid-fourth century was unprecedented. Roughly a third of the content of b. Rosh Hashanah consists of these materials. Here I refer to the Toseftan beraitot, statements of Palestinian amoraim that appear to be unknown to early Babylonian amoraim, and statements of middle-generation Babylonian amoraim that share affinities with materials in the Yerushalmi. My claim is that much of this Palestinian material reached Babylonia in the middle amoraic generations.63
It is my further contention that these same materials, in combination with the work of early Babylonian amoraim, make up, in a number of passages, submerged redacted units laying under the surface of the final text of b. Rosh Hashanah. Imagine the Talmud as a palimpsest, with an older redacted sugya often lying beneath a newer one. This is what I found as a commonplace phenomenon in many passages in b. Rosh Hashanah as I stripped away the materials added to the tractate from the fifth Babylonian amoraic generation on. In doing so, I have discovered that the essential content affinities that the passages share with the Yerushalmi remain intact. However, often the sources that share these affinities no longer share the same structure with the Yerushalmi passages. When the Bavli’s later editorial frame is removed along with late amoraic commentary, steps in the dialectic flow
63 The lack of material or content in the Bavli which is present in the Yerushalmi cannot, at least in discrete cases, be taken as disproving the influence of the Yerushalmi or Yerushalmi-like texts on the Bavli as a whole. After all, editors can choose to omit passages from source material in their final redacted work quite easily for any number of reasons. Ultimately, the positive affinities between the two Talmuds in terms of structure and content outweigh the silent negatives.
the sugya will necessarily disappear. These vanishing steps are often the self-same progressions of argument that match the order of the affinitive Yerushalmi passage. Without these more recently added bits of editorial frame and late amoraic commentary, the passages no longer share the small scale structural affinities that Gray point to.
At a number of junctures in many passages, there is evidence of a “core sugya” that was the product of middle-generation amoraic Babylonia responding to earlier Palestinian materials, versions of which can be found in Y. Rosh Hashanah. As I analyze each unit of several example passages, I will propose that early core Babylonian sugyot often react to and build upon parallel64 sugyot found in the Yerushalmi, but do not mirror them in structure. I will argue that later redactor(s) altered these core Babylonian sugyot, simultaneously adjusting its structure to more closely mirror its Palestinian ancestor, while also expanding it and adding uniquely Babylonian elements of greater sophistication and complexity: It is these altered sugyot that appear in our Bavli. I make no proposal as to the
motivation for the later redactors to have brought the Babylonian sugyot into greater structural affinity with the Palestinian. I merely note a phenomenon that I see occurring in b. Rosh Hashanah. My methodology for uncovering the core passages will be explained below.
64 I use the term parallel here, and throughout the chapter and the whole of the work, mostly out of convention. Scholars of Rabbinics writing in Hebrew generally use the term “maqbilot”- most often translated as “parallel” to refer these sorts of affinities between Rabbinic texts. Scholars writing in English have adopted the term “parallel” and “synoptic” to refer to the relationship. The latter term is likely
borrowed from New Testament studies. Neither term is entirely satisfactory as a description of the affinities between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Rather than parallel or synoptic (both imply an overall neatly tallying account), their relationship might be described as asymptotic: in general, as one attempts to account for influence between traditions -- those of the Bavli on the one hand, and those of the Yerushalmi on the other-- it becomes clear that the difference between them is often smaller in one respect (for example, we may find the same or similar midrash halakhah on the same verses- as we will in our passage), while simultaneously greater in another (the attributions may totally differ, an accompanying narrative in one Talmud may be absent in the other, and so on). However, the difference is rarely so small that one is able to specify that the Bavli traditions could plausibly be taken as deriving exclusively from the Yerushalmi tradition. Nor is it often great enough that one able to specify that the Bavli traditions clearly could not have been derived si from the Yerushalmi tradition. This conundrum should properly lie at the heart of the concerns of Bavli-Yerushalmi studies.
