The Mishnah: Religious Perspectives (Handbook of Oriental Studies - Handbuch der Orientalistik)

THE MISHNAH RELIGIOUS

PERSPECTIVES

HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES ERSTE ABTEILUNG

DER NAHE UND MITTLERE OSTEN THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

H. A L T E N M Ü L L E R

B. H R O U D A

B.A. L E V I N E · R.S. O ' F A H E Y

K.R. V E E N H O F · C.H.M. V E R S T E E G H

FÜNFUNDVIERZIGSTER

BAND

THE MISHNAH RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES

' 6 8 ‫ ׳‬V

THE MISHNAH RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES BY

JACOB NEUSNER

' 6 8 ‫ ׳‬V

BRILL LEIDEN · B O S T O N · KÖLN

1999

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a Neusner, Jacob, 1932The Mishnah : religious perspectives / by Jacob Neusner. p. cm. — (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mitüere Osten, ISSN 0169-9423 ; 45. Bd.) " . . . this book completes the condensation and recapitulation of large-scale research of mine"—Pref. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004114920 (cl. : alk. paper) 1. Mishnah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Judaism—History-Talmudic period, 10-425. I. Tide. II. Series : Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten ; 45. Bd. BM497.8.N478384 1999 296.Γ2306—dc21 99-30517 CIP Die D e u t s c h e Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e H a n d b u c h der Orientalistik / Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill Teilw. hrsg. von H. Altenmüller. Literaturangaben

Teilw. hrsg. von B. Spuler. -

Teilw. mit Parallelt.; Handbook of oriental studies Abt. 1. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten = T h e Near and Middle East / hrsg. von H. Altenmüller ... Teilw. hrsg. von B. Spuler Bd. 45. Neusner, Jacob: The Mishnah religious perspectives. 1999 N e u s n e r , Jacob: The Mishnah religious perspectives / by Jacob Neusner. - Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 1999 (Handbuch der Orientalistik : Abt. 1, Der Nahe und Mitdere Osten ; Bd. 45) ISBN 90-04-11492-0

ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN 90 04 11492 0 © Copyright 1999 by Koninklijke Brill NV, leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS

‫־‬

TABLE O F C O N T E N T S Preface

ix

C h a p t e r O n e : T h e M i s h n a h a n d Scripture I. C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n s of the H a l a k h a h Wholly F r a m e d by the W r i t t e n T o r a h a. H o r a y o t b. N e g a i m c. Pesahim d. S h e b u o t e. S o t a h f. S u k k a h g. Y o m a II. W h a t the O r a l T o r a h Did N o t C o n t r i b u t e III. C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n s of the H a l a k h a h Wholly Defined within the O r a l T o r a h IV. Categories that E n c o m p a s s in their System Facts Set forth in Scripture: [1] Berakhot V. Categories t h a t E n c o m p a s s in their System Facts Set forth in Scripture: [2] T a a n i t VI. T h e O r a l T o r a h F o r m s a C a t e g o r y out of Scripture's T o p i c : T a m i d VII. Categories b e y o n d Scripture's F r a m e w o r k but S u b o r d i n a t e to Scripture's O w n Categories: D e m a i VIII. T h e O r a l T o r a h ' s O w n Categories: [1] Scripture's Imperatives w i t h o u t Scripture's Facts. T o h o r o t IX. T h e O r a l T o r a h ' s O w n Categories: [2] Uqsin X. T h e O r a l T o r a h ' s O w n Categories: [3] K e t u b o t . . XI. T h e O r a l T o r a h ' s Original Categories: [4] Q i d dushin XII. T h e O r a l T o r a h ' s Original Categories XIII. T h e O r a l T o r a h Systematizes the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n s , Spirit a n d Letter Alike: T h e F o u r Interstitial Categories a. S u b o r d i n a t e b u t N o t C o n c e n t r i c Expositions of the S a m e C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n s b. Received Topics, Innovative C o m p o s i t i o n s of Category-Formations Thereof

1 1 3 4 6 8 9 11 12 14 16 18 22 24 26 29 32 34 36 38

39 40 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VI

c.

Received Letter, N e w Spirit: T h e Asymmetrical C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n s of the O r a l T o r a h d. A Fresh S t a t e m e n t out of a Familiar T o p i c a n d R o u t i n e Exposition T h e r e o f XIV. S a m e Spirit, S a m e L e t t e r — B u t Lots M o r e Letters a. A b o d a h Z a r a h b. A r a k h i n c. Bekhorot d. Bikkurim e. K e r i t o t f. M a a s e r S h e n i g. M e i l a h h. M e n a h o t i. N e d a r i m - N a z i r j. P e a h k. R o s h H a s h a n a h I. Shebi c it m. Sheqalim n. Y e b a m o t XV. W h e r e the Letter Gives l i f e to the Spirit XVI. T y p e s of I n d e p e n d e n t Exposition of Received C a t egory-Formations. W h e n the O r a l T o r a h R e o r ganizes the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n a. B a b a Q a m m a - B a b a M e s i a - B a b a Batra b. H a g i g a h c. K e l i m d. Megillah e. M i q v a o t f. S a n h e d r i n - M a k k o t g. Z e b a h i m XVII. Kaleidoscopic Discourse X V I I I . S a m e Letter, N e w Spirit: W h e n the O r a l T o r a h Asks its O w n Q u e s t i o n s a b o u t the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s Topical Program a. Besah b. E r u b i n c. Gittin d. Hallali e. Hullin f. M o e d Q a t a n

41 42 43 43 46 47 48 49 51 52 54 55 55 56 57 58 58 59

61 62 68 70 75 77 79 82 86

90 91 93 96 100 102 105

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XIX. XX.

XXI.

g. M a a s e r o t h. Makhshirin i. O h a l o t j. Parah k. S h a b b a t O l d D o g , N e w Tricks W h e n the O r a l T o r a h Finds Fresh Issues in Received I n f o r m a t i o n a. Kilayim b. O r l a h c. T e b u l Y o m d. T e m u r a h e. T e r u m o t f. Y a d a y i m g. Z a b i m a n d N i d d a h Original Variations on Borrowed T h e m e s

C h a p t e r T w o : T h e M i s h n a h a n d its T i m e s : T h e T h r e e Stages of H a l a k h i c C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n I. T h e Starting Point: S e c o n d T e m p l e T i m e s II. Methodological Foundations: Correlating Seq u e n c e s of Sages with S e q u e n c e s of Rulings III. R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m in S e c o n d T e m p l e T i m e s ? IV. T h e P h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l R e a d i n g : A quo V. T h e Historical R e a d i n g : Ad. Quem VI. C o n s t r u c t i n g Categories for C o m p a r i s o n a n d C o n trast: T h e Systemic A p p r o a c h VII. T h e F o r m a t i v e History of the H a l a k h i c CategoryFormations VIII. T h e H a l a k h a h before 70 IX. T h e Interim-Category-Formation: T h e Halakhah between the W a r s of 6 6 - 7 0 a n d 132-135 X. T h e H a l a k h a h of the M i d - S e c o n d C e n t u r y : T h e H a l a k h a h ' s Fully-Realized C a t e g o r y - F o r m a t i o n in S t r u c t u r e a n d System XI. T h e O r a l T o r a h Seen W h o l e : T h e Restoration of E d e n t h r o u g h the R e c o n s t r u c t i o n of Israel's Social Order XII. O n e Whole T o r a h , Oral and Written?

vil

107 109 111 115 118 125 130 130 132 135 138 139 142 147 154

157 157 161 165 168 172 1 79 180 183 187

193

205 207

Vlll

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C h a p t e r T h r e e : F o r m a n d M e a n i n g in the M i s h n a h I. F o r m u l a t i o n a n d T r a n s m i s s i o n of the M i s h n a h : By W h o m , For What? II. R h e t o r i c a n d Reality III. Form and Meaning IV. L a n g u a g e , Reality, a n d P o w e r V. L a n g u a g e Becomes O n t o l o g y

211 211 216 229 233 239

Index

247

PREFACE W i t h its twin, The Mishnah: Social Perspectives. Philosophy, Economics, Politics, this book completes the c o n d e n s a t i o n a n d recapitulation of largescale research of mine. I n o w t u r n to research precipitated by questions of religion, e n c o m p a s s i n g the social history of ideas a n d the religious uses of language. T h e first question of religion concerns the relationship of the M i s h n a h to Scripture. T h e second takes u p the relationship of the religious ideas people hold to the world in which they live. T h e third addresses the religious m e a n i n g of the formalization of language that characterizes the M i s h n a h in particular. T h e religious perspectives on the M i s h n a h direct o u r attention to three questions. First, h o w does the M i s h n a h relate to Scripture, or, in the (later) mythic language of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m , "the oral T o r a h " to " t h e written T o r a h " ? T h a t question until n o w has elicited generalizations a n d episodic cases; here I provide a complete analysis, based o n a systematic application of a single t a x o n o m i c p r o g r a m . S e c o n d , are we able to relate the stages in the u n f o l d i n g of the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h to the principal events of the times, w h i c h delineate those stages? T h e question focuses on the pre-70 c o m p o n e n t s of the H a l a k h a h that later comes to the surface in the M i s h n a h , but extends to the periods f r o m the destruction of the T e m p l e in 70 to the Bar K o k h b a W a r , concluded in ca. 135, then f r o m the reconstruction, 135, to the closure of the M i s h n a h , 200 C . E . T h i r d , h o w are we able to interpret the rhetorical forms of the M i s h n a h in the context of the social culture a d u m b r a t e d by the d o c u m e n t s sociolinguistics? In these pages I provide a précis of parts of a n u m b e r of c o m p l e t e d pieces of research. T h e m o n o g r a p h s s u m m a r i z e d in the first c h a p t e r are these: Scripture and the Generative Premises of the Halakhah. A Systematic Inquiry. I.. Halakhah Based Principally on Scripture and Halakhic Categories Autonomous of Scripture. Atlanta, 1999: Scholars Press for S o u t h Florida Studies in the History of J u d a i s m . Scripture and the Generative Premises of the Halakhah. A Systematic Inquiry. II. Scripture's Topics Derivatively Amplified in the Halakhah. Atlanta, 1999: Scholars Press for S o u t h Florida Studies in the History of J u d a i s m .

Xll

PREFACE

Scripture and the Generative Premises of the Halakhah. A Systematic Inquiry. III. Scripture's Topics Independently Developed in the Halakhah. From the Babas through Miqvaot. Atlanta, 1999: Scholars Press for S o u t h Florida Studies in the H i s t o r y of J u d a i s m . Scripture and the Generative Premises of the Halakhah. A Systematic Inquiry. IV. Scripture's Topics Independently Developed in the Halakhah. From Moed Qatan through ^ebahim. Atlanta, 1999: Scholars Press for S o u t h Florida Studies in the H i s t o r y of J u d a i s m . The Four Stages of Rabbinic Judaism. L o n d o n , 2000: R o u d e d g e . From Scripture to 70. The Pre-Rabbinic Beginnings of the Halakhah. Atlanta, 1999: Scholars Press for S o u t h Florida Studies in the History of Judaism. What, Exactly, Did the Rabbinic Sages Mean by "the Oral Torah"? An Inductive Answer to the (Question of Rabbinic Judaism. Atlanta, 2000: Scholars Press for S o u t h Florida Studies in the H i s t o r y of J u d a i s m .

T h e second c h a p t e r abbreviates s o m e of the findings of the following works: A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. Leiden, 1974-1977: Brill. I - X X I I . I. Kelim. Chapters One through Eleven. 1974. II. Kelim. Chapters Twelve through Thirty. 1974. III. Kelim. Literary and Historical Problems. 1974. IV. Ohalot. Commentary. 1975. V. Ohalot. Literary and Historical Problems. 1975. VI. Negaim. Mishnah-Tosefta. 1975. VII. Negaim. Sifra. 1975. V I I I . Negaim. Literary and Historical Problems. 1975. IX. Parah. Commentary. 1976. X. Parah. Literary and Historical Problems. 1976. XI. Tohorot. Commentary, 1976. XII. Tohorot. Literary and Historical Problems. 1976. X I I I . Miqvaot. Commentary. 1976. X I V . Miqvaot. Literary and Historical Problems. 1976. XV. Niddah. Commentary. 1976. X V I . Niddah. Literary and Historical Problems. 1976. X V I I . Makhshirin. 1977.

XVIII. ^abim. 1977. X I X . Tebul Tom. Tadayim. 1977. XX. Uqsin. Cumulative Index, Parts I-XX. 1977. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things. Leiden, Brill: 1979. I-VI. I. Zj.bafum. Translation and Explanation. II. Menahot. Translation and Explanation. III. Hullin, Bekhorot. Translation and Explanation. IV. Arakhin, Temurah. Translation and Explanation. V. Keritot, Meilah, Tamid, Middot, Qinnim. Translation and Explanation.

PREFACE

XI

A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women. Leiden, Brill: 1979-1980. I-V. I. Yebamot. Translation and Explanation. II. Ketubot. Translation and Explanation. III. Nedarim, Nazir. Translation and Explanation. IV. Sotah, Gittin, Qiddushin. Translation and Explanation. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Leiden, Brill: 1981-1983. I-V. I. Shabbat. Translation and Explanation. II. Erubin, Pesahim. Translation and Explanation. III. Sheqalim, Torna, Sukkah. Translation and Explanation. IV. Besah, Rosh Hashanah, Taanit, Megillah, Moed Qatan, Hagigah. Translation and Explanation. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages. Leiden, Brill: 1983-1985. I-V. I. Baba Qamma. Translation and Explanation. II. Baba Mesia. Translation and Explanation. III. Baba Batra, Sanhédrin, Makkot. Translation and Explanation. IV. Shebuot, Eduyyot, Abodah Zarah, Abot, Horayyot. Translation and Explanation. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. Leiden, 1977: Brill. X X I I . The Mishnaic System of Uncleanness. Its Context and History. The Mishnah before 70. Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for B r o w n J u d a i c Studies. [Reprise of p e r t i n e n t results of A History of the Mishnah Law of Purities Vols. III, V, V I I I , Χ , X I I , X I V , X V I , ‫ ״‬X V I I , a n d X V I I I . ] A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things. Leiden, 1979: Brill. V I . The Mishnaic System of Sacrifice and Sanctuary. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women. Leiden, 1980: Brill. V . The Mishnaic System of Women. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Leiden, 1981 : Brill. V . The Mishnaic System of Appointed Times. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages. Leiden, 1985: Brill. V . The Mishnaic System of Damages Judaism. The Evidence of the Mishnah. C h i c a g o , 1981: University of C h i cago Press. P a p e r b a c k edition: 1984. S e c o n d printing, 1985. T h i r d printing, 1986. S e c o n d edition, a u g m e n t e d : A d a n t a , 1987: Scholars Press for B r o w n J u d a i c Studies. = Hayyahadut le'edut hammishnah. H e b r e w translation of Judaism. The Evidence of the Mishnah. T e l Aviv, 1987: Sifriat Poalim. = II Giudaismo nella testimonianza della Mishnah. Italian translation by G i o r g i o V o l p e . Bologna, 1995: C e n t r o editoriale D e h o n i a n e .

T h e third c h a p t e r revises the c o n c l u d i n g c h a p t e r of the following item: A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. Leiden, 1977: Brill. X X I . The Redaction and Formulation of the Order of Purities in the Mishnah and Tosefta.

Xll

PREFACE

O n c e m o r e it is m y pleasure to express thanks to m y editor at Brill, Drs. Elisabeth V e n e k a m p , w h o has e n c o u r a g e d m e in this project; to the University of S o u t h Florida a n d to Bard College, w h o m a k e possible m y career in scholarship; a n d to those w h o m I consulted in executing this project, in particular Professor & D e a n William Scott G r e e n , University of Rochester. Jacob Neusner University of S o u t h Florida & B a r d College

CHAPTER ONE

THE MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE T h e norm-setting or H a l a k h i c p a r t of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m ' s O r a l T o r a h — t h e M i s h n a h to begin w i t h — t r a n s l a t e s the Written Torah's— the P e n t a t e u c h ' s — n a r r a t i v e s into e x e m p l a r y cases, turns the cases into series—that is, r u l e s — a n d t r a n s f o r m s the rules into governing, abstract principles. T h e f o r m u l a t i o n as abstractions of principles out of rules, a n d rules out of cases turns the entire H a l a k h i c c o r p u s of the P e n t a t e u c h f r o m diverse, inert i n f o r m a t i o n into a working system. T h e c o n s e q u e n t " o n e whole T o r a h , " oral a n d written, read as a single, c o h e r e n t statement, finds itself able to a b s o r b a n d reconstitute a nearly-unlimited variety of discrete a n d i n c o n g r u o u s cases a n d s h a p e the social o r d e r a n y w h e r e Israel makes its life. T h e s e the syst e m f o r m s into a single set of c o h e r e n t principles, a n a c c o u n t of the social o r d e r a n d its theological f o u n d a t i o n s . It follows that the O r a l T o r a h a n d the W r i t t e n T o r a h f o r m a single, c o h e r e n t s t a t e m e n t " o n e whole T o r a h , " in the language of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m — e a c h stating the same message as the other, b u t the Written o n e in particulars of stories a n d cases, the o t h e r in generalizations a n d rules. T h e O r a l T o r a h then identifies the m o r a l of the stories of the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d recasts that m o r a l into social n o r m s , a n d the O r a l T o r a h f u r t h e r translates Scripture's cases into governing rules yielding unif o r m p r o c e d u r e s a n d regulations.

I. Category-Formations of the Halakhah Wholly Framed by the Written Torah H o w are we to analyze the traits of the O r a l T o r a h viewed as a cogent p h e n o m e n o n , without regard to the sequence o r stages in its unfolding? It is t h r o u g h a l a b o r of c o m p a r i s o n a n d contrast with the correlative p a r t of the T o r a h , the W r i t t e n part. W h e n we bring the H a l a k h a h into a l i g n m e n t with Scripture a n d identify those H a l a k h i c category-formations that simply recapitulate a n d refine, without contributing m o r e t h a n m e r e amplification or extension, the H a l a k h i c statements of Scripture, we n a r r o w the limits of w h a t the O r a l T o r a h (in theory at least) can have c o n t r i b u t e d . 111 those recapitulative a n d

2

CHAPTER ONE

s u b o r d i n a t e category-formations, we find ourselves wholly within the f r a m e w o r k of the ideas systematically spelled o u t of the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d articulated within the theoretical, o r theological, f r a m e w o r k of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n thereof. Seven category-formations of the repertoire of the H a l a k h a h find their definition, their generative p r o b l e m a t i c , their facts a n d their p r o g r a m of exposition wholly within Scripture's presentation of the s a m e topics: H o r a y o t , N e g a i m , Pesahim, S h e b u o t , S o t a h , S u k k a h , a n d Y o m a . I n these cases I find n o t h i n g in the H a l a k h a h that contributes o t h e r t h a n a derivative r e f i n e m e n t of Scripture's o w n facts within Scripture's own h e r m e n e u t i c s for the topic at h a n d . 1 Stating m a t t e r s m o r e simply: Moses' 2 identifies the topic in writing, a n d in a c c o r d with his o w n p r o g r a m for t h a t topic Moses e x p o u n d s the subject wholly in writing, a n d n o t h i n g in the record of the O r a l T o r a h diverges o r innovates in a n y way. As we shall see, a n opposite set of category-formations simply possesses n o c o u n t e r p a r t in Scripture. H e r e w h a t e v e r Moses wished to say a b o u t the subjects at h a n d he set forth solely within the f r a m e w o r k of the O r a l T o r a h . T h e f o r m e r tells us n o t h i n g that is particular to the O r a l T o r a h , the latter, only w h a t is distinctive thereto. 1 hasten to a d d , that a c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n finds full articulation within the presentation in the W r i t t e n T o r a h does not m e a n the sages of the O r a l T o r a h m a d e n o c o n t r i b u t i o n in their exposition of the category-formations defined a n d delineated by Moses in the W r i t t e n T o r a h . At every point the w a y sages present the same topic e n c o m p a s s e s i m p o r t a n t observations, f o r m u l a t i o n s of n o t only clarification b u t original insight. T h e w a y in w h i c h sages c o m b i n e subsets ' T o Halakhic statements of the Mishnah and the Tosefta, the Tosefta and two Talmuds systematically supply proof-texts for Halakhic propositions of the Mishnah and (in lesser measure) the Tosefta itself. So too do the so-called Tannaite Midrashim, particularly Sifré to Numbers, Sifré to Deuteronomy, and Sifra. The implicit theory is, the Halakhah of the Oral Torah depends upon and requires the justification of the Written Torah. Were the Oral Torah to constitute principally an amplification and clarification of the Written one, as it is sometimes alleged to be, then the entire category-formation of the Halakhah of the Mishnah-ToseftaYerushalmi-Bavli, like that of the Tannaite Midrashim as they now are [!], would simply replicate that of the Written Torah. But, as we see in Chapter Three, that is simply not the case, and the problem of inductive inquiry into what the Oral Torah can have contained therefore becomes necessary. 2 I frame the matter within the language of the religion under study, to which, in the phenomenological-analytical framework at hand, critical history is not relevant. I see nothing to be gained by speaking of "Moses" in quotation-marks, when I mean, the Pentateuch read whole and complete, start to finish, exacdy as the framers of Rabbinic Judaism received and read (that part of) the Torah.

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

3

of a given category-formation, their i n t r o d u c t i o n of an intersecting topic so as to shed light o n the established one, their juxtapositions a n d points of reorganization a n d systematization—these all i m p r i n t the p a t t e r n of the sages' o w n intellect u p o n the heritage of the Written T o r a h . But while sages m a y a n d d o say s o m e t h i n g new, in the present set of category-formations it is never f u n d a m e n t a l a n d définitive. F r o m w h a t they say we learn a great deal a b o u t their powers of analysis, b u t let a b o u t their capacity for invention.

a. Horayot C o m p a n i o n of tractate S h e b u o t , which centers on Leviticus C h a p t e r s Five a n d Six, H o r a y o t , resting o n Leviticus C h a p t e r Four, deals with collective sin a n d its a t o n e m e n t . Cultic penalties for official instruct i o n — t h a t of the a n o i n t e d priest—in e r r o r a n d the c o n s e q u e n t sin are specified at Lev. 4:1-5; the entire congregation's d o i n g so, Lev. 4:13-21; Lev. 4:22-26 m o v e o n to the ruler. Finally, at N u m . 15:2229, the unwitting sin of the entire c o m m u n i t y is addressed (the deliberate sin of the entire c o m m u n i t y , in the case of idolatry, already h a v i n g b e e n taken u p elsewhere). So w h e t h e r the ruler, the high priest, or the people, all are subject to the sanction invoked by the e r r o n e o u s ruling of the court, which has caused this unwitting sin. Interstitial issues—did the court a n d the public act together, did the court issue the ruling while the public carried it out, a n d the like— are addressed in the O r a l T o r a h ' s contribution to the H a l a k h a h . T h e court, the ruler, a n d the high priest e m b o d y the c o m m u n i t y at large, the b o d y of political institutions that, e a c h in its own realm, bears responsibility for the whole. T h i s tripartite division of political p o w e r dictates the organization of the H a l a k h i c exposition before us. T h e generative premises of the H a l a k h a h of H o r a y o t derive wholly f r o m Scripture. W h a t sages wished to say t h r o u g h the H a l a k h a h of H o r a y o t is, w h e n it comes to deeds p e r f o r m e d in good faith by the individual at the instance of the c o m m u n i t y a n d its authorities, the c o m m u n i t y , n o t the individual, bears collective guilt, a n d the individual is a t o n e d for within the offerings of the c o m m u nity at large. T h a t is precisely w h a t Moses says. A n d to that statem e n t , the H a l a k h a h a d d s very little. Scripture stresses two facts, [1] unwitting violation of the T o r a h [2] by a person in a position of responsible a u t h o r i t y precipitates the obligation for an offering. T y p e s of offerings are differentiated, a point of n o c o n s e q u e n c e to the

4

CHAPTER ONE

H a l a k h a h . T h e offering expiates the unwitting sin of the entire c o m m u n i t y , e n c o m p a s s i n g individuals. T h e H a l a k h a h a d d s to those facts only the logical c o m p l e m e n t : the e r r o r of instruction has to involve a detail of the law, not a principle. If a legal principle is at h a n d , all are responsible to k n o w w h a t the T o r a h states explicitly. T h e tertiary r e f i n e m e n t s — t h e c o m m u n i t y inadvertently, the court deliberately, a n d so o n a n d so f o r t h — r e p r e s e n t s t a n d a r d exegetical initiatives, directed t o w a r d sorting o u t decisions for interstitial cases. T h e n the H a l a k h a h as we have it rises in easy stages f r o m Scripture, a n d w h a t the H a l a k h a h contributes to the law of Scripture is only the clarification of the obvious point that, e r r o r o r n o error, people are expected to k n o w w h a t the T o r a h says in so m a n y words. b. Negaim T h e H a l a k h a h of N e g a i m in the O r a l T o r a h rests u p o n b r o a d a n d d e e p f o u n d a t i o n s of that in the W r i t t e n T o r a h : " N e g a i m has a vast Scriptural basis b u t few [orally-grounded] Halakhot...If you are in d o u b t a b o u t a n y t h i n g c o n c e r n i n g N e g a i m , simply search the T o r a h " (B. H a g . 1 la). T h e H a l a k h a h of N e g a i m amplifies the law set forth at Leviticus 13. Leviticus 14 proceeds to spell out the purification rite for the person w h o has recovered f r o m the affliction. T h e H a l a k h a h is set forth by the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a in the o r d e r a n d in a c c o r d with the p r o g r a m of Leviticus: Leviticus

Mishnah-tractate Negaim C o l o r s of bright spots 1:1-4 C h a n g e in the a p p e a r a n c e of bright spots, 1:5-6 E x a m i n a t i o n of bright spots 2:1-5 General susceptibility to " p l a g u e s " 3:1-2

1. Swelling, e r u p t i o n , spot Lev. 13:1-8 2. " L e p r o s y " Lev. 13:9-17 3-4. Boil & B u r n i n g Lev. 13:18-28 5. Scall (itch) o n h e a d or b e a r d Lev. 13:29-37 6. T e t t e r 7. Bald spot o n f o r e h e a d & temples Lev. 13:40-44 8. L e p e r dwells outside the c a m p Lev. 13:45-46 9. G a r m e n t s Lev. 13:47-59

Skin of the flesh 3:3, 4:1-8:10 Boil a n d b u r n i n g 3:4, 9:1-3 Scall 3:5, 10:1-9

Bald spot o n f o r e h e a d a n d ternpies 3:6, 10:10

G a r m e n t s 3:7, 11:1-12

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

10. Leprosy on houses Lev. 14:33-53 11. Process of purification Lev. 14:1-32

5

Leprosy o n houses 3:8, 12:1-7, 13:1-12 Purification 14:1-13

T h e only point of difference in the logical unfolding of the subject c o m e s at Nos. 10-11, w h e r e the M i s h n a h improves u p o n the W r i t t e n T o r a h . It does so by m o v i n g leprosy o n houses a h e a d of the process of purification, as a simply logical exposition of the topic—first the uncleanness, t h e n its r e m o v a l — r e q u i r e s . T h e H a l a k h a h contributes s o m e i m p o r t a n t points of its o w n , while working over Scripture's rules. But o n e of the critical points turns out simply to state in H a l a k h i c t e r m s w h a t Scripture says in a n Aggadic f r a m e w o r k . T h e single most i m p o r t a n t point c o n c e n t s the definition of the n e g a ' - m a r k that c o n n o t e s uncleanness. It must be squares h a p e d . T h a t brings the m a r k into a l i g n m e n t with the s h a p e i m p u t e d to corpse-uncleanness at tractate O h a l o t . It passes t h r o u g h a h a n d b r e a d t h squared. W h y m u s t the spot be s q u a r e - s h a p e d ? T h e a n s w e r presents itself w h e n we invoke the analogy of corpse-uncleanness, which also passes t h r o u g h a s q u a r e - s h a p e d space. But here the space is m u c h smaller, a n d it m a y well be diffused t h r o u g h the body. So too the raw flesh m u s t be f o u r sided. T h e decisive issue is the size a n d s h a p e of the sign, a n d w h e t h e r it grows or diminishes. If the raw flesh loses its f o u r sided character, it ceases to signify uncleanness: the size a n d s h a p e m a t t e r . T h a t is the contribution of the O r a l T o r a h . So the key is the insistence of the H a l a k h a h on the s q u a r e shape of the indicator of uncleanness a n d w h e t h e r , retaining its p r o p o r t i o n s , it grows or diminishes to nullity. T h e uncleanness of nega'im is as t h o u g h the soul were leaking o u t of little s q u a r e holes, r a t h e r t h a n p o u r i n g forth f r o m a large s q u a r e hole affecting the entire corpse, such as takes place with the uncleanness of the soul that exudes at d e a t h . T w o white hairs in the bright spot signify the same, a n d they m u s t be e q u a l in length. T h e signification of the raw flesh m a y derive f r o m the decay that takes place after d e a t h ; that is less certain in m y view. W h a t is clear is that the T o r a h insists that the markings e n d u r e for a period of time, a week, m a t c h i n g the week's uncleanness that the corpse causes, a n d the week of the purification-rite—all correlated with the seven days in which the world was created. H e r e is a m a r k that the created world is not f u n c t i o n i n g in accord with its nature. H a s Scripture c o n t r i b u t e d the analogy? Explicitly so. W h e n M i r i a m contracts the ailment u n d e r discussion here ( N u m . 12:11),

6

C H A P T E R ONE

A a r o n asks Moses, "Let h e r n o t be as o n e d e a d " ( N u m . 12:12). T h e H a l a k h a h then works out the logic of that analogy, a n d at n o point d o I discern the working of a system of t h o u g h t a b o u t the topic that does n o t derive directly f r o m Scripture. F o r a detailed d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h a t fact, verse by verse, H a l a k h a h by H a l a k h a h , I refer the r e a d e r to Sifra's r e a d i n g of Leviticus 13-14. Sages there d e m o n s t r a t e b e y o n d a n y reasonable d o u b t that the native category, N e g a i m , simply states in concrete cases yielding abstract rules w h a t Scripture sets forth in concrete cases. F o r the rest, the H a l a k h a h a d d s clarifications, amplifications, extensions, a n d t r e a t m e n t of m i n o r details. W h e n Scripture dictates n o t only the subject b u t w h a t is i m p o r t a n t a b o u t the subject, providing not only facts b u t the premises o u t of which f u r t h e r facts are g e n e r a t e d , the result is N e g a i m .

c. Pesahim T h e most i m p o r t a n t passage is at Ex. 12:1-28. Scripture deals with these topics in order: [1] setting aside a n d killing a l a m b for the Passover (Ex. 12:1-13); [2] u n l e a v e n e d b r e a d a n d the t a b o o against leaven a n d w h a t is leavened, with the festival of u n l e a v e n e d b r e a d (Ex. 12:14-20); a n d [3] the l a m b again (Ex. 12:21-28). D e u t . 16:1-8 is explicit that the sacrifice of the Passover l a m b is to take place only in J e r u s a l e m . T r a c t a t e Pesahim presents the topics in logical order, dealing in two sizable units, first with the prohibition of leaven a n d o t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n s for the festival, a n d , second, offering the Passoversacrifice, roasting a n d eating it. T h e H a l a k h a h thus focuses u p o n the cult, even in c o n n e c t i o n with a rite that is carried out in the h o m e ; a third, r a t h e r p e r f u n c t o r y unit, C h a p t e r T e n of the M i s h n a h - t r a c t a t e , takes u p the rite of the seder, the Passover-meal itself. T h e H a l a k h a h in the present topic takes for g r a n t e d knowledge of the existence of a Passover-ritual such as is c o n t a i n e d in the Haggadah. T h e topical prog r a m of the H a l a k h a h addresses only two subjects, leaven a n d its removal, a n d the Passover offering. It moves therefore f r o m household to T e m p l e , with the brief a p p e n d i x of C h a p t e r T e n reverting to the household. R e m o v i n g leaven f r o m the h o u s e h o l d aligns the household with the T e m p l e , w h e r e baked p r o d u c t s served to G o d d o not c o n t a i n leaven (or sweetening). R e q u i r i n g the c o n s u m p t i o n of the Passover offering's m e a t at h o m e introduces considerations of cultic cleanness. T h e u p s h o t is, o n Passover, the Israelite household, so far as is possible, is treated as a n a l o g o u s to the T e m p l e . Scripture has

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

7

supplied the facts, the H a l a k h a h has e x p a n d e d u p o n t h e m a n d d r a w n out w h a t is implicit in t h e m . T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h takes as its p r o g r a m the laws of Scripture a n d does little m o r e t h a n amplify, extend, a n d clarify those laws. W h a t makes Israel, a n d w h a t defines its trait as Israel, so far as the H a l a k h a h is c o n c e r n e d , is two matters: [1] the p r e p a r a t i o n of the h o m e for the festival t h r o u g h the removal of leaven, which m a y not be c o n s u m e d or seen at that time; a n d [2] the p r e p a r a t i o n a n d prèsentation of the Passover offering a n d the c o n s u m p t i o n of its m e a t in the household. T h e s e define the topics of Halakhic i n t e r e s t — a n d n o others pertinent to the festival register. So the celebration of Israel's f r e e d o m turns into the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of Israel into a k i n g d o m of priests a n d a holy people, celebrating its birth by recapitulating the blood-rite that m a r k e d the separation of Israel f r o m Egypt a n d the r e d e m p t i o n of Israel for life out of d e a t h , Israel's firstborn being saved f r o m the j u d g m e n t visited u p o n Egypt's. J u s t as in Scripture's a c c o u n t of matters, that defines the focus of the H a l a k h a h : the act of sanctification u n t o life that marks, a n d re-marks every year, the advent of Israel out of the nations. T h e f r e e d o m that is celebrated is f r e e d o m f r o m d e a t h , as the a c c o u n t of E x o d u s explicitly states. Passover m a r k s the celebration of Israel's r e d e m p t i o n , m e a n i n g , its séparation f r o m E g y p t — t h e separation being m a r k e d off by blood rites o n b o t h sides—and its entry into the condition of cleanness so that a T e m p l e offering m a y be eaten in the very household of the Israelite. By treating the sacrifice in that i n t e r m e d i a t e r e a l m — t h e sacrifice in the T e m p l e , the m e a t eaten at h o m e the H a l a k h a h takes a c c o u n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t of the W r i t t e n T o r a h , w h i c h read as a h a r m o n i ous statement dictates that the Passover take place in two locations, the h o m e a n d the T e m p l e . Dt. 16:1-8 places the rite in the T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m . It is explicit that only in the T e m p l e is the Passover offering to be sacrificed, a n d n o w h e r e else. It is to be boiled a n d eaten in the same place, not at h o m e , a n d in the m o r n i n g the people are to go h o m e . W i t h that statement in h a n d , we should treat the Passover offering as a T e m p l e rite, as m u c h as the sacrifice for the D a y of A t o n e m e n t is a T e m p l e rite. T h e n w h e r e is the altar in the h o m e ? Ex. 12:1-28 treats the offering as a rite for the h o m e , with the blood tossed on the lintel of the house as a m a r k of an Israelite dwelling. T h e lintel then serves as the c o u n t e r p a r t to the altar. T h a t is w h e r e the blood rite takes place, w h e r e the blood of the sacrifice is tossed. H e r e we find as clear a s t a t e m e n t as is possible that the Israelite

8

CHAPTER ONE

h o m e c o m p a r e s to the T e m p l e , the lintel to the altar, the a b o d e of Israel to the a b o d e of G o d . W h y the lintel? It is the gateway, m a r k i n g the household a p a r t f r o m the world b e y o n d . Inside the walls of the Israelite h o u s e h o l d conditions of genealogical a n d cultic cleanness pertain, in a w a y c o m p a r a b l e to the space inside the c o n t a i n e d space of the T e m p l e courtyard. Scripture's presentation of the category of Passover dictates the shape, structure, a n d p r o p o r t i o n s of the H a l a k h i c t r e a t m e n t of the s a m e subject. H e r e is a fine e x a m p l e of a category of the H a l a k h a h that finds not only its topic b u t its p r o b l e m atic, not only its i n f o r m a t i o n b u t its generative premises, in Scripture.

d. Shebuot 111 S h e b u o t , the very topical organization, characteristic of the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i , gives w a y to the principles of c o n g l o m e r a t i o n that govern in the W r i t t e n T o r a h . In Leviticus M o ses organizes topics a r o u n d classes of offerings associated with said topics. T h e guilt offering governs at Leviticus 5-6, a n d the categoryf o r m a t i o n , S h e b u o t , joins two distinct topics only because S h e b u o t forms a response to the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s o w n topics a n d m o d e of j o i n i n g said topics. If Scripture dictated the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h , we should expect m a n y m o r e cases in w h i c h topical principles of organization give w a y to o t h e r principles of construction a n d composition altogether. A principal occasion for a guilt-offering is the violation of a n o a t h or transgression against a bailment. Leviticus 5:1-6 set forth the o a t h of testimony, the case of o n e w h o in the cult touches w h a t is u n c l e a n , a n d the rash o a t h ; all b r i n g a guilt-offering. Lev. 6:1-7 p r o c e e d to bailments in which a false o a t h h a s b e e n taken. T h e t h e m e s t h e n are [1] o a t h s of a d j u r a tion; [2] i m p a r t i n g uncleanness to the T e m p l e a n d its H o l y T h i n g s ; [3] the rash o a t h ; [4] the false claim in c o n n e c t i o n with bailments. T h e facts on which the H a l a k h a h builds derive wholly f r o m Scripture, a n d even the p r o p o r t i o n s of the category c o r r e s p o n d with those of the relevant passages of Scripture. T h e p o i n t that the H a l a k h a h investigates is the state of consciousness of uncleanness involved in the c o n t a m i n a t i o n of the cult. T h e H a l a k h a h explores the c h a r a c t e r of the b r e a c h of faith t o w a r d G o d : knowingly, not k n o w i n g l y — t h e issue of intentionality lurks in the b a c k g r o u n d . As to oaths, the H a l a k h a h finds its d y n a m i c in the differentiation a m o n g spells of awareness, c o m p a r a b l e to the spells of k n o w i n g or u n k n o w n involved

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

9

in c o n t a m i n a t i n g the cult. H e r e too we deal with the assessment of the m e n t a l state: the divisibility of a m e n t a l condition a n d the counts o n which o n e is liable therefor. W h e n it comes to the penalties for diverse types of o a t h , the point of interest derives f r o m inadvertent as distinct f r o m deliberate taking of a false oath. So far as the H a l a k h a h forms m o r e t h a n a systematic presentation of facts but, rather, a n inquiry into a p r o b l e m instantiated by facts, the H a l a k h a h takes as its p r o b l e m the interplay of consciousness a n d activity: w h a t did o n e k n o w w h e n , a n d with w h a t result? Certainly that point of interest will n o t have astonished Moses, w h o formulates the law in such a way that the intentionality of the actor always comes to the fore: s o m e o n e sins by swearing that he has not testimony to give w h e n he does, a n d so t h r o u g h o u t . Every case set forth by Moses involves a deliberate action, based on firm knowledge of facts a n d the consequences of one's o w n intentional deed. T h a t is w h y s o m e o n e , guilty in any of these, has the p o w e r to confess: he knew just w h a t he was doing a n d did it a n y h o w — a l l the m o r e so the b r e a c h of faith in regard to bailments! W e m a y , therefore, c o n c l u d e that the H a l a k h a h has identified the a n i m a t i n g consideration of Scripture's law, which is the deliberate act of deceit of o n e sort or a n o t h e r , a n d has recapitulated the c h a r a c t e r a n d the results of i n t e n d e d deceit.

e. Sotah T h e ordeal i m p o s e d on the w o m a n accused of unfaithfulness, spelled out 111 the W r i t t e n T o r a h , elicits f r o m the sages of the O r a l T o r a h n o searching inquiry. T h e H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h narrates the rite, a n d the T o s e f t a a n d two T a l m u d s fill in s o m e m i n o r details. T h e tractate e x p a n d s to cover o t h e r rites c o n d u c t e d in H e b r e w o r in o t h e r languages as well. T h e pertinent verses of Scripture are as follows ( N u m . 5:1-31. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h a p p e a r s superficially to have set forth the p r o g r a m of the O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h , but in fact, sages have redefined the entire p r o g r a m of the topic. First of all, the H a l a k h a h takes the ordeal a n d encases it in juridical procedures, rules of evidence, guidelines m e a n t to protect the w o m a n f r o m needless exposure to the ordeal to begin with. T h e H a l a k h a h radically revises the entire transaction, w h e n it says, if the h u s b a n d expresses jealousy by instructing his wife not to speak with a specified person, a n d the wife spoke with the m a n , there is n o juridical result: she still is p e r m i t t e d to have sexual relations with her h u s b a n d a n d is permit-

10

CHAPTER ONE

ted to eat heave-offering. But if she w e n t with h i m to s o m e private place a n d r e m a i n e d with him for sufficient time to b e c o m e u n c l e a n , she is p r o h i b i t e d f r o m h a v i n g sexual relations with h e r h u s b a n d a n d if the h u s b a n d is a priest, she is prohibited f r o m eating heave-offering. Before the ordeal is invoked, the O r a l T o r a h wants some sort of solid evidence [1] of u n t o w a r d sexual activity a n d also [2] of clear action o n the p a r t of the wife: at least the possibility, c o n f i r m e d t h r o u g h a specific case, that adultery has taken place. Scripture leaves everything to the h u s b a n d ' s w h i m , the "spirit of jealousy." So here if the h u s b a n d gives his s t a t e m e n t of jealousy a n d the wife responds by ignoring the statement, the ordeal does not apply. By h e r specific action the wife has to indicate the possibility that the husb a n d is right. T h i s is a far cry f r o m Scripture's "spirit of jealousy." F o r the W r i t t e n T o r a h , the ordeal settles all questions. F o r the O r a l T o r a h , the ordeal takes effect only in carefully defined cases w h e r e [1] sufficient evidence exists to invoke the rite, b u t [2] insufficient evidence to m a k e it unnecessary: well-established d o u b t , so to speak. T h e H a l a k h a h has taken as its p r o b l e m the provision of justice for the w o m a n accused of infidelity. Scripture's premise, that the ordeal accomplishes the s a m e goal, certainly provides the f o u n d a t i o n s for the H a l a k h i c structure. But the H a l a k h a h has systematically recast the p r o c e d u r e to provide p r o c e d u r a l protections that Scripture does n o t know. T h e H a l a k h a h w a n t s solid evidence of w h a t the wife actually has d o n e , specific cases. It f u r t h e r defines the status of m a r r i a g e , so that if the marital b o n d is n o t absolutely b e y o n d flaw, the rite is n o t pertinent. It also allows for the cancellation of the rite, until G o d ' s own involvement is irrevocable, his n a m e h a v i n g b e e n blotted out. T h e H a l a k h a h in s u m t r a n s f o r m s a case of d o u b t into o n e of near-certainty. T h e Aggadic r e a d i n g of the topic introduces the proposition of divine justice, b u t the H a l a k h a h , for its part, lays e m phasis u p o n exactly the s a m e m a t t e r . In providing for just p r o c e d u r e s a n d a fair o u t c o m e , sages identify the principle of the just m a t c h of sin a n d p u n i s h m e n t that, to begin with, Scripture clearly c o n t e m plates. So far as the H a l a k h a h does m o r e t h a n recapitulate in generalizations the narrative of N u m b e r s 5, it introduces the proposition that G o d acts justly, a n d that is the point e m p h a s i z e d at N u m b e r s 5. So the category a n d its generative premise derive f r o m Scripture.

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

11

f. Sukkah Scripture supplies nearly all of the pertinent facts of the H a l a k h a h ' s presentation of Sukkot, the feast of b o o t h s of tabernacles, so Lev. 23:33-43, t h o u g h leaving to the O r a l T o r a h the work of defining details; N u m b e r s 29:12-38 specifies the offerings o n the occasion of the festival of Sukkot, a n d D e u t e r o n o m y 16:13-15 specifies the use of the b o o t h . D e u t e r o n o m y assigns the feast to J e r u s a l e m , at the same time a r r a n g i n g for rejoicing in the towns elsewhere. Like Pesahim, Sukkah deals b o t h with the h o u s e h o l d a n d with the T e m p l e , in that order. T h e H a l a k h a h takes as its task the presentation of three topics: [1] T e m p l e rites, [2] h o m e obligations, [3] special m e d i a for, a n d m o d e s of, the celebration of the Festival. First comes the h o m e rite: building the Sukkah; then we consider the m e d i a for the celebration, the lulab a n d etrog; finally we c o m e to the T e m p l e rites in their own terms a n d context. T h e highly analytical presentation comes at the beginning, with the m a t t e r of the Sukkah itself. T h e r e we find the m o r e t h a n merely routine, informative c o m p o n e n t s of the H a l a k h a h . T h e m a i n point is, the Sukkah m u s t resemble a dwelling, casting a s h a d o w a n d affording protection f r o m the sun. But it does not shelter f r o m the rain, a n d a strong wind will knock it over. T h e upshot is that the Sukkah must derive f r o m m a n ' s artifice a n d intent; it c a n n o t be f o r m e d of w h a t is a t t a c h e d to the g r o u n d , but must be m a d e of w h a t has g r o w n f r o m the g r o u n d , w h a t is insusceptible to uncleanness, a n d w h a t has been cut d o w n . It must c o m e a b o u t t h r o u g h the deliberate action of m a n , a n a t u r a l Sukkah being a n o x y m o r o n , a n d it m u s t represent an occasion, n o t a p e r m a n e n t a r r a n g e m e n t , a perm a n e n t Sukkah being a n o t h e r o x y m o r o n . T h e Sukkah-roofing must afford shelter by m e a n s of w h a t derives f r o m n a t u r e but has been d e t a c h e d f r o m n a t u r e ; h u m a n intervention then is required. If the H a l a k h a h invokes a single generative premise, o n e that produces significant rulings, it is the notion that the Sukkah must derive f r o m m a n ' s plan a n d action taken to carry out that plan. T h e Sukkah c a n n o t be f o r m e d of a n a t u r a l b o w e r , a n d it also must be m a d e fresh for e a c h year's observance (the sekhakh, or covering, is w h a t counts). T h e covering must be insusceptible to uncleanness, therefore w h a t is useless to m a n . All of these provisions invoke the consideration of m a n ' s attitude t o w a r d the project. M a n ' s intent enters at a n o t h e r point as well: he must regard the sekhakh-material as inedible, serving n o useful p u r p o s e . Since Moses instructs Israel, as a m a t t e r of

CHAPTER ONE

12

c o m m a n d m e n t , to d o thus a n d so, it is difficult to see the intrusion of issues of intentionality as o t h e r t h a n a n a t u r a l next step out of the p r o g r a m of Scripture: " D o this not at r a n d o m , b u t as an act of fulfillment of the c o m m a n d m e n t that is set f o r t h . " S o m e m a y m a i n tain that the imperative n e e d not, a n d p e r h a p s does not, contain the implication that the action in fulfillment m u s t express an attitude of obedience, m u s t represent a p u r p o s e f u l response to the c o m m a n d m e n t . But if that is n o t implicit in the language of Scripture, the sages w h o can have i n t r o d u c e d that qualification surely have n o t asked us to take a long step b e y o n d Scripture in c o m i n g to that conclusion. T h e H a l a k h a h takes shape as a p r o t r a c t e d m e d i t a t i o n u p o n the centrality, in the relationship of Israel to G o d , of h u m a n intentionality a n d will. T h e rules before us, so far as they cohere, take shape a r o u n d that very subject.

g. Torna

Moses presents the offerings of the D a y of A t o n e m e n t as a narrative, mostly in Lev. 16:1-34, c o n c l u d i n g with a reference to the requirem e n t of affliction of soul in a t o n e m e n t for sin. In the O r a l T o r a h , the M i s h n a h , T o s e f t a , Yerushalmi, a n d Bavli, the H a l a k h a h of Y o m a simply recapitulates that of the W r i t t e n T o r a h . O f the eight chapters of the M i s h n a h (with their c o r r e s p o n d i n g disquisitions in the T o s e f t a , Yerushalmi, a n d Bavli), the first seven provide a narrative, b e a r i n g interpolated materials, of the sacrificial rite of the D a y of A t o n e m e n t . T h e eighth does little m o r e , taking u p the rules of affliction of soul, that is, fasting. T h e two parts of the T o r a h (so sages saw matters) t h e n deliver the message by their c o o r d i n a t i o n . It is by repeating the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s narrative a n d then m a k i n g a striking addition of a Halakhic c h a r a c t e r to that narrative that the O r a l T o r a h a c c o m plishes its goal. T h a t is to focus u p o n the centrality of Israel's attit u d e — h e r e , the p o w e r of the r e p e n t a n t spirit—in the very heart a n d center of the cult itself. If we c o m p a r e the sequence of the Scripture's narrative to the presentation of the H a l a k h a h , m e a n i n g in this case, the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h — t h e r e b e i n g n o t h i n g of weight o r c o n s e q u e n c e in the posterior d o c u m e n t s of the H a l a k h a h — w e see the following p a t t e r n : Leviticus 16:3 H e shall p u t o n the holy linen c o a t M . 3:6-7

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

13

16:6 A a r o n shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself a n d shall m a k e a t o n e m e n t for himself a n d for his h o u s e M . 3:8 16:7 T h e n he shall take the two goats a n d set t h e m b e f o r e the L o r d . . . a n d A a r o n shall cast lots u p o n the two goats, the lot for the L o r d a n d the lot for Azazel M . 3:9, 4:1 16:9 A a r o n shall present the g o a t o n w h i c h the lot fell for the L o r d a n d offer it as a sin offering, but the g o a t o n w h i c h the lot fell for Azazel is sent a w a y into the wilderness 16:11 A a r o n shall present the bull as a sin offering for himself a n d for his house M . 4:2-3 16:12 H e shall take a censer full of coals of fire f r o m b e f o r e the altar a n d two h a n d f u l s of sweet incense a n d shall b r i n g it within the veil M . 5:1-2 16:14 H e shall take s o m e of the blood of the bull a n d sprinkle it with his finger o n the f r o n t of the m e r c y seat M . 5:3 16:15 T h e n he shall kill the g o a t of the sin offering w h i c h is for the people M . 5:4 16:18 T h e n h e shall go out to the altar w h i c h is before the L o r d a n d m a k e a t o n e m e n t for it a n d shall take s o m e of the blood of the bull a n d of the blood of the goat a n d p u t it o n the h o r n s of the altar M . 5:5-6 16:20 A n d w h e n he has m a d e a e n d of a t o n i n g for the holy place a n d the tent of m e e t i n g a n d the altar, he shall present the live goat. A n d A a r o n shall lay b o t h his h a n d s o n the h e a d of the live goat a n d confess over h i m all the iniquities of the people of Israel a n d all their transgressions a n d sins...and send h i m a w a y into the wilderness M . 6:2-6 16:23 T h e n A a r o n shall c o m e into the tent of meeting, b a t h e , a n d p u t o n his g a r m e n t s a n d c o m e forth a n d offer his b u r n t offering a n d the b u r n t offering of the people M . 6:7-8 16:24 T h e high priest c h a n g e s into golden g a r m e n t s a n d offers the r a m a n d the r a m of the people, so c o m p l e t i n g the offerings of the day M . 7:3-4 16:31 Y o u shall afflict yourselves M . 8:1-7 O m i t t e d are only the materials on T o r a h - r e a d i n g , prayer, a n d atonem e n t , M . 7 : 1 - 2 . All t h a t t h e H a l a k h a h a d d s is t h e o p e n i n g u n i t , t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e h i g h p r i e s t f o r t h e rite a n d t h e d a i l y w h o l e o f f e r ing, a n d the closing materials o n T o r a h - r e a d i n g , prayer, a n d , a b o v e all, a t o n e m e n t . It is o n l y w h e n w e r e a c h t h e c o n c l u d i n g s t a t e m e n t s o f

14

CHAPTER ONE

the H a l a k h a h — a single, s t u n n i n g statement, at M . Y o m a 8:6-7, that we m o v e b e y o n d the H a l a k h i c reprise of the T o r a h ' s narrative: M . 8:7 H e w h o says, "I shall sin a n d r e p e n t , sin a n d r e p e n t " — t h e y give h i m n o c h a n c e to d o r e p e n t a n c e . "I will sin a n d the D a y of A t o n e m e n t will a t o n e , " — t h e D a y of A t o n e m e n t does not a t o n e . F o r transgressions d o n e b e t w e e n m a n a n d the O m n i p r e s e n t , the D a y of A t o n e m e n t atones. F o r transgressions b e t w e e n m a n a n d m a n , the D a y of A t o n e m e n t atones, only if the m a n will regain the g o o d will of his friend. T h i s exegesis did R . E l e a z a r b. A z a r i a h state: ' " F r o m all y o u r sins shall y o u be clean b e f o r e the L o r d ' (Lev. 16:30)—for transgressions between m a n a n d the O m n i p r e s e n t does the D a y of A t o n e m e n t a t o n e . F o r transgressions b e t w e e n m a n a n d his fellow, the D a y of A t o n e m e n t atones, only if the m a n will regain the g o o d will of his f r i e n d . " S a i d R . A q i b a , " H a p p y are y o u , Ο Israel. Before w h o m are y o u m a d e clean, a n d w h o m a k e s y o u clean? It is y o u r F a t h e r w h o is in h e a v e n , as it says, ' A n d I will sprinkle clean w a t e r o n you, a n d you will be clean' (Ezek. 36:25). A n d it says, Ό L o r d , the h o p e [ M i q w e h = i m m e r s i o n pool] of Israel' (Jer. 17:13)—Just as the i m m e r s i o n pool cleans the u n c l e a n , so the H o l y O n e , blessed be he, cleans Israel."

H e r e the presentation of the H a l a k h a h tells us w h a t is at stake, which is the p r o p h e t i c r e a d i n g of the cult. Sages u n d e r s t o o d the p r o p h e t s ' critique n o t as repudiation of the cult b u t as r e f i n e m e n t of it, a n d in the very context of their a c c o u n t of the blood-rite they therefore invoke the p r o p h e t s ' n o r m s alongside the T o r a h ' s . J e r e m i a h ' s call to r e p e n t a n c e , Isaiah's reflections o n the role of d e a t h in the penitential process, G o d ' s infinite mercy, Ezekiel's insistence on purity of spirit — t h e s e flow into the exposition of the H a l a k h a h . A b o v e all, sages u n d e r s c o r e G o d ' s explicit p r o m i s e to purify Israel, the p r o m i s e set forth in Ezekiel's a n d J e r e m i a h ' s prophecies. So the H a l a k h a h recasts the entire category of the D a y of A t o n e m e n t , taking the t h e m e of a t o n e m e n t to require a n a c c o u n t of r e p e n t a n c e , o n the o n e side, a n d G o d ' s p o w e r to forgive a n d purify f r o m sin, o n the other. T h e m a i n p o i n t is, the rites of a t o n e m e n t d o not work ex opere operate, b u t only conditionally. A n d it is the attitude a n d intention of the Israelite that sets that condition.

II. What the Oral Torah Did Not Contribute I stress that the question is, w h a t of the categories themselves? Arid, f u r t h e r , w h a t of their articulation a n d amplification? Scripture has p r o v i d e d the categories we h a v e e x a m i n e d , a n d it has f u r t h e r die-

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

15

tated the problematics or particular proposition that the H a l a k h a h wishes to explore in connection with those categories. T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h , s u b o r d i n a t e at every point, both categorical a n d propositional, t h e n amplifies, extends, refines, a n d clarifies the givens of Scripture's law. In its defense, it suffices to say, it presents n o t h i n g that is n e w but m u c h that is true, truth being defined by the i n n e r logic of the Written T o r a h a n d the O r a l T o r a h ' s conformity thereto. In d u e course, we shall ask a b o u t the O r a l T o r a h ' s taking over of Scripture's category-formations, since, it is self-evident, the O r a l T o rah, a b s o r b i n g the factual trove that Scripture contributed, n o n e t h e less did n o t a d o p t all of the received category-formations that Scripture o f f e r e d — n o division on the priesthood, for example, even while the O r a l T o r a h recapitulated everything in the P e n t a t e u c h a l legislation o n the priesthood. T h e issue that we settle with the facts a d d u c e d in these seven instances is, has the H a l a k h a h defined categories a n d t h e n t u r n e d to Scripture for d a t a to realize, to actualize the category-formation? o r has Scripture dictated the category-formations that it itself has also fleshed o u t with facts a n d rulings? W h a t I have n o w proven b e y o n d a n y reasonable d o u b t is that, for the seven category-formations at h a n d , it is Scripture that has defined the organizing category, supplying n o t only details b u t the m a i n point conveyed by those building blocks, those structural c o m p o n e n t s of the system as a whole. In their entirety, in nearly all details, the specified category-formations build u p o n generative premises dictated by explicit statements in Scripture. In the seven f o r m a t i o n s at h a n d , we find h o w not only the categoryformations, b u t the generative premises of the H a l a k h a h have been dictated wholly by Scripture. W h a t a b o u t category-formations, the generative premises of which in n o way call u p o n , relate to, or derive f r o m , Scripture, either f r o m w h a t is explicit o r even f r o m w h a t is implicit? T o these we n o w t u r n . W h a t we d o know n o w is that, at a n y point in its formative history, the O r a l T o r a h c a n have set forth the category-formations, fully articulated, that Scripture defined; it did not have to invent the organizing problematic, let alone choose the topic; it h a d only to clarify details a n d recapitulate the whole within its own topical-logical principles of exposition, a n d this it did. So w h a t we learn f r o m the first category of category-formations c o n c e n t s only a large conception of w h a t is required to m a k e sense of the whole, to state a n d hold the whole together in a single vast composite, the H a l a k h a h in its divi-

16

CHAPTER ONE

sions a n d topical tractates. T h e n , b u t only then, Scripture's legacy b e c o m e the O r a l T o r a h ' s h e r i t a g e — a fact in the analysis of the final result of H a l a k h i c organization, not a d a t u m in the sequential, historical f o r m a t i o n thereof.

III. Category-Formations of the Halakhah Wholly Defined within the Oral Torah W h e n we identify those category-formations of the H a l a k h a h that have n o f o u n d a t i o n s in the W r i t t e n T o r a h (in line with the f o r m u l a tion of M . H a g . 1:9 cited earlier), we present the o n e c o m p o n e n t of the H a l a k h i c structure that can have f o r m e d p a r t only of the O r a l T o r a h a u t o n o m o u s of the W r i t t e n . T h e s e constructions by their basic traits assign themselves to origin in the O r a l T o r a h — t h e r e alone. But t h a t repertoire of category-formations n e e d n o t have originated in S e c o n d T e m p l e times. It suffices to say that merely because a category-formation is i n d e p e n d e n t of Scripture's c o u n t e r p a r t s , a n d even t h o u g h said construction finds in Scripture n o m a t c h even for its factual repertoire, that does n o t m e a n the construction m u s t be early, in T e m p l e times, o r even late, in the m i d - s e c o n d century; s o m e of the category-formations identified as a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture in t h e m e a n d in problematics a n d even in facts t u m u p only late in the process of f o r m i n g the structure a n d system viewed whole a n d complete, that is, in the m i d - s e c o n d century. W h a t the category-formations before us d o b e a r in c o m m o n is that while, in some cases, Scripture m a y have supplied facts that a given c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n has e n c o m p a s s e d a n d m a d e its o w n , in n o n e of t h e m h a s Scripture set forth the coherent H a l a k h i c category by the criterion operative in C h a p t e r T w o . H e r e we take u p a cogent category of H a l a k h a h lacking all Scriptural a n t e c e d e n t o r even c o u n t e r p a r t , a c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n n o t t o u c h e d u p o n a n y w h e r e in Scripture at all. N o w to elaborate o n the type of c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n analyzed in this setting, the O r a l T o r a h ' s o w n constructions. W h a t m a r k s t h e m as i n d e p e n d e n t of Scripture? At stake is n o t w h e t h e r or not Scripture contributes a singleton fact to the definition of a b o d y of H a l a k h a h , b u t w h e t h e r Scripture has identified a cogent construction, a fullyexecuted f o r m a t i o n , for systematic attention. F o r the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h f o r m s a large a n d cogent c o r p u s of well-crafted c o m p o sitions, each devoted to a topic, m o s t — t h o u g h by n o m e a n s all—

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

17

e n g a g e d with a particular, provocative p r o b l e m f o u n d u r g e n t in the exposition of said topic. H a l a k h i c categories therefore are classified as a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture because b o t h traits characteristic of the ones d e p e n d a n t u p o n Scripture are lacking: [1] in n o sustained a n d systematic m a n n e r does Scripture c o n t r i b u t e the topic, a n d [2] w h a t c a p t u r e s the interest of the H a l a k h a h in the topic in n o way derives f r o m Scripture. But three f u r t h e r criteria pertain. A free-standing category-formation, thus belonging to the O r a l T o r a h at least in theory, t h e n is a composition of H a l a k h a h that is [1] c o h e r e n t in itself a n d responsive to its o w n cogent concerns a n d that [2] addresses a topic not set forth in Scripture at all, or not set forth t h r o u g h P e n t a t e u c h a l H a l a k h a h in particular. Such is a category that [3] takes a position outside of the f r a m e w o r k of the laws of the P e n t a t e u c h . G e n e r a t i v e premises of the H a l a k h a h of such a category-formation in n o w a y derive f r o m Scripture, a n y m o r e t h a n the topic itself is o n e that Moses e x p o u n d s in Scripture. T o be sure, Scripture m a y provide episodic d a t a , r a n d o m i n f o r m a tion in o n e place o r a n o t h e r , t h a t in the H a l a k h i c s t r u c t u r e — b u t n o t in Scripture's—is folded into a n d f o r m s p a r t of a c o h e r e n t categoryf o r m a t i o n . W h e n in such instances Scripture alludes to a piece of i n f o r m a t i o n , it will d o so h a p h a z a r d l y a n d m a k e n o point; the freestanding fact finds a place in n o context whatever; a n d , o n that a c c o u n t , Scripture's occasional facts b e a r n o implicit premises w h a t ever, offer n o o p p o r t u n i t y for investigation of p r o b l e m s that i n h e r e b u t are n o t articulated. T h a t is w h y it is futile in such instances to ask a b o u t generative premises defined by Scripture; the question is simply irrelevant to the d a t a . N o t only so, but the i n f o r m a t i o n that Scripture does supply m a y to begin with derive f r o m o t h e r - t h a n H a l a k h i c settings, consisting of narratives b e a r i n g theological implications t h a t are realized n o t in Scripture's legal compositions a n d composites b u t solely in the n o r m a t i v e rules of the H a l a k h a h . So the H a l a k h a h parts c o m p a n y with Scripture o n several grounds. First, the H a l a k h a h m a y address a topic that Scripture simply does n o t raise at all. S e c o n d , it m a y treat systematically w h a t Scripture deals with in a h a p h a z a r d a n d u n o r g a n i z e d way. L a t e r we take u p the type of c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n that takes a topic that Scripture does treat a n d investigates questions i m p o r t a n t in that topic t h a t Scripture does n o t raise at all; the H a l a k h a h m a y find i m p o r t a n t in a given subject m a t t e r s that Scripture scarcely acknowledges.

18

C H A P T E R ONE

IV. Categories that Encompass in their System Facts Set forth in Scripture: [1] Berakhot T h e principal theological c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s of the H a l a k h a h , Berakhot a n d T a a n i t , in their basic construction stand wholly within the f r a m e w o r k of the O r a l T o r a h . T h a t j u d g m e n t rests o n a simple fact. W h a t here is treated Halakhically, as occasion for systematic legislation, in the W r i t t e n T o r a h n e v e r surfaces within the b o u n d a ries of H a l a k h i c discourse. W h a t originates in the O r a l T o r a h , therefore, is n o t the contents of the H a l a k h a h b u t the conviction that a w e b of rules translates those f u n d a m e n t a l theological affirmations into a n orderly a n d regular p a t t e r n of n o r m a t i v e behavior. A n d t h a t , to state the point of it all, is the genius of the O r a l T o r a h (if only p a r t of it). W e begin with the f u n d a m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t of m a t t e r s a n d proceed to a special p r o b l e m . T h e H a l a k h i c category, Berakhot, provides rules governing [1] the recitation of the Shema', [2] the p r o n o u n c e m e n t of the Prayer, [3] c o n d u c t at meals with special attention to saying blessings before, a n d grace after, eating; a n d [4] blessings to be recited in some o t h e r connections. T h e legal structure of the H a l a k h a h is systematic a n d orderly, working its w a y t h r o u g h the everyday life, a n d registers imp o r t a n t points in its own f r a m e w o r k , e.g., rules of classifying food, laws securing correct reverence at prayer, a n d the like. R e f e r r i n g to passages of Scripture of a mainly-theological c h a r a c t e r , the H a l a k h a h in n o w a y finds a m o d e l for its topical p r o g r a m , let alone f o r its generative concerns, in Scripture. Scripture knows n o t h i n g of blessings before a n d G r a c e after meals, n o r of blessings o n o t h e r occasions, n o r of the Prayer. It does supply the text of the Shema', in D e u t e r o n o m y (and N u m b e r s ) b u t does not legislate c o n c e r n i n g w h a t is n o w a liturgy in the w a y in which it does, e.g., for the D a y of A t o n e m e n t , t h r o u g h narrative, or for the support of the Priesthood, t h r o u g h laws. N o legal passage of the P e n t a t e u c h presents rules for systematization a n d d e v e l o p m e n t by Berakhot in a m a n n e r c o m p a r a ble to those that are taken u p a n d amplified in the way, for example, in which Y o m a systematizes Leviticus 16, N e g a i m , Leviticus 13-14, or S o t a h , N u m b e r s 5. But the category does call u p o n the W r i t t e n T o r a h for not only facts but, m o r e i m p o r t a n t , for the theological premises of belief that are e m b o d i e d in its rules, as I shall spell out in detail. So w h a t the O r a l T o r a h contributes is the systematization, a n d , in context, the creedal theologization, of episodic verses of Scripture.

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

19

Verses that figure in the H a l a k h a h of Berakhot include the c o m p o nents of the Shema', Dt. 6:4-9, Dt. 11 ; 13, a n d reference to eating a n d saying a blessing, Dt. 8:10: " Y o u will eat a n d be satisfied a n d bless the L o r d y o u r G o d for the g o o d land that h e has given to y o u . " T h e s e verses pertain to details. But at m u c h d e e p e r layers of t h o u g h t u p o n which the Halakhic construction rests we find a d u m b r a t e d the theology of Israel's relationship to G o d that Scripture sets forth. W h e t h e r or not Scripture dictates the generative premises of the H a l a k h a h stated by, not the substrate of beliefs e m b e d d e d within, Berakhot is w h a t defines o u r p r o b l e m in the present instance. W h a t we shall n o w see is that Scripture does n o t supply the generative premises that precipitate the articulation of the H a l a k h a h : its rules, the actions it defines as n o r m a t i v e . T h e c o m p a r i s o n of the relationship between this category a n d Scripture a n d a n o t h e r m a y once again be expressed very simply: H o r a y o t / L e v i t i c u s 4 ? B e r a k h o t / D t . 4:6-9. H e r e , t h e n , is a case in w h i c h Scripture provides facts b u t n o laws, a n d in which the theological b u t not the H a l a k h i c premises of Scripture are taken over in the f o r m u l a t i o n of rules. Because the written T o r a h contains n o legislation a b o u t these practices, which are not even a d u m b r a t e d in the P e n t a t e u c h , I m a i n tain that the present b o d y of H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h stands a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture. But w h e n the O r a l T o r a h identifies the creedal principles of the faith, it states w h a t the P e n t a t e u c h says, n o m o r e , n o less. T h e s e selected doctrines e n c o m p a s s G o d ' s unity a n d d o m i n i o n , the T o r a h as G o d ' s plan, the categories, creation, revelation, r e d e m p t i o n , as these organize holy Israel's existence, t h e n bring a b o u t direct address to G o d c o n d u c t e d in the concrete presence of G o d , a n d finally, equally direct address to G o d w h e n , in the center of Israel's o r d i n a r y life, Israel sustains itself with food. G o d ' s beneficence a n d benevolence are declared, a n d as Israel e n c o u n t e r s evidences of G o d ' s intervention in the everyday, his activity is acknowledged with thanks. So the creed, prayers, a n d blessings that are encased in a w e b of rules a n d regulations recapitulate principal elem e n t s of the theology of the T o r a h , written as m u c h as oral. W h e n we ask, w h a t premises c o n c e r n i n g G o d ' s relationship with Israel perv a d e the H a l a k h a h a n d c o m e to concrete expression only in the H a l a k h a h a n d n o t in the c o r r e s p o n d i n g m e d i a of the A g g a d a h (here: inclusive of liturgy)? we find a b o d y of H a l a k h a h deeply d e p e n d e n t for its contents u p o n Scripture. By the H a l a k h a h we are given the practical a n d concrete m e a n s by which those principles are m a d e

20

CHAPTER ONE

substantial, declared, acted out, i m p o s e d u p o n , discerned within, the everyday life of holy Israel, e n c o m p a s s i n g the o r d i n a r y Israelite. W i t h i n the details of the laws is e m b e d d e d a m a j o r s t a t e m e n t a b o u t w h a t is between G o d a n d Israel. A n d while the law m a k e s that statem e n t in a prolix m a n n e r only t h r o u g h details, n e v e r stating the point in general terms, in fact its principles are few a n d accessible of econ o m i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n . It is a simple statement, a n d it is o n e that Moses surely would have a p p r o v e d for the W r i t t e n T o r a h . But w h a t are we to m a k e of generative premises that the H a l a k h a h takes for g r a n t e d — b u t n o t o n e of which the H a l a k h a h takes u p a n d develops in its o w n terms a n d f r a m e w o r k : 1. G o d takes a constant a n d intense interest in the condition of Israelite attitudes a n d opinions. H e cares that Israel affirm his unity a n d declare his d o m i n i o n , t h r o u g h the recitation of the Shema' a n d related acts of prayer. H e waits for the expression of love, he hears, h e responds. T h a t is w h y he pays close attention to the m a n n e r in which the obligation to d o so is carried out, n o t i n g that it is d o n e in a correct a n d respectful way. H o w else is a merely f o r m a l gesture to be distinguished f r o m a truly sincere, intentional one? W h a t is i m p o r t a n t is that w h e n the correct w o r d s are spoken, they are spoken with the attitude of acknowledging G o d ' s d o m i n i o n , as a n explicit act of accepting the g o v e r n m e n t of H e a v e n a n d the discipline ("yoke") of the c o m m a n d m e n t s . T h a t is w h a t is m e a n t in the laws covering reciting the blessings, for instance, Blessed are you...who..., or Blessed are you, who has sanctified us by his commandments and commanded us to.... G o d values these words of a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t a n d thanks. G o d f u r t h e r hears a n d responds to the praise, supplication, a n d thanks of Israel, as these are set forth in the Prayer. Reciting the Prayer while facing J e r u s a l e m ' s T e m p l e a n d the holy of holies, the Israelite directs the Prayer to the place in which G o d ' s Presence o n c e c a m e a n d o n e d a y will again c o m e to rest. T h e attitude of the Israelite in reciting the P r a y e r acutely concerns G o d , a n d t h a t m u s t be a n attitude of solemnity; the o n e w h o says the P r a y e r m u s t c o n d u c t himself or herself as in the very presence of G o d , in the m o d e l of the rules of c o n d u c t before the e m p e r o r . H o w does G o d r e s p o n d to Israel's acknowledgem e n t , thanks, a n d above all, a c c e p t a n c e of his d o m i n i o n ? G o d sees to it that life is sustained, with special reference to food, a n d prayers that acknowledge the gift of life t h r o u g h f o o d m u s t r e s p o n d with precision to the specificities of the gift: w h a t particular class of food is involved? Finally, w h e n Israel is e m b o d i e d in a q u o r u m of Israelites,

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

21

G o d ' s presence, not only his gifts, is to be n o t e d properly in a call to a t t e n d u p o n the shared rite. Finally, G o d intervenes at all times, past, present, future, a n d in all circumstances, however h u m b l e a n d personal, a n d G o d ' s intervention is to be w a t c h e d for a n d acknowledged. So w h e n the A g g a d a h insists that all Israel—everyone w h o accepts the rule of the o n e a n d only G o d — w i l l rise f r o m the grave to eternal life, while the gentiles, defined by their idolatry a n d rejection of G o d , are destined to d e a t h , that point of insistence bears m o r e t h a n abstract interest. G o d is intimately involved in the on-going life of Israel, sustaining that life in the here a n d n o w , not only at j u d g m e n t a n d in the world to c o m e . At m a n ' s every act of breathing, o n eveiy occasion of n o u r i s h m e n t , G o d renews the promise of the création of life a n d confirms the promise of restoration at the e n d . 2. T h r o u g h the life of p r a y e r a n d fulfillment of c o m m a n d m e n t s , Israel w r a p s itself before G o d in a cloak m a d e u p of the fabric of actions that sanctify t h r e a d by t h r e a d . F r o m Israel's perspective, all Israel a n d individual Israelites c o n d u c t life u n d e r the p e r p e t u a l rule of that just a n d merciful G o d w h o m a d e the world, a n d that rule is personal, i m m e d i a t e , a n d penetrating. If G o d immediately engages with Israel, for its p a r t Israel, all together a n d o n e by one, seeks that e n g a g e m e n t . T h a t is because Israel lives a n d acts u n d e r G o d ' s perpetual gaze. I n the m o r n i n g the Israelite accepts G o d ' s d o m i n i o n in a n act of personal submission, t h e n explicitly u n d e r t a k e s to c a n y out G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s , in all their concrete specificity. In e x c h a n g e , the Israelite recognizes that w h a t e v e r h a p p e n s expresses a c h a p t e r in G o d ' s plan for creation a p a r a g r a p h — p e r h a p s only a sentence, a w o r d , a m e r e letter—of G o d ' s intention for that particular person. T h a t fact forms the premise of the Prayer, with its systematic, personal p r o g r a m of praise, supplication, a n d thanks. M o r e broadly still, the very fact that the individual lives attests to G o d ' s will, by which every m a n lives o r dies that very m o m e n t t h r o u g h the course of life. Life d e p e n d s o n food, the point of intersection, then, between m a n a n d G o d , the m o m e n t of special a n d a p p r o p r i a t e a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of the gift of life: n o u r i s h m e n t by this m e a n s provokes these words, by that m e a n s , those. Since G o d pays such close a n d c o n t i n u i n g attention to w h a t each person says a n d h o w he says it, w h a t he does a n d why he does it, n o n e n e e d find surprising G o d ' s intervention o r m a n ' s specific a n d a p p r o p r i a t e response. T h a t is why the correct f o r m u l a of a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t guides response, also, to all miracles, b o t h the routine a n d the e x t r a o r d i n a r y , that e m b o d y G o d ' s interven-

22

CHAPTER ONE

tion. T h r o u g h o u t , there is n o distinguishing Israel f r o m the Israelite, w h a t affects the whole obligates the one, w h a t h a p p e n s to the o n e f o r m s the destiny of all.

V . Catégories that Encompass in their System Facts Set forth in Scripture: [2] Taanit T h e category-formation, T a a n i t , j o i n s two distinct topics, neither of t h e m defined as categories, let alone legislated for, in the law of the P e n t a t e u c h : fasting in time of crisis, the rules governing c o n d u c t in the village w h e n the priests of the place go u p to serve in the T e m p l e . T h e H a l a k h a h ' s c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n registers its own propositions in response to premises that the H a l a k h a h itself has i d e n t i f i e d — a category completely a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture, with laws spun o u t of facts of Scripture a n d premises n e v e r f r a m e d in legal terms by Scripture. T h e first is h o w to r e s p o n d to times of crisis, a n d that is t h r o u g h fasting. D r o u g h t a n d f a m i n e a n d w a r signal G o d ' s displeasure with Israel a n d occasion acts of r e p e n t a n c e a n d a t o n e m e n t ; these take the f o r m of public fasting a n d prayer. 111 times of crisis Israel jointly a n d severally relates to G o d t h r o u g h acts of supplication j o i n e d to penitence for sin. T h e second, a n d quite u n r e l a t e d , t h e m e is h o w the c o m m u n i t y at h o m e responds to the occasion on which the priestly c o m p o n e n t of the village goes u p to J e r u s a l e m to c o n d u c t the T e m p l e rite for its assigned span of time. A delegation of Levites a n d layIsraelites would a c c o m p a n y the priests, twenty-four of t h e m t h r o u g h the year, a n d at h o m e t h e n the entirety of the c o m m u n i t y , m e a n i n g , non-priests, would participate at h o m e t h r o u g h the recitation a n d study of verses of Scripture. T h a t p r a y e r a n d fasting f o r m the p r o p e r response to crisis is c o m m o n p l a c e , e.g., 1 Kgs. 8:37-39: "If there is f a m i n e in the land, if there is pestilence or blight o r mildew o r locust o r caterpillar, if their e n e m y besieges t h e m in a n y of their cities; w h a t e v e r plague, w h a t e v e r sickness there is; w h a t e v e r prayer, w h a t e v e r supplication is m a d e by a n y m a n o r by all thy people Israel, e a c h k n o w i n g the affliction of his o w n h e a r t a n d stretching out his h a n d s t o w a r d this house, t h e n h e a r t h o u in h e a v e n , thy dwelling place, a n d forgive a n d act a n d r e n d e r to e a c h whose h e a r t t h o u knowest a c c o r d i n g to all his ways." So too J o e l 1:14 is even m o r e explicit: "Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly. G a t h e r the elders a n d all the i n h a b i t a n t s of the land to the house of

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

23

the L o r d y o u r G o d a n d cry to the Lord; 5 ' a n d J o e l 2:15-17: "Blow the t r u m p e t in Zion, sanctify a fast; call a solemn assembly, g a t h e r the people; sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders; g a t h e r the children,' ‫ י‬etc. T h e s e a n d o t h e r references (e.g., 1 C h r . 2:20:3-4, Z e c h a r i a h 7:2-3, 8:19) to fasting c o n t a i n n o H a l a k h a h , a n d o n the basis of S c r i p t u r e — P e n t a t e u c h , Prophets, Writings alike—we c a n n o t have anticipated the f o r m a t i o n of such a category. N o r does the institution of the ma'amad, w h i c h I translate as "delegation," rest u p o n a H a l a k h i c composition in the P e n t a t e u c h . T h e category-formation, as in the case of Berakhot, is both quite a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture a n d deeply e n g a g e d by Scripture's theology. T h e given of the H a l a k h a h of T a a n i t in its two principal c o m p o n e n t s places Israel into a plane of eternity in which the present p a r ticipates in the reality of the past, the past plays its p a r t in the q u o t i d i a n m o m e n t too. T h a t is in two ways, o n e with reference to history (fasting), the other, to n a t u r e (celebration of the priests at the altar). First, the lines of time are obscured, so that past a n d present f o r m a c o n t i n u u m to which issues of c h r o n o l o g y prove irrelevant. 111 the rite of fasting, therefore, the fearful c o m m u n i t y invokes the prèsence of A b r a h a m , the p r e c e d e n t of the Sea, the p a t h o s of J o n a h , answering the question of w h y G o d should save Israel, h o w G o d saves Israel, a n d to w h a t traits a n d acts of penitent Israel G o d ought r e s p o n d in considering the condition of Israel. T h e b o u n d a r i e s of space are t r a n s c e n d e d . T h a t is m a d e explicit w h e n Israel in the provinces takes u p its position in the T e m p l e , sending agents to represent the h o m e - c o m m u n i t y w h e n its priesthood takes its t u r n at the altar. W h a t Israel celebrates, at h o m e n o w in c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with the T e m p l e , is the recapitulation of all creation, by definition a n event the overspreads the entire world. So at the specified interval, Israel takes u p its presence in the T e m p l e a n d bears witness to the creation of the world that the cult celebrates: the L a n d to be sure, b u t only as culmination a n d t r i u m p h of all creation. T h e H a l a k h i c s t a t e m e n t of T a a n i t spells out h o w Israel relates to G o d t h r o u g h prayerful statem e n t s to him on both ordinary, n a t u r a l a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y , historical occasions. T h a t is why regular prayers for rain, for example, are s u p p l e m e n t e d by penitential prayers a n d related activities, as the case requires. While H a l a k h i c statements of the P e n t a t e u c h d o not provide that premise, the entire c o r p u s of theology that inheres in the W r i t t e n T o r a h in general terms dictates that very point. T h e O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h has e m b o d i e d that conclusion not in general terms

24

CHAPTER ONE

b u t in the concrete n o r m s of public behavior. But k n o w i n g only the P e n t a t e u c h a l law, we should n e v e r have i m a g i n e d the construction of the category-formation, T a a n i t . T h e s e two theological compositions a n i m a t e the present categoryf o r m a t i o n s (as they d o implicitly for m a n y others). A n d the two cate g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s — B e r a k h o t a n d T a a n i t — a c c o m p l i s h their tasks w i t h o u t at a n y point taking over a n d building u p o n the H a l a k h i c c o r p u s of Scripture. T h a t is the m a i n point at h a n d w h e n we wish to k n o w the relationship b e t w e e n Scripture a n d the generative premises of the H a l a k h a h . T h e r e m a i n d e r of the cases before us present n o c o m p a r a b l e ambiguities. E a c h o n e of t h e m stands wholly on its own f o u n d a t i o n s , never intersecting with Scripture's legal compositions or composites, t h o u g h always infused with Scripture's theology of sanetification. T h e case before us tells us h o w the d o c u m e n t s of the O r a l T o r a h take u p theological propositions of the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d present t h e m within a H a l a k h i c f r a m e w o r k . H e n c e we gain here n o insight into w h a t the O r a l p a r t of the T o r a h can have c o n t a i n e d , viewed in its o w n t e r m s a n d f r a m e w o r k ; all we have is w h a t the written record classified as " t h e O r a l T o r a h " e n c o m p a s s e d — a very different m a t t e r .

V I . The Oral Torah Forms a Category out of Scripture's Topic: Tamid A second a n o m a l o u s c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n belonging to the O r a l T o r a h b u t not representative of the c h a r a c t e r of that p a r t of the T o r a h n o w c o m e s to the fore. T h e O r a l T o r a h , principally the M i s h n a h , selects the daily whole-offering to f o r m a category-formation in its o w n terms a n d t h e n finds n o t h i n g of interest in it. 3 T h e exposition— 3 In the same class of category-formations of the Oral Torah is Middot, which describes the Temple buildings. Obviously, Scripture has defined the category. But the information collected and organized by Middot is difficult to correlate with either other information in Scripture, e.g., Ezekiel's Temple, or actualities. Archaeology has not established a close connection between the Halakhah of Middot and the actualities of the Temple architecture. I cannot explain the point of the tractate, any more than I can that of Tamid. But any account of the category-formations of the Halakhah set forth in the Pentateuch and in Mishnah-Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli must take up all sixty one relevant, Halakhic tractates (excluding Eduyyot, which does not take shape as a category-formation, and Abot, which is not Halakhic and in no way conforms to the rhetorical plan and characteristic program of the Mishnah). As to Qinnim, it Halakhic in its focus but not in its character; it presents not laws but exercises in the application of legal principles of the types of sacrifice sorted out

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

25

a sustained narrative of h o w the rite is carried o u t — i s utterly a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture. W h e n we c o m p a r e Y o m a a n d T a m i d , we see the full state of affairs: the o n e d e p e n d s entirely u p o n Scripture, builds u p o n Scripture's own generative premise, a n d makes a s t a t e m e n t of e n o r m o u s weight. T h e o t h e r does n o t h i n g of the sort. 4 T h e daily whole offering, T a m i d , is set forth at N u m b e r s 28:3-8. E x o d u s 30:78 a d d s the r e q u i r e m e n t of the incense offering. T h a t is all that Scripture contributes: the fact of the daily whole offering. T h e H a l a k h a h f r a m e s its s t a t e m e n t t h r o u g h a narrative of the p r o c e d u r e s in the T e m p l e . As with M i d d o t a n d Q i n n i m the exercise of the o n e a n d the facts of the o t h e r illuminate. But in n o n e of the three cases, inclusive of T a m i d , can I identify a message that the H a l a k h a h wishes to convey t h r o u g h its data. But t h e n there is a striking difference f r o m Y o m a . While Y o m a rests squarely o n the H a l a k h i c narrative of Leviticus 16, T a m i d sets forth a n a u t o n o m o u s narrative. S h e q a l i m shows w h a t can be d o n e with the s a m e t h e m e , the daily whole offering, that Scripture contributes with such slight amplification. So w h e t h e r or n o t Scripture d o m i n a t e s in the presentation of the category makes n o difference. T h e H a l a k h i c narrative answers n o questions that I can identify; it simply says h o w things are d o n e , a n d the a c c o u n t of m a t t e r s contains within itself n o p r o f o u n d inquiry, n o puzzling p r o b l e m , that d e m a n d s attention. H e r e is a case in which free-standing H a l a k h a h bears n o there. It follows that we find fifty-nine category-formations in Mishnah-ToseftaYerushalmi-Bavli. How these category-formations correspond with those in the Pentateuch forms a separate problem, with which I do not deal. It suffices to say that the Halakhah of the Oral Torah skips none of that of the Written Torah and responds to all of it has been demonstrated in the so-called Tannaite Midrashim, Sifra, the two Sifrés, and Mekhilta attributed to R. Ishmael. In a purely formal way, die same fact is shown in the invaluable catalogue of Aharon Mordecai Hyman, Torah hakketubah vehammesurah 'al torah, nebi'im, uketubim (Tel Aviv, 1938: Debir) I-III. Hyman organizes the ancient and even medieval compilations of exegesis of each verse of Scripture in the sequence of the verses of Scripture, so by consulting the verse, one has a full account of where it is discussed in the Rabbinic corpus. No Halakhic verse of the Pentateuch lacks a comment in the Oral Torah, a starting point for all else. But since at issue here is the Halakhah of the Oral Torah, the native categories are those of the Oral Torah, not the Written one: the organizing topics of the Halakhah, not the verses of Scripture. It seems to me a topic of some interest to set forth the Pentateuchal category-formations viewed whole, as the priests who received the Pentateuch surely saw matters. 4

I did not treat Middot as a category-formation, having no comparable one to justify doing so. But the fact that Yoma, parts of Menahot, parts of Parah, parts of Negaim, and other Temple-tractates constitute free-standing category-formations persuades me that Tamid should be placed in the same category.

26

CHAPTER ONE

message b e y o n d its own i n f o r m a t i o n , answers n o question t h r o u g h the provision of its d a t a . T a m i d represents a H a l a k h i c category t h a t does n o m o r e t h a n amplify a n d clarify a topic i n t r o d u c e d by Scripture. Scripture has offered a premise of considerable promise: the daily whole offering atones for all Israel. S h e q a l i m builds o n t h a t premise. T a m i d ignores it, a n d finds n o o t h e r issue of a n y interest. T h e o n e n o t e w o r t h y p o i n t — t h e introduction of canonical p r a y e r into the T e m p l e rite—registers b u t leads n o w h e r e . H e r e is a n o t h e r instance in which the overall plan of a composite of category-formations has precipitated the execution of a category-formation with n o propositional c o n t e n t a n d only m a r g i n a l H a l a k h i c i n f o r m a t i o n (so far as H a l a k h a h by its n a t u r e supplies i n f o r m a t i o n subject to generalization).

VII. Categories beyond Scripture's Framework but Subordinate to Scripture's Own Categories: Demai D e m a i , the H a l a k h i c category that e n c o m p a s s e s p r o d u c e c o n c e r n i n g the tithing of which d o u b t exists, generates laws that dictate h o w a responsible person makes certain that w h a t he p u r c h a s e s in the m a r ketplace a n d eats o r gives to a n o t h e r to eat will be properly tithed. So the topic is doubtfully-tithed p r o d u c e , a n d the p r o b l e m a t i c that generates m u c h of the H a l a k h a h c o n c e n t s public policy in dealing with cases of d o u b t : w h o is to be trusted by w h o m a n d for observance of w h a t p o r t i o n of the law (a p r o b l e m a t i c we m e e t again at T o h o r o t ) . All Israelites, the H a l a k h a h takes for g r a n t e d , separate heave-offering. But the o t h e r pertinent agricultural offerings, first t i t h e — a t e n t h of the c r o p r e m a i n i n g w h e n heave-offering has been r e m o v e d , given to the Levite, heave-offering of the tithe, that is to say, a tenth rem o v e d f r o m the Levite's tithe a n d given to the priest, a n d second tithe o r p o o r m a n ' s tithe ( d e p e n d i n g o n the year of the Sabbatical cycle, first, second, f o u r t h , a n d fifth, or third a n d sixth, respectively)—are designated only by those faithful to the rule. T h e specific p r o b l e m that provokes the f o r m a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h before us conc e n t s the heave-offering of the tithe given to the Levite, which heaveoffering f u r t h e r goes to the priest. If not r e m o v e d , the heave-offering of the tithe given to the Levite i m p a r t s the status of holiness to the p r o d u c e in which it is mixed, even as would the heave-offering of the entire c r o p that everyone is a s s u m e d to designate a n d remove. T h e

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

27

precipitating issue leads to a systematic discussion of large questions of social policy, with special reference to h o w the m o r e observant negotiate life in the c o m m u n i t y of the less observant, all of t h e m parties to the condition of Israel. T h e generative issue is how those w h o properly separate tithes are to relate, commercially a n d commensally, to those that d o not. T h e question addresses the issue, w h a t is their responsibility for p r o d u c e that they transfer to others, w h a t is their obligation in regard to p r o d u c e that they receive f r o m others? T h e H a l a k h i c p r o b l e m a t i c t h e n defines the theological issue: h o w d o J e w s (using the t e r m to refer to those d e e m e d to belong to a c o m m o n ethnic group) relate to Israel, m e a n i n g , the holy people w h o m G o d b r o u g h t into being t h r o u g h the T o r a h at Sinai? A n d the a n s w e r that the H a l a k h a h sets forth is, all Israel is Israel. W h a t the H a l a k h a h of D e m a i emphatically registers is that the Israelites w h o d o not observe cultic cleanness in the household i n t e r m a r r y with, a n d will respect the convictions a n d c o n d u c t of, those that do. O t h e r c o m p o n e n t s of the H a l a k h a h stress that those w h o d o not observe cultic cleanness in the household will not w a n t o n l y or deliberately i m p a r t cultic uncleanness to the secular food of that c o m p o n e n t of Israel that does so. T h e premise of the H a l a k h a h in b o t h cases is o n e a n d the same: all Israel keeps some of the H a l a k h a h , a n d some of Israel keeps it all - a n d all together, the two c o m p o n e n t s f o r m a single, holy Israel. T h a t is why the H a l a k h a h legislates for the situation that it treats here a n d in tractate T o h o r o t , which also stands a u t o n o m o u s of the P e n t a t e u c h . A n d viewed as a m a t t e r of social policy, t h a t conviction underscores the wisdom of the H a l a k h a h in requiring the observant to m a k e provision for the u n o b servant, d o i n g so, however, without i n t r u d i n g into their alfairs in a h a u g h t y or hostile m a n n e r . T h e P e n t a t e u c h contains n o t h i n g to lead us to anticipate so bala n c e d a n d n u a n c e d a corpus of H a l a k h a h as D e m a i sets forth. 111 the W r i t t e n T o r a h Moses does not legislate for a mixed society of observant, partly observant, a n d u n o b s e r v a n t Israelites living side by side. O n the contrary, w h e n Israelites object to Moses's teaching, they are wiped out. H e r e , by contrast, even S a m a r i t a n s , even less observant Israelites are assumed to exhibit integrity a n d good will, since they are held to keep the law correctly, as we n o t e d : " H e w h o leaves [Iiis tithed] p r o d u c e in the keeping of a S a m a r i t a n or an 'am ha'ares—[the p r o d u c e remains] in its p r e s u m e d status with regard to tithes a n d with regard to S e v e n t h - Y e a r p r o d u c e . " W h e r e they err, w h e r e not,

28

CHAPTER ONE

not. T h e H a l a k h a h sets forth n o recriminations a n d p r o n o u n c e s n o exclusions. If I h a d to select the relevant premises of Scripture, they would be those e m b o d i e d in stories a b o u t K o r a c h ( N u m . 16) o r a b o u t M o a b a n d Phineas's disposition of the Israelite a n d the M i d i a n i t e w o m a n ( N u m . 2 5 ) — n o t to m e n t i o n Moses at the G o l d e n C a l f . — a n d they would n o t g e n e r a t e the H a l a k h a h before us b u t a very different set of rules, such as we shall see in d u e course in the category, A b o d a h Z a r a h . D e m a i then stands at the opposite e x t r e m e f r o m S h e b u o t , H o r a y o t , Y o m a , a n d the rest: a category utterly aut o n o m o u s of Scripture, e n c o m p a s s i n g facts that Scripture has n o t supplied, spun out of premises a n d principles Scripture n o t only does not p r o d u c e b u t can hardly be said to entertain o n its o w n account. But w h a t does D e m a i teach a b o u t the O r a l T o r a h — n o t a b o u t sages' p r o f o u n d grasp of s o u n d public policy b u t a b o u t the revelation of category-formations a n d their principles distinct f r o m those of Scripture? I n D e m a i we deal with the ambiguities of the Israelite social o r d e r a n d with H a l a k h a h f r a m e d to sort out those u n c e r t a i n situations a n d guide the faithful in the right way. T h e categoryf o r m a t i o n at h a n d forms a n essay in applied social policy, taking for g r a n t e d a vast c o r p u s of H a l a k h a h — t h e H a l a k h a h of tithing, for example, a n d of cultic cleanness— t h a t derives f r o m the W r i t t e n T o rah. In that way, we m a y best identify the c o u n t e r p a r t to D e m a i in Q i n n i m , of all t r a c t a t e s — w h e r e a set of c o n u n d r u m s s h a r p e n o u r capacity to reason a b o u t the classifications of offerings a n d the rules governing t h e m , fully worked out in a sequence of illustrative p r o b lems. H e r e too, once we k n o w the laws of Scripture a n d the possibilities of gray areas c o n t a i n e d therein, we find illumination in p r o b l e m s a n d cases. T h a t is w h y we take u p in D e m a i a massive exercise in the study of interstitialities (in a logical, theoretical framework) a n d f r a m ing public policy in the real world (in the setting of actualities). So while the category-formation innovates, it is the c h a r a c t e r of the p r o b l e m s t h a t its law takes u p , not the very f o u n d a t i o n s of the law, that is e x p o u n d e d . So far as the O r a l T o r a h serves as a free-standing, a u t o n o m o u s s t a t e m e n t of category-formations a n d the laws that define t h e m , we c a n n o t discern the c h a r a c t e r of the O r a l T o r a h f r o m Demai. N o w we turn to the first of the f o u r category-formations of the O r a l T o r a h that characterize w h a t belongs to the O r a l T o r a h in particular a n d n o t to the W r i t t e n one, by explicit declaration or b y implication a n d s e c o n d a r y d e v e l o p m e n t .

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

29

VIII. The Oral, Torah's Own Categories: [I] Scripture's Imperatives without Scripture's Facts. Tohorot T o the H a l a k h i c category of T o h o r o t Scripture has c o n t r i b u t e d only o n e conception, but it is the o n e that, in context, has m a d e all the difference: "You shall be holy, for I the L o r d y o u r G o d a m holy" (Lev. 19:3). So far as the O r a l T o r a h realizes a n d actualizes the W r i t t e n , h e r e is a fine case in point. But the category-formation before us in n o w a y calls u p o n Scripture a n d finds in Scripture n o puzzling, episodic d a t a , certainly n o generative premises w o r t h y of even casual attention. H e r e is a category-formation, rich a n d dense in c o m p l e x H a l a k h a h , that Scripture in n o way has b r o u g h t into being, a n d to which Scripture makes r e m a r k a b l y slight contributions. A n d yet, even m o r e t h a n D e m a i , the O r a l T o r a h has identified a principal c o n c e r n of the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d realized that c o n c e n t in a H a l a k h i c structure a n d system. Called "Purities," generically, the H a l a k h i c category of T o h o r o t covers f o u r topics that correlate: [1] Fathers a n d O f f s p r i n g of uncleanness; [2] removes of uncleanness, f r o m the original source, a n d the affect of w h a t is m a d e unclean at o n e o r m o r e removes u p o n food in various degrees of sanctification; [3] m a t t e r s of d o u b t in c o n n e c t i o n with the uncleanness of food a n d utensils a n d principles for their resolution; [4] relationships between those w h o keep the purity laws within the domestic household a n d those w h o d o not, a n d h o w ambiguities are resolved in that c o n n e c tion. O f all of this Scripture knows details but not a fully-organized category-formation. H e r e sages have identified a n d classified d a t a that, for reasons they discerned, c o h e r e d . T h e connections that, d e e m i n g t h e m self-evident, they d r a w b e t w e e n four distinct categories of H a l a k h a h having to d o with purities therefore expose the rationality that a n i m a t e s their thinking t h r o u g h o u t , that is, givens of the a u t o n o m o u s O r a l T o r a h : 1. the relationship between sources of uncleanness a n d removes or successive levels of sanctification; 2. the relationship between Fathers a n d O f f s p r i n g of uncleanness; 3. sorting o u t matters of d o u b t a n d d e t e r m i n i n g probabilities; 4. the relationship of the haber a n d the 'am ha'ares. T h e s e f o u r categories derive f r o m the systematic presentation of the H a l a k h a h by the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a , the only sustained statem e n t s on the m a t t e r that we have f r o m antiquity, the T a l m u d s falling silent here. N o o n e can d o u b t that the issue of removes can be

30

CHAPTER ONE

explored in discrete passages of Scripture, as the T a l m u d s to Mishn a h - t r a c t a t e S o t a h C h a p t e r Five (M. 5:2) d e m o n s t r a t e . A n d n o n e can miss the d a t a in the W r i t t e n T o r a h that, here a n d there, b e a r the clear implication of differentiation between p r i m a r y a n d secondary, original a n d derivative, sources of uncleanness. R e m o v e s of u n c l e a n ness to the experienced H a l a k h i c eye certainly inhere in all m a n n e r of declarations by Scripture, so too, the points of differentiation between F a t h e r s a n d O f f s p r i n g of uncleanness. N o o n e can i m a g i n e that the O r a l T o r a h h a s fabricated the entire c o r p u s of H a l a k h a h in this critical, this key construction. But the system as a system belongs to the category-formation, T o h o r o t . For, as in the analysis of a n y category-formation, it is h o w the f o u r categories hold together that exposes the i n n e r logic of the f r a m e r of the system. T h e f o u r m a i n foci of T o h o r o t hold together because to the sages they m a k e a single statement, f r o m logical beginn i n g to necessary e n d , a n d the o r d e r is critical to the message that is set forth. Specifically, sages c o n t e m p l a t e a n intangible world of confusion between classes of things a n d persons that are b o t h alike a n d not alike: things that m a y c o n t r a c t uncleanness b u t also attain sanetification; sources of uncleanness; things that m a y be unclean or clean; persons w h o are Israelites all together, b u t w h o m a y or m a y n o t keep certain laws of the T o r a h . W h a t the H a l a k h a h accomplishes in e a c h case is to identify things that are to begin with alike—that stand along a single c o n t i n u u m , that b e a r traits in c o m m o n — b u t t h a t also exhibit differentiating qualities. V i e w e d f r o m a n o t h e r perspective, we deal with a variety of persons a n d objects that have h a d e a c h its o w n "history." E a c h m u s t tell its o w n story, b u t the c h a p t e r s are the same: is the person or object, food o r drink, to be classified as u n c l e a n o r clean? T o a n s w e r that question, I n e e d to k n o w the following i n f o r m a t i o n : 1. the level of sanctification for w h i c h the cleanness is required (how the p e r s o n , object, food o r drink has been subject to surveillance over time); 2. the c h a r a c t e r of the uncleanness to which the person or food m a y or m a y n o t have b e e n exposed, p r i m a r y o r secondary, a n d the n u m b e r of removes f r o m exposure to t h a t source at which the person o r food stands: i m m e d i a t e contact, o n c e - r e m o v e d , a n d so o n outward; 3. in w h a t location (public, private domain), in w h a t season (dry o r rainy), a n d within w h a t sort of transaction, the exposure is supposed to have taken place or n o t taken place;

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

31

4. w h a t sort of instructions, conditions, a n d rules were articulated to the parties w h o m a y or m a y not have i m p a r t e d uncleanness by t o u c h i n g the food or drink or utensils that are subject to d o u b t 111 r e a c h i n g a decision o n h o w to classify a person, object, food or drink, e a c h of these questions requires a n answer, a n d at every stage in the process of interrogation, we have to reconstruct the story of w h a t has h a p p e n e d to this person, object, food or drink in the context established by the inquiry into the status that pertains. A n d h a v i n g c o m e this far, we realize w h a t holds the whole together: the f o u r principal parts of the H a l a k h a h before us contribute to the single, sustained narrative that encompasses the person or object, the food or drink, a n d that d e t e r m i n e s the t a x o n o m i c o u t c o m e of the process. T h e narrative tells us w h a t things the person or object h a s t o u c h e d , w h a t things those things have t o u c h e d , a n d so o n t h r o u g h a sequence of removes; a n d it f u r t h e r tells us the status i m p u t e d to the food or drink by the attitude a n d intentionality of the principal player in the d r a m a , the person affected by the considerations at h a n d : uncleanness at the o n e side, sanctification at the other. All of this, amplified by the consideration of removes, forms a small narrative of a cosmic transaction. 111 this u n s e e n world the i m p a l p a b l e force of the attitude of responsible actors makes its i m p a c t everywhere. U n c l e a n n e s s is relative to that which it affects, a n d the sensitivity to uncleanness of that which is affected by uncleanness d e p e n d s u p o n the status i m p u t e d by m a n ' s will. Stated simply: if m a n assigns food or drink to the status of H o l y T h i n g s a n d so acts as to preserve the cleanness of w h a t is sanctified in that status, then the sources of uncleanness affect the food or drink t h r o u g h successive removes, as m a n y as three (Parah will a d d yet a n o t h e r , as we shall see later on). If m a n ' s intentionality does n o t i m p a r t to the food or drink the s t a n d i n g of H o l y T h i n g s b u t of ordinary, secular food or drink, then fewer removes f r o m the source of uncleanness p r o d u c e effects. It is the initial decision a n d attitude of m a n that makes the difference. If m a n is alert a n d capable of f o r m i n g intentionality, if m a n can be interrogated in the assumption that he cares a b o u t c o n t a m i n a t i o n , t h e n the rules of c o n t a m i n a t i o n are strictly enforced; if not, then they are null. A child c a n n o t f o r m a n intention to preserve cleanness a n d , therefore, in a case of d o u b t , he also c a n n o t be assumed to have i m p a r t e d uncleanness. T h e 'am ha'ares is assumed to t o u c h w h a t e v e r he can r e a c h — u n l e s s h e is instructed not to. T h e n his intentionality, to respect the wishes of the

32

CHAPTER ONE

h o u s e h o l d e r , is a s s u m e d to pertain a n d therefore to protect f r o m uncleanness w h a t the Wz ha'ares c a n have t o u c h e d b u t p r o b a b l y did n o t c o n t a m i n a t e at all. At the critical turnings in the decision-making process, the t a x o n o m i c question finds its a n s w e r in the relativities of attitude a n d intention. T h e H a l a k h a h rests o n the f o u n d a t i o n s of a single condition: Israel is holy, w h e r e v e r located; that is its n a t u r a l condition. T h a t is Scripture's generative c o n t r i b u t i o n , a n d seen whole, the O r a l T o r a h has richly e l a b o r a t e d it. W h a t removes Israel f r o m its status as sanctified is u n n a t u r a l to Israel, b u t a given of the world. Sanctification is the established condition for family a n d p r o p e r t y (food, drink, clothing, utensils). W h a t removes the family, its f o o d , drink, clothing a n d u t e n sils, f r o m the status of sanctification interferes with w h a t o u g h t to be n a t u r a l . Sources of uncleanness also c o m e a b o u t by n a t u r e ; sages a d h e r e rigidly to the definition of those sources that Scripture establishes a n d d o n o t a d d a single n e w source or extend a n existing source in a n y consequential way. H o l y Israel, t h e n , c o n f r o n t s r o u n d a b o u t the sources of c o n t a m i n a t i o n ; its task is constantly to r e m a i n alert a n d watchful, lest those c o n t a m i n a t i o n affect Israel. Israel m u s t w a t c h n o t only w h a t it eats a n d drinks a n d wears a n d w h e r e it stands a n d sits a n d lies. Israel also m u s t p a y attention to w h a t the f o o d it eats m a y have t o u c h e d , w h o m a y have stood o r sat u p o n the clothing that it wears a n d the beds o n which it takes a rest. T o preserve the condition it o u g h t always to enjoy, which is, the state of sanctification, Israel has t h e n to m a i n t a i n a constant surveillance of the present a n d past of the world in w h i c h it lives a n d the people a m o n g w h o m it makes its life.

IX. The Oral Torah's Own Categories: [2] Uqsin D e a l i n g with fruit a n d vegetables, U q s i n c o n c e r n s the status of parts of p r o d u c e c o n n e c t e d with, b u t not integral to, the fruit that is eaten. D o these c o n n e c t e d parts of the p r o d u c e share in the status as to uncleanness of the principal c o m p o n e n t s thereof? Like the category, T o h o r o t , Uqsin invokes principles that pertain to food in general, e.g., the v o l u m e of food that is required for susceptibility to affect a given bit of edible material; w h e t h e r o r n o t intentionality is required to classify edible material as food; issues of connection; a n d the like. W i t h special reference to fruit a n d vegetables, then, Uqsin systemati-

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

33

cally e x p o u n d s m a t t e r s of c o n n e c t i o n a n d intentionality. T o Uqsin Scripture makes n o explicit contribution whatsoever, not the categorical topic, certainly n o t the p r o b l e m a t i c (the issue of c o n n e c t i o n being absent f r o m Scripture's repertoire of generative premises), a n d the f r a m e r s of the H a l a k h a h in the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a d o not even p r e t e n d that it does. Scripture has n o b e a r i n g in a n y direct way o n the generative premises of the H a l a k h a h . T h e H a l a k h i c category at h a n d provides the occasion for sustained reflection o n the interplay between m a n ' s intentionality a n d the material world, a n d the message is, h o w m a n ' s sees things m a k e s all the difference. T h e p r i m a c y of intentionality over material actualities in the status of the c o m p o nents of p r o d u c e — a r e they integral or extrinsic, c o n n e c t e d or d e e m e d d i s t i n c t — c o m e s to expression n o t only in detail b u t also explicitly. Certainly the most f e c u n d statement of intentionality comes at the e n d . T o u n d e r s t a n d the statement, we recall that w h a t requires intention is food n o t usually c o n s u m e d by h u m a n beings, a n d w h a t does not is f o o d people naturally eat. N o w , there are things which require p r e p a r a t i o n to be m a d e susceptible to uncleanness b u t d o not require intention, intention a n d p r e p a r a t i o n , intention a n d n o p r e p a r a t i o n , neither intention n o r p r e p a r a t i o n . T h a t familiar m o d e of schematization of m a t t e r s yields p r o f o u n d j u d g m e n t s . First comes the m a i n one: All edible foods which are designated for use by m a n require p r e p a ration b u t d o not require intention. " D o not require i n t e n t i o n " m e a n s , these are foods that the generality of h u m a n i t y d e e m s edible. T h e y therefore fall into the class of food for purposes of c o n t r a c t i n g uncleanness, w h a t e v e r a given individual m a y have in m i n d . But they have to be p r e p a r e d as food for the generality of intentionality to take effect. By contrast to w h a t ? M e a t . T o be classified as food, m e a t must be p r e p a r e d for eating. N o t only so, but w h a t e v e r its source, w h a t ever its status, to be d e e m e d food m a n m u s t intend that it serve as food; we d o n o t take for g r a n t e d that m e a t is food unless m a n m e a n s to eat it (and then by d e e d confirms that intentionality). Placing perfectly valid m e a t , f r o m a beast o r fowl, in the same class with m e a t that Israelites c a n n o t m e a t , e.g., carrion, fat that m a y be f o r b i d d e n , carrion a n d the like makes a striking statement. It is that eating m e a t is n o t d o n e by n a t u r e , in the w a y 111 which eating fruits a n d vegetables is—there, intentionality is not required, we recall!—but always subject to a particular decision on m a n ' s part.

34

CHAPTER ONE

X. The Oral Torah's Own Categories: [3] Ketubot W h e r e the O r a l T o r a h c o m e s into its o w n , defining a category not c o m p o s e d by the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d dictating the c o r p u s of law to e m b o d y that category, it is with respect to the position a n d status of w o m e n in Israelite society. W h e r e Scripture says little or n o t h i n g , the O r a l T o r a h f r a m e s large a n d capacious category-formations a n d articulates refined a n d fully-exposed laws therefor. K e t u b o t , which deals with the m a r r i a g e - c o n t r a c t , invents a n entirely n e w category, a n d Q i d d u s h i n , o n the rite of betrothal, t u r n s a casual fact of Scripture into a fully-spelled-out H a l a k h i c category. K e t u b o t a n d Q i d d u s h i n systematically a c c o r d to a w o m a n reciprocal a n d c o r r e s p o n d ing rights a n d obligations as the m a r r i a g e as it unfolds. K e t u b o t in particular lays f o r m i d a b l e e m p h a s i s u p o n reciprocal obligations a n d relationships e n c o m p a s s i n g not only the f a t h e r of the w o m a n b u t the w o m a n herself, w h o has every right to decide freely u p o n relationships p r o p o s e d to h e r a n d w h o is explicitly a c c o r d e d the right of deliberation at every stage in the marital c o n n e c t i o n , b e g i n n i n g to e n d — b o t h the right a n d the obligation, a n d , it goes w i t h o u t saying, responsibility as well. So, for the H a l a k h a h , I c a n n o t overstress, the generative premise posits reciprocity, a c c o r d i n g to the w o m a n , as m u c h as to the m a n b o t h rights a n d responsibilities. S u c h a m u t u a l i t y of obligation between h u s b a n d a n d wife (not the wife's father's family in general) finds n o c o u n t e r p a r t in the H a l a k h a h of the P e n t a t e u c h , which, therefore, m a k e s n o provision for a m a r riage-agreement such as the k e t u b a h . In the W r i t t e n T o r a h Moses's system provides for special p r o b l e m s b u t n o d o c u m e n t a r y protection for the wife, e.g., providing for restoration of d o w r y o r a l i m o n y in the event of the h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h o r act of divorce, respectively. But we look in vain for systematic presentations, by Scripture, of laws conc e r n i n g the K e t u b a h o r the act of betrothal. So the topic systematically e x p o u n d e d i n the H a l a k h a h is t r e a t e d by Scripture casually a n d episodically, a n d the generative premise of Scripture, w h e n the topic is treated, contradicts that of the H a l a k h a h . T h e m a r r i a g e - c o n t r a c t defines the d o c u m e n t a r y locus for w o r k i n g out those rights a n d obligâtions; e a c h p a r t y has a n interest in the orderly f o r m a t i o n of the social a n d e c o n o m i c fact of the m a r r i a g e — a n d in its fair a n d orderly dissolution as well. H e r e the dissolution involves collecting the m a r riage-settlement f r o m the h u s b a n d ' s estate; as n o t e d , elsewhere we deal with o t h e r aspects of the dissolution of the m a r r i a g e (which m a y

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

35

involve the dissolution of the h o u s e h o l d as well). T h a t d o c u m e n t a n d the a r r a n g e m e n t s it represents have n o f o u n d a t i o n s in Scripture a n d constitute a contribution of the O r a l p a r t of the T o r a h alone. T h a t is not to suggest the W r i t t e n T o r a h makes n o contribution at all, for Scripture figures. But that is only episodically, especially in two m a t ters. A n d the novelty of the m a r r i a g e - c o n t r a c t is u n d e r s c o r e d in t h e m b o t h . First c o m e s the fine for rape, which is paid to the father, so Dt. 22:28-29, next comes Ex. 22:15-16 A n o t h e r aspect of the H a l a k h a h to w h i c h Scripture contributes concerns conflicting claims as to the virginity of the bride, so Dt. 22:13-21. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h makes provision for the claim of the father, b u t leaves a considerable g a p w h e n it c o m e s to the w o m a n herself. Accordingly, Scripture does n o t c o n t r i b u t e the r e q u i r e m e n t of a m a r r i a g e - a g r e e m e n t that provides for the w o m a n ' s support in the event of divorce of d e a t h of the h u s b a n d , that is left to the O r a l T o r a h . K e t u b o t does not owe its s u b j e c t - m a t t e r to Scripture, t h o u g h the category does e n c o m p a s s such i n f o r m a t i o n as Scripture supplies. N o t does Scripture's t r e a t m e n t of the subject, so far as it occurs, in a n y way c o r r e s p o n d at the level of premise with the H a l a k h i c t r e a t m e n t of the s a m e subject. 111 the present category-formation, therefore, the O r a l T o r a h takes as its generative premise that reciprocal a n d corres p o n d i n g rights a n d obligations devolve u p o n all parties to the m a r riage, at each point in the u n f o l d i n g of the m a r r i a g e . T h e s e parties are the girl, the boy, a n d the girl's family (father). T h e marriagec o n t r a c t t h e n defines the locus for the negotiation of the rights a n d obligations of each. All parties h a v e a n interest in the orderly f o r m a tion of the social a n d e c o n o m i c fact of the m a r r i a g e — t h e f o u n d a t i o n , after all, of the h o u s e h o l d — a n d in its orderly dissolution as well. 111 the present context, that m e a n s , collecting the settlement f r o m the h u s b a n d ' s estate. K e t u b o t deals with the beginning, middle, a n d e n d of the m a r r i a g e t h r o u g h h u m a n action, Y e b a m o t , t h r o u g h supern a t u r a l action (death of the h u s b a n d without children a n d disposition of the marital b o n d between the widow a n d the deceased's surviving brother). Scripture deals with the latter, but, so far as I a m able to discern, n o t with the f o r m e r transaction.

36

CHAPTER ONE

X I . The Oral Torah's Original Categories: [4] Qiddushin C o n c e r n i n g the sanctification of a w o m a n to a particular m a n , Scripture presents its slight d a t a in a s u b o r d i n a t e clause at D t . 24:1, " W h e n a m a n takes a wife a n d m a r r i e s h e r . " T h e act of " t a k i n g " involves "marries,' ‫ י‬the H e b r e w w o r d s t a n d i n g for, have sexual relations with. Effectively, therefore, n o t h i n g in Scripture p r e p a r e s us for the topic, let alone the structure a n d system, of Q i d d u s h i n . But that is for a positive reason: the H a l a k h a h insists u p o n the w o m a n ' s conc u r r e n c e in the transaction, of which for the w o m a n in general the legal system of the written p a r t of the T o r a h knows nothing. W h a t we f o u n d in c o n n e c t i o n with K e t u b o t applies without qualification to Q i d d u s h i n . T h e topic a n d the generative premises that guide the f o r m u l a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h o n the t o p i c — b o t h are worked out in their own terms a n d f r a m e w o r k , at n o point in the setting of Scripture, which scarcely takes u p the subject to begin with. T h e p r o b l e m a t i c of the H a l a k h a h of Q i d d u s h i n , the sanctification of a particular w o m a n for a particular m a n , e m e r g e s in the intersection of the l a n g u a g e of acquisition with the l a n g u a g e of sanctification. A h o u s e h o l d e r buys a cow, in a c q u i r i n g it, he does n o t sanctify it. Unless h e m e a n s to offer it o n the altar in J e r u s a l e m ) , a person w h o utilizes the s a m e cow, e.g., milks it or uses it for ploughing, does n o t offend G o d . T h e issue of sanctification does not e n t e r the transaction. But a h o u s e h o l d e r acquires a w o m a n t h e r e b y consecrates the w o m a n as his wife. A n o t h e r person w h o utilizes the same w o m a n , e.g., has sexual relations with h e r a n d p r o d u c e s children by her, e n o r m o u s l y outrages G o d (not to m e n t i o n the husband). T h e category, sanctification a n d its opposite, applies. Yet in b o t h instances the result is, a c q u i r i n g title to, rights over the cow o r the w o m a n . I n d e e d , slaves, movables, a n d real estate prove analogous to the betrothal of a w o m a n . T h e transaction by which a h o u s e h o l d e r acquires a wife, slave, m o v a b l e s o r real estate f o r m s the genus, the language a n d categories a n d action-symbols proving constant. But w h e n it c o m e s to the w o m a n , a n e n o r m o u s point of difference r e n d e r s the w o m a n a n active participant in the transfer of title. S h e has to consent, a n d w h e n she does, h e r status as person, not merely as property, changes; a n d the c h a n g e is called sanctification. So the o p e n i n g exposition of the H a l a k h a h serves to establish the genus— m o n e y , writ, u s u c a p t i o n for the slave, m o n e y , writ, act of sexual relations, c o m p a r a b l e to u s u c a p t i o n , for the w o m a n . T h e s e are c o m -

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

37

p a r e d a n d contrasted a n d firmly situated in a single classification: things that are acquired by the h o u s e h o l d e r t h r o u g h a c o m m o n repertoire of p r o c e d u r e s of transfer of title f r o m o w n e r to o w n e r . T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h speaks of "taking," the O r a l T o r a h , of "sanetifying." T h e generative premise of the H a l a k h a h of Q i d d u s h i n c o m e s to expression in the very title of the category, a n d the o p e r a tive language t h r o u g h o u t , built on the root Q D S h , sanctify. T h e language of sanctification e n c o m p a s s e s the altar a n d its offerings, a n d , by extension, the table a n d the m e a t eaten u p o n it. But w h a t generative symbol links the sanctity of the T e m p l e to that of the b e d r o o m , a n d w h a t concrete m o d e l will govern the formulation of H a l a k h a h within the theory of sanctification a n d sanctity that the T e m p l e realizes? H e r e , that s a m e language of sanctification is invoked in particular in the f o r m u l a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h of family f o r m a t i o n a n d dissolution, as m u c h as in the setting of domestic meals in the m o d e l of food of Holy Things subject to protection f r o m uncleanness. If Israel is to f o r m a k i n g d o m of priests a n d a holy people, a n d if belonging to the holy people c o m e s a b o u t naturally, that is, by birth to a Jewish m o t h e r , as the H a l a k h a h everywhere takes for g r a n t e d , t h e n genealogy will take its place beside theology as arbiter of the validity of acts of betrothal. Israel is f o r m e d by the h o u s e h o l d e r with w o m e n w h o can be sanctified to the m a n at h a n d a n d w h o agree to e n t e r into a sacred relationship with him, to m a i n tain the domestic o r d e r of the h o u s e h o l d e r a n d b e a r a n d raise child r e n . W h e n that relationship is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as holy a n d the result of an act of sanctification, the intent is not figurative or merely symbolic but material a n d concrete. W i t h i n the walls of the Israelite household t h r o u g h betrothal ("qiddushin") a n act of sanctification takes place that bears as weighty c o n s e q u e n c e s as does a n act of sanctification of a n a n i m a l for a n offering to G o d in the T e m p l e ; the transaction at h a n d defines the locus at which Israel attains the sanetity that G o d proposes to bestow o n it. T h e difference between the consecrated offering for the altar a n d the consecrated w o m a n for the m a r r i a g e c a n o p y , governing the entire process of sanctification of w o m a n to m a n , lies in w h a t distillguishes the h u m a n being, m a n o r w o m a n , f r o m the beast: the freed o m of will, the p o w e r of intentionality. T h e m a n m a y declare the w o m a n sanctified, but if she objects, the act is null. If of age, she must accept the tokens of betrothal, directly o r t h r o u g h her agent. If not of age, w h e n she c o m e s of age, she m a y reject an act of betrothal, even

38

CHAPTER ONE

c o n s u m m a t e d , taken by others with control over her in h e r minority, h e r f a t h e r if he is alive, h e r b r o t h e r s if h e is deceased. T h e n she simply u p s a n d walks out, n o t requiring even a writ of divorce. N o sanctification has ever taken place, the w o m a n n o t h a v i n g c o n f i r m e d w h a t has h a p p e n e d t h r o u g h the exercise of will of others with t e m p o rary jurisdiction over her. So the w o m a n consecrated for h e r husb a n d is like the beast sanctified for the altar, b u t with a f o r m i d a b l e difference. T h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of the O r a l T o r a h is not only f o r m i d a b l e in its dimensions b u t r e m a r k a b l y distinctive in its conception.

X I I . The Oral Torah's Original Categories N e i t h e r as to topic a n d expository p r o g r a m for said topic n o r as to generative premises d o Berakhot, D e m a i , K e t u b o t , Q i d d u s h i n , T a a n i t , T a m i d , T o h o r o t , a n d Uqsin look to Scripture. T h e H a l a k h a h in those categories coalesces a r o u n d its o w n topic, identifies the p r o b l e m a t i c of the topic, works out the c o n c r e t e exegetical p r o g r a m , a n d identifies the implicit principles of cogency, all within a rationality a n d a logic that Scripture has not suggested. T h e question that is raised a b o u t the several topics, respectively, consequently does not derive f r o m the W r i t t e n T o r a h . N o n e gains c o h e r e n c e by following the plan of Scripture o n the s a m e topic. T h a t is not to suggest the a u t o n o m o u s constructions of the H a l a k h a h utterly ignore the Pentateuch o r raise questions u n i m a g i n e d within the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s narrative a n d legal repertoire. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h speaks of the cleanness of foods, t h o u g h T o h o r o t a n d Uqsin, o n domestic matters, stand o n their own. T h e written T o r a h c o n c e r n s itself with questions of marital relationships (we n e e d go 110 f u r t h e r t h a n S o t a h to m a k e that point!). But Q i d d u s h i n a n d K e t u b o t ask their o w n questions a b o u t relationships that Scripture for its p a r t does n o t take u p in juridical terms. T h e written T o r a h values piety outside of the T e m p l e a n d its offerings, t h o u g h Berakhot a n d T a a n i t p u r s u e that of the individual arrd the village, n e v e r addressed in Scripture. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h defines the issues of tithing, a n d in that context, D e m a i ' s issue— doubtfully-tithed p r o d u c e — f i n d s a place for itself. A n d the daily whole offering is explicitly called for by Scripture, t h o u g h the category-formation set forth by T a m i d ' s narrative finds n o c o u n t e r p a r t therein. T h e O r a l p a r t of the T o r a h pursues t h e m e s c o m m o n to b o t h parts

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

39

of the T o r a h , identifies p r o b l e m s of its o w n , categories of its own invention, that the Written p a r t of the T o r a h can a c c o m m o d a t e . T h a t is so, even if, in the d o c u m e n t s before us, the Written p a r t of the T o r a h has not precipitated the f o r m a t i o n of said categories. W i t h the entirety of the P e n t a t e u c h a l L a w in h a n d , we should have h a d little basis o n which to fabricate category-formations c o r r e s p o n d i n g to Q i d d u s h i n a n d K e t u b o t , Uqsin a n d T o h o r o t , D e m a i (for o n e set of reasons) a n d T a a n i t (for a n o t h e r set). A n d T a m i d is a special case. Following the point of insistence of the T o s e f t a a n d two T a l m u d s in their provision of proof-texts w h e r e the M i s h n a h ' s formulation lacks t h e m , we m u s t conclude, the W r i t t e n T o r a h can tell us w h y we have the H a l a k h i c categories based on Scripture. But the W r i t t e n T o r a h c a n n o t tell us the reason we have the free-standing ones, certainly not T o h o r o t , Uqsin, K e t u b o t , a n d Q i d d u s h i n . 111 those category-formations, Moses set forth constructions a n d large conceptions that the W r i t t e n T o r a h m a y a c c o m m o d a t e b u t does not generate: Israel's holiness extends to the h o u s e h o l d a n d its table, w o m e n are possessed of rights of intentionality a n d sentience such that they f o r m active players within Israel's polity. H o w these two quite distinct principles coalesce—the extension of sanctity b e y o n d the limits of the T e m p l e , the extension to w o m e n of the active intelligence yielding rights a n d responsibilities that pertain to m a n — d e f i n e s a critical p r o b l e m in the analysis of the O r a l T o r a h as a c o h e r e n t coipus. But before we can t u r n to the whole, we must identify the entire range of indicative traits of the O r a l T o r a h ' s category-formation. So we c o n t i n u e o u r analysis of the parts. T h e s e are two. First c o m e those category-formations that show the O r a l T o r a h to d e p e n d u p o n , b u t to develop a n d amplify, c o m p o n e n t s of the W r i t t e n T o r a h . T h e n we consider those category-formations, the topic of which Scripture sets forth, b u t the entire problematics of w h i c h the O r a l T o r a h has f r a m e d .

X I I I . The Oral Torah Systematizes the Written Torah's Category-Formations, Spirit and Letter Alike: The Four Interstitial Categories W e have n o w addressed the extremes, first, category-formations dietated by the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d fully defined thereby, letter a n d spirit, second, category-formations original to the O r a l T o r a h a n d entirely articulated therein, spirit a n d letter. 111 the f o r m e r case the W r i t t e n T o r a h has defined the topic a n d has set forth the m a i n lines

40

CHAPTER ONE

of the law o n that topic; the O r a l T o r a h refines a n d polishes the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s construction. I n the latter case, the O r a l T o r a h h a s identified the topic o n its o w n , a n d , it goes w i t h o u t saying, intuits the generative tensions i n h e r e n t therein a n d translates these into practical cases, e x e m p l a r y of extensive principles. O f the fifty-nine pertin e n t category-formations of the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a Yerushalmi-Bavli, we have n o w taken u p fifteen. T h e r e m a i n i n g forty-four in the middle, we differentiate into distinct taxa by a simple criterion: w h e n in dialogue with the W r i t t e n T o r a h , has the O r a l T o r a h m a d e its own s t a t e m e n t as well? A n d , if so, w h e r e d o we find its imprints? So we differentiate b e t w e e n spirit a n d letter, n o w in a different way. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h refers to a subject, the O r a l T o r a h develops that subject. W o u l d that, as we c o m e close to the d a t a , m a t t e r s r e m a i n e d so simple! But h e r e we take u p a wholly fresh analytical p r o g r a m in the p h e n o m e n o l o g y of the O r a l T o r a h : f o u r classes of interstitial tractates. T h e r e m a i n i n g forty-four d o two things: they [1] take u p topics defined by the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d [2] supply a quite fresh c o r p u s of H a l a k h a h .

a. Subordinate but Not Concentric Expositions of the Same Category-Formations First, we take u p the O r a l T o r a h ' s s u b o r d i n a t e d b u t still n o t c o m pletely concentric amplification of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s category-formations. In simple terms, the W r i t t e n T o r a h sets forth the letter a n d the spirit, the O r a l T o r a h e x t e n u a t e s the letter b u t does so entirely within the spirit of the established topic. H e r e , some of the categoryf o r m a t i o n s carry f o r w a r d Scripture's topic a n d r e m a i n within w h a t is implicit in Scripture's p r e s e n t a t i o n of the topic, even while they greatly a u g m e n t Scripture's repertoire of laws. But the presentation of Scripture's c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n t r a n s c e n d s the limits of Scripture's detailed p r o g r a m ; n o c o m p a r i s o n of the relationship of the H a l a k h a h of H o r a y o t to Leviticus F o u r with the relationship of the H a l a k h a h of A b o d a h Z a r a h to, e.g., Ex. 23:13 o r Dt. 7:5, can sustain the classification of b o t h bodies of H a l a k h a h within the s a m e t h e m e . If we k n o w w h a t Scripture says a b o u t that t h e m e , we can in general terms predict the spirit of the O r a l T o r a h ' s t r e a t m e n t of the t h e m e , even t h o u g h we c a n n o t outline the detailed p r o g r a m that will guide the O r a l T o r a h ' s articulation thereof. T h a t is w h y the discussion focuses u p o n areas in which the O r a l T o r a h takes u p a topic defined by the

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

41

W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d develops it extensively, while, in m y j u d g m e n t , r e m a i n i n g well within the c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k of the W r i t t e n T o rah. H e r e the spirit is the same but the letter gives substance to the spirit; the W r i t t e n T o r a h has conveyed the spirit, the O r a l T o r a h , the letter. If we wish to define w h a t the O r a l T o r a h contributes o n its own to the f u n d a m e n t a l c o r p u s of principles of the T o r a h , however, we look elsewhere.

b. Received Topics, Innovative Compositions of Category-Formations Thereof S e c o n d , we t u r n to category-formations of the O r a l T o r a h that innovate, b u t d o not wholly invent, n e w constructions. T h e s e e n c o m p a s s constructions that p u t together diverse topics, w h e t h e r or not Scripture has defined said topics, into altogether n e w composites. H e r e Scripture contributes i n f o r m a t i o n b u t not a cogent presentation of i n f o r m a t i o n , refers to a subject casually or alludes to it unsystematically; then the O r a l T o r a h gathers together diverse i n f o r m a tion a n d f o r m s of it a single simple composition of its own. 111 these i n d e p e n d e n t category-formations f o r m e d of d a t a of Scripture together with d a t a not originating there in a n y articulated way, we u n c o v e r p a r t of the O r a l T o r a h ' s contribution. It is that p a r t of the O r a l T o r a h ' s contribution that recasts received categories into n e w ones. A simple c o m p a r i s o n of the bits a n d pieces of information utilized at S a n h e d r i n - M a k k o t , or, m o r e strikingly still, at M i q v a o t a n d the three Babas, suffices to m a k e the point. A n y account of the O r a l T o r a h ' s share of the entire T o r a h will a c c o m m o d a t e the enormously original reworkings of Scripture's fact into entirely fresh constructions b e a r i n g quite distinctive statements that are portrayed.

c. Received Letter, New Spirit: The Asymmetrical Category-Formations of the Oral Torah T h i r d , we deal with category-formations topically defined by the W r i t t e n T o r a h but in precipitating concept vastly recast by the O r a l T o r a h ' s t r e a t m e n t of the subject. 111 the f o r m e r case the O r a l T o r a h ' s category-formations are concentric with the Written T o r a h ' s , in the latter, they are quite asymmetrical. In the f o r m e r case, the O r a l T o r a h makes n o i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n of its own, but explores the implications of that of the W r i t t e n T o r a h 111 the spirit of the

42

CHAPTER ONE

Written T o r a h . In the present case the O r a l T o r a h in a n utterly original m a n n e r reworks the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s topic. N o t h i n g in the O r a l T o r a h ' s presentation of S h a b b a t - E r u b i n , to take the single most blatant case, could h a v e h i n t e d at the particular problematics worked out by that p r o t e a n composition, n o r should we have f o u n d it possible even to assess the p r o p o r t i o n s a n d the foci of the O r a l T o r a h ' s presentation solely o n the f o u n d a t i o n of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s equally fully-realized t r e a t m e n t of the topic of the S a b b a t h . H e r e is the O r a l T o r a h at its most innovative: n o t w h e n it invents a n e w categoryf o r m a t i o n o r reconfigures received categories into n e w c o m b i n a t i o n s , b u t w h e r e it presents s o m e t h i n g m u c h m o r e original t h a n variations on a theme.

d. A Fresh Statement out of a Familiar Topic and Routine Exposition Thereof Finally, we survey the most subtle set of all: the category-formations in which Scripture's topics are amplified a l o n g lines p r o p o s e d by Scripture, but with u n a n t i c i p a t e d results, results that require a close r e a d i n g of w h a t is implicit in details of the H a l a k h a h , n o t merely at the surface of its p r o g r a m m a t i c exposition, such as suffices in the first three sets. H e r e we m o v e b e y o n d questions of letter a n d spirit altogether. F o r o n the surface the O r a l T o r a h takes over the topic of Scripture a n d clarifies p r o b l e m s within the received f r a m e w o r k . But b e n e a t h the surface, discrete details h i t h e r a n d yon coalesce to m a k e points that quite reconstruct w h a t is at stake. O u t of the received category, amplified within Scripture's own p r o g r a m , the O r a l T o r a h makes a s t a t e m e n t of its o w n . A n d , I claim t h r o u g h o u t , that statem e n t simply brings to the surface w h a t is e m b e d d e d a n d implicit in Scripture, read within the correct h e r m e n e u t i c s . T h i s the sages have discovered a n d we are able to reconstruct by picking o u t the critical details. T o clarify this category, a case facilitates the work. T h e H a l a k h i c category-formation, A b o d a h Z a r a h , takes u p H a l a k h i c (and Aggadic) statements of Scripture a n d , in their spirit, works out a set of c o g n a t e topics; the topics as spelled o u t in the O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h in every w a y register principles implicit in, i n d e e d required by, those of the W r i t t e n T o r a h . C i r c u m s t a n c e s (at least in theory) a c c o u n t for the topical amplifications of the O r a l T o r a h , thus: n e w problems, established principles. By contrast, for the reconfiguration of Scripture's topic a n d facts into a p r o f o u n d , a n d theologically encompassing,

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

43

statement, we turn to o n e of the case of O r l a h . T h a t case shows the O r a l T o r a h engaged in a most subtle operation. O n the surface the laws of O r l a h a p p e a r simply to extend a n d clarify the c o r r e s p o n d i n g rule of Scripture. But w h e n we reflect u p o n the substance of those laws, p e n e t r a t i n g into their implications guided by the sages' explicit r e a d i n g of the pertinent verses of Scripture, n o w in the T a n n a i t e M i d r a s h - c o m p i l a t i o n Sifra, we find a surprising fact. T h e laws t u r n out to f o r m a sustained a n d detailed c o m m e n t a r y u p o n the topic, f r a m e d by appeal to a completely u n a n t i c i p a t e d hermeneutics. Specifically, O r l a h is a b o u t not eating the p r o d u c e of a fruit tree in its first three years a n d w h a t to d o with the yield of the fourth year. T h e O r a l T o r a h turns that b o d y of H a l a k h a h into a systematic c o m m e n tary, t h r o u g h rules of c o n d u c t , u p o n the narrative of the fruit-bearing tree in Genesis 1. H e r e , then, a r e m a r k a b l y original h e r m e n e u t i c s has s h a p e d the laconic discourse of the H a l a k h a h , a n d the details of the H a l a k h a h u p o n which the O r a l T o r a h focuses, on the surface dietated by the W r i t t e n T o r a h , turn out to yield a message conveyed, a n d I think discovered, by the O r a l T o r a h .

X I V . Same Spirit, Same Letter— But Lots More Letters W e turn to the entries of the first of m y four categories, those in which the letter of the law of the O r a l T o r a h gives life to the spirit of the Written T o r a h ' s declarations of category a n d principle alike.

a. Abodah 2j1rah T h e topic of the category-formation, A b o d a h Zarali, derives f r o m Scripture's H a l a k h i c heritage: the disposition of idolatry. But the concrete p r o b l e m s that the H a l a k h a h wishes to discuss in respect to that topic d o n o t find definition in Scripture's presentation of the subject. O n first glance, therefore, we might by inclined to classify the tractate a m o n g those that vastly overspread the limits of the Written T o r a h : same topic, fresh amplification. Nonetheless, the basic proposition implicit in Scripture's s t a t e m e n t oil the topic a n i m a t e s the H a l a k h i c exposition, a n d 011 that basis, I classify the category, A b o d a h Zarali, a m o n g those 111 which Scripture's premises are derivatively amplified but n o t vastly a u g m e n t e d with fresh conceptions. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the H a l a k h a h raises so m a n y questions n o t addressed in Scripture's

44

CHAPTER ONE

law that the category in n o w a y proves c o n g r u e n t with those entirely symmetrical with Scripture's c o u n t e r p a r t s , such as we e x a m i n e d earlier in this study. 111 the balance, by the criterion of derivative amplification I classify the category as I do, b u t with a m e a s u r e of d o u b t . R e a d e r s will judge for themselves w h e t h e r that classification proves compelling o r shaky. In its L a n d Israel is to wipe o u t idolatry, even as a m e m o r y . Scripture is clear that Israel is to obliterate all m e n t i o n of idols (Ex. 23:13), n o t b o w d o w n to gentiles' gods or serve t h e m b u t o v e r t h r o w t h e m a n d break t h e m into pieces (Ex. 23:24): " Y o u shall break d o w n their altars a n d dash in pieces their pillars a n d h e w d o w n their Asherim a n d b u r n their graven images with fire" (Dt. 7:5). Israelites are c o m m a n d e d a l o n g these s a m e lines at Dt. 12:2-3. Accordingly, so far as the W r i t t e n T o r a h supplies the f o u n d a t i o n s for the t r e a t m e n t of the m a t t e r by the O r a l T o r a h , the focus of discourse c o n c e r n i n g the gentiles is idolatry. Scripture's H a l a k h a h does not c o n t e m p l a t e Israel's co-existing, 111 the land, with gentiles a n d their idolatry. But w h a t the H a l a k h i c c o r p u s addresses indicates that the H a l a k h a h speaks to a world that is not so simple. T h e H a l a k h a h takes for g r a n t e d that, while the L a n d belongs to Israel, gentiles live there t o o — a n d r u n things. Israel n o longer forms a c o h e r e n t collectivity that engages in c o r p o r a t e action b u t a realm m a d e u p of individuals, with their distinctive circumstances a n d particular interests. T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h c o m m e n c e s its t r e a t m e n t of the s a m e subject with the opposite premise f r o m the o n e that a n i m a t e s Scripture: gentiles live side by side (whether or not 111 the L a n d of Israel) with Israelites, a n d Israelites h a v e to sort out the c o m p l e x p r o b l e m s of co-existence with idolatry. A n d that co-existence involves not whole c o m m u n i t i e s , the People, Israel, a n d the peoples, w h o e v e r they m a y be, but individuals, this Israelite living side by side with that gentile. N o t only so, but the O r a l T o r a h uses the occasion of idolatry to c o n t e m p l a t e a condition entirely b e y o n d the imagination of Scripture, which is the h e g e m o n y of idolatrous nations a n d the subjugation of holy Israel. T h e O r a l T o r a h makes of the discussion of idolatry the occasion for the discussion of Israel's place a m o n g the nations of the world a n d of Israel's relationships with gentiles. F u r t h e r m o r e , the O r a l T o r a h ' s theory of w h o Israel is finds its context in the contrast with the gentiles. T h e m e e t i n g point with the W r i t t e n T o r a h is defined by the indicative trait of the gentiles, which is their idolatry; that is all that

THE MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

45

m a t t e r s a b o u t t h e m . But the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h deals a m o r e c o m p l e x p r o g r a m of problems. It addresses, first, c o m m e r c i a l relationships, second, m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g to idols, a n d finally to the particular prohibition of wine p a r t of which has served as a libation to a n idol. T h e whole is regularized a n d o r d e r e d . T h e r e are relationships with gentiles that are absolutely prohibited, particularly occasions of idol-worship; as we shall see, the H a l a k h a h recognizes that these are m a j o r c o m m e r c i a l events. W h e n it comes to c o m m e r c e with idolaters Israelites m a y n o t sell o r in a n y way benefit f r o m certain things, m a y sell b u t m a y not utilize certain others, a n d m a y sell a n d utilize yet others. H e r e , we see immediately, the c o m p l e x a n d systematic m o d e of t h o u g h t that governs the O r a l T o r a h ' s treatm e n t of the topic vastly transcends the r a t h e r simple conception that a n i m a t e s Scripture's discussion of the same m a t t e r . T h e r e are these u n s t a t e d premises within the H a l a k h a h : [1] w h a t a gentile is not likely to use for the worship of an idol is n o t prohibited; [2] w h a t m a y serve not as part of an idol b u t as a n a p p u r t e n a n c e thereto is proliibited for Israelite use but p e r m i t t e d for Israelite c o m m e r c e ; [3] w h a t serves idolatry is prohibited for use a n d for benefit. 111 reflecting u p o n relationships with the gentiles, m e a n i n g , idolaters, the O r a l T o r a h m o r e o v e r takes for g r a n t e d a n u m b e r of facts. T h e s e t u n ! out to yield a single generalization: gentiles are a s s u m e d routinely to practice bestiality, m u r d e r , a n d fornication. While the H a l a k h i c d e v e l o p m e n t of Scripture's topic addresses circumstances n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d in Scripture, the H a l a k h a h carries f o r w a r d Scripture's perspectives a n d realizes Scripture's basic premises. T h e H a l a k h i c p r o g r a m is i n d e p e n d e n t , b u t its viewpoint wholly coincides with Scripture's. H e r e we m a y well characterize the H a l a k h a h as secondary a n d derivative. T h e generative premise of the H a l a k h a h is easily defined. T h e H a l a k h a h distinguishes Israel f r o m the gentiles, a n d it does so strictly within the limits of Scripture's law. By b o t h parts of the T o r a h , gentiles by definition are idolaters, a n d Israelites by definition are those that worship the one, t m e G o d , w h o has m a d e himself k n o w n in the T o r a h . 111 the O r a l T o r a h , that is the d i f f e r e n c e — t h e only consequential distinction—between Israel a n d the gentiles. T h e H a l a k h a h takes as its p r o b l e m the concretization of that distinction, the d e m o n s t r a t i o n of w h e r e a n d h o w the distinction in t h e o r y makes a huge difference in the practice, the c o n d u c t , of everyday affairs. W h a t is at stake is that Israel stands for life, the gentiles like their idols for d e a t h . A n asherah-tree, like a corpse,

46

CHAPTER ONE

conveys uncleanness to those w h o pass u n d e r n e a t h it, as we n o t e d at M . 3:8: " A n d he should n o t pass u n d e r n e a t h it, b u t if he passed u n d e r n e a t h it, he is u n c l e a n . " Before proceeding, let us consider a clear statement of w h y idolatry defines the b o u n d a r y between Israel a n d everybody else. T h e reason is that idolatry—rebellious a r r o g a n c e against G o d — e n c o m p a s s e s the entire T o r a h . T h e religious d u t y to avoid idolatry is p r i m a r y ; if o n e violates the religious duties, he breaks the yoke of c o m m a n d m e n t s , a n d if he violates that single religious duty, he violates the entire T o r a h . Violating the prohibition against idolatry is equivalent to transgressing all T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s . While Moses in the W r i t t e n T o r a h does n o t f r a m e m a t t e r s in that way, everything that h e does say points to t h a t conclusion. W e m a y say, therefore, that while Scripture has c o n t r i b u t e d the topic, treated by the H a l a k h a h in its own way, Scripture has also dictated the principies that a n i m a t e the amplification of that topic.

b. Arakhin Principally as a m a t t e r of personal initiative individuals consecrate s o m e t h i n g of value. S u c h s u p e r e r o g a t o r y acts of sanctification m a y pertain either to persons or to real estate, a n d b o t h are covered within the H a l a k h i c category of A r a k h i n , Valuations. A person m a y sanctify himself or his property, o r he m a y sanctify the worth of a n o t h e r party, a n d in either case is obligated to p a y to the T e m p l e the value of w h a t he has declared sacred. T h a t represents the process of " r e d e m p t i o n , " that is, r e d e e m i n g with a p a y m e n t of m o n e y w h a t h a s b e e n sanctified for the p u r p o s e s of the T e m p l e . T h e process of r e d e m p t i o n regularizes the m a t t e r . T h e pertinent s t a t e m e n t of Scripture is at Lev. 27:1-8. T h e H a l a k h a h treats as p a r t of the s a m e category the dedication of real estate, n o t only one's personal V a l u a tion, to the T e m p l e . Scripture treats the subject at Lev. 27:16-25. At Lev. 27:28-9 the H a l a k h a h takes u p the disposition of things that are declared h e r e m . T h e final topic is the sale a n d r e d e m p t i o n of a field that has b e e n received as a n i n h e r i t a n c e a n d of a dwelling place in a walled city, Lev. 25:13-17, 25-34. Both personal valuations a n d dedications of real property—fields a n d houses u n d e r specified circums t a n c e s — r e p r e s e n t d o n a t i o n s to G o d t h r o u g h the T e m p l e a n d the priesthood. T h e H a l a k h a h systematically e x p o u n d s the p r o g r a m set forth by the cited passages of Scripture, r e m a i n i n g wholly within the b o u n d s of the principles therein set d o w n . Scripture stresses the vari-

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

47

ations in the value of persons. T h e H a l a k h a h defines w h o m a y m a k e such a pledge, h o w we sort o u t variables of ability to pay, a n d then takes u p the vow of personal w o r t h , distinct f r o m the vow of valuation that Scripture defines b u t certainly c o n g r u e n t with its principle. T h e H a l a k h a h defines the process for p a y i n g Valuations to the T e m pie. It f u r t h e r joins to the topic of pledges of personalty the m a t t e r of pledges of realty, clarifying the way in which we evaluate d o n a t e d real estate that returns to the person w h o acquired the p r o p e r t y by inheritance. T h e m a t t e r of h e r e m is worked out in detail. Finally, we address the sale a n d r e d e m p t i o n of inherited p r o p e r t y a n d dwelling places in walled cities, a topic that invokes the same principles as p e r t a i n to the dedication of realty. H e r e , therefore, the H a l a k h a h has treated as a single category f o u r c o g n a t e categories of d o n a t i o n s that Scripture presents separately a n d has supplied each with a set of regulations for actually applying the law of Scripture. T h e H a l a k h a h receives the topic f r o m Scripture a n d takes as its task the provision of rules for applying the law. H o w e v e r c o m p l e x the details, t h o u g h , the H a l a k h i c statement of the O r a l T o r a h proves simple: Israel has the p o w e r to effect the sanctification of w h a t is subject to Israel's own will. Individually, not only jointly, Israel engages with G o d as G o d wishes to be engaged with. I d o n o t see a n y point at which Scripture's laws would differ on these points.

c.

Bekhorot

Like all H o l y T h i n g s , the firstlings u n d e r certain conditions m a y be " r e d e e m e d , " that is, m a y be transferred to a secular status in exc h a n g e for r e p l a c e m e n t of the value of w h a t has been consecrated. T h e firstborn of m a n is r e d e e m e d for five shekels ( N u m . 18:16). T h e firstborn of a clean beast, of the flock o r h e r d , is d e e m e d holy a n d is given to the priest w h e t h e r or n o t it is blemished. If it is n o t blemished, it is offered u p on the altar, a n d the priests eat the meat; it is Lesser H o l y T h i n g s . If it is blemished, it is the p r o p e r t y of the priest, not of the altar of G o d , a n d is slaughtered as an u n c o n s e c r a t e d a n i m a l a n d eaten without restrictions. If we k n o w w h a t Scripture says, w e can outline in a d v a n c e the p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h a h . T h e pertinent verses of the W r i t t e n T o r a h begin with the most general, covering firstborn w h e t h e r of m a n o r beast, at Ex. 13:2. T h e firstborn of m a n a n d of u n c l e a n beasts are r e d e e m e d , the proceeds assigned to the priests; the firstborn of clean beasts is slaughtered in the T e m p l e

48

CHAPTER ONE

court, the m e a t t h e n going to the priest, so N u m . 18:15-18). If the firstborn of a clean beast was blemished, it is given to the priest; he m a y eat it a n y w h e r e o r sell it or give it away, as his o w n p r o p e r t y (Dt. 15:21-22). O n e m u s t sanctify the firstling of a n ox a n d declare it holy (Dt. 15:10). Firstlings m a y n o t be b r o u g h t to the L a n d f r o m outside (Dt. 14:23). A firstling m u s t be eaten d u r i n g its first year, w h e t h e r blemished o r otherwise (Dt. 15:20-22). W h a t renders a firstborn anim a l unfit for the altar r e n d e r s a priest unfit for service, a signal of the comparability of the firstborn a n d the priesthood (Lev. 21:18-20). T h e H a l a k h a h encompasses, also, the tithe of the h e r d s a n d the flocks (Lev. 27:32-33). T h e H a l a k h a h has chosen, out of the topic of firstlings, a diverse p r o g r a m of inquiry, n o t so well focussed as elsew h e r e . But out of the details, a few striking generalizations d o emerge, a n d these pertain to the critical tensions a n d generative concerns of the H a l a k h a h overall: L a n d of Israel, people (genealogy) of Israel, a n d h o w the sanctification of e a c h dictates their respective obligations to G o d . T h e H a l a k h a h answers questions of clarification a n d extension, u n d e r t a k i n g inquiries n a t u r a l to the topic: w h o is obliged to set aside the firstborn, the distinction between the firstborn of a n u n c l e a n a n d of a clean beast, the status of gentiles, application of Scripture's rules, the m a t t e r of blemishes. W h e n we c o m e to the firstborn of m a n , the H a l a k h i c p r o g r a m follows suit. T h e exposition of tithe of cattle raises similarly routine questions.

d.

Bikkurim

Firstfruits are p r e s e n t e d o n Pentecost, w h e n the r e q u i r e d declaration is m a d e in c o n f o r m i t y with Dt. 26:Iff.; firstfruits are carried in a basket that is w a v e d by the priest before the altar. Animals are b r o u g h t as peace- a n d whole-offerings. T h e H a l a k h a h rests u p o n Scripture at three passages. T h e first treats the act of separating firstfruits as a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of G o d ' s keeping his promise to give his people the L a n d . T h e second e n c o m p a s s e s the first harvest of w h e a t within the c a l e n d a r of the cult., so D e u t . 26:1-11, Lev. 23:921, a n d N u m b e r s 28:26. D e u t e r o n o m y w a n t s firstfruits f r o m all prod u c e to be p r e s e n t e d to the priests of the central sanctuary, with two declarations; n o particular time is indicated, n o sacrifices required. T h e priestly code requires offerings b u t knows n o declaration. But it does specify t h a t the firstfruits are p r e s e n t e d at Pentecost. T h e Priestly C o d e t h e n involves a sheaf of barley f r o m the first harvest,

T H E MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

49

p r e s e n t e d to the priest o n t h e d a y a f t e r the S a b b a t h of the feast of u n l e a v e n e d b r e a d ; the priest waves it with a p p r o p r i a t e rites. T h a t permits grain of the n e w harvest to be eaten. Seven weeks later is the d a y of firstfruits, two loaves a n d various o t h e r offerings w a v e d by the priest as a wave-offering. R e a d i n g the T o r a h whole, the sages f o r m e d the H a l a k h a h of Bikkurim o u t of the p e r t i n e n t passages a n d f r a m e d the w h o l e into a c o h e r e n t s t a t e m e n t . T h e y r e q u i r e d a single, a n n u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n at the T e m p l e of selections of all p r o d u c e native to the L a n d , p r e s e n t e d o n Pentecost, with the r e q u i r e d recitation. T h e y are carried in a basket; the priest waves it b e f o r e the altar. 111 addition o x e n a n d pigeons are b r o u g h t as peace- a n d whole-offerings, respectively. Scripture h a s set forth the m a i n lines of inquiry into the present topic. T h e particular species of p r o d u c e t h a t serve, the p a r ticular classification of Israelite t h a t presents the offering a n d defines it—these convey the entire message. T h e O r a l T o r a h simply identifies the m a i n points implicit in Scripture a n d elaborates u p o n t h e m by e x p o u n d i n g their practical implications. T h e entire s t a t e m e n t res p o n d s to two questions: w h a t is r e q u i r e d , w h o is obligated? T h e a n s w e r is, w h a t is r e q u i r e d is firstfruits of those species in w h i c h the L a n d specializes, a n d w h o is obligated is, the Israelite w h o n o t only possesses a share in the L a n d b u t also derives f r o m the Israel to w h o m the L a n d was initially h a n d e d over. T h e H a l a k h a h amplifies Scripture's p r e s e n t a t i o n of the subject, stressing this a n d that, b u t in n o w a y m o v e s far b e y o n d the limits of Scripture's o w n a c c o u n t .

e. Keritot M a n bears responsibility for w h a t h e does, a n d the W r i t t e n T o r a h explicitly i m p u t e s guilt even for actions c o m m i t t e d inadvertently a n d n o t with the intention of violating the T o r a h . It follows t h a t the H a l a k h a h has to provide for penalties to expiate sin o r c r i m e , w h e t h e r deliberate o r otherwise. H e r e m a k i n g its s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n ing the t a x o n o m i c p o w e r of intentionality, the H a l a k h a h distinguishes deliberate f r o m i n a d v e r t e n t sin o r crime. A sin-offering is r e q u i r e d in the case of a n action, the deliberate commission of which is penalized by extirpation (early d e a t h , b e f o r e the age of 60), a n d a suspensive guilt offering in the case of d o u b t . T h e principal interest t h e n is in animal-offerings that expiate sin. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h contributes to the topic the following s t a t e m e n t , at Lev. 5:17-19; I u n d e r line the key-language:

50

C H A P T E R ONE

"If a n y o n e sins, d o i n g a n y of the things t h a t the L o r d has c o m m a n d e d n o t to be d o n e , t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t k n o w it, yet h e is guilty a n d shall b e a r his iniquity. H e shall b r i n g to the priest a r a m w i t h o u t blemish o u t of the flock, v a l u e d by y o u at the p r i c e f o r a guilt offering, a n d the priest shall m a k e a t o n e m e n t f o r h i m f o r the e r r o r t h a t h e c o m m i t t e d unwittingly, a n d h e shall be forgiven. It is a guilt offering; h e is guilty b e f o r e the L o r d "

Since the generative premise of the H a l a k h a h is the distinction between deliberate a n d i n a d v e r t e n t sin o r crime, with extirpation the p e n a l t y for the f o r m e r , the guilt offering expiating the latter, Scripture h a s d e f i n e d the f o u n d a t i o n s f o r the articulation a n d exegesis of t h e H a l a k h a h . T h a t is clear w h e n we e x a m i n e the principal statem e n t of the H a l a k h a h of K e r i t o t , at M . K e r . 1:2: F o r those [thirty-six classes of transgressions] are p e o p l e liable, f o r deliberately d o i n g t h e m , to the p u n i s h m e n t of e x t i r p a t i o n , a n d f o r accidentally d o i n g t h e m , to the b r i n g i n g of a sin offering, a n d f o r n o t b e i n g certain of w h e t h e r o r n o t o n e h a s d o n e t h e m , to a suspensive guilt offering.

T h e g o v e r n i n g distinction set forth by t h e H a l a k h a h simply builds u p o n Scripture's law. T h r e e divisions m a k e u p the topical p r e s e n t a tion, occasions o n w h i c h t h e sin-offering o r extirpation, as the case m a y be, is r e q u i r e d , a single sin-offering a n d multiple sins, a n d the suspensive guilt-offering, r e q u i r e d w h e r e o n e inadvertently m a y o r m a y n o t h a v e c o m m i t t e d a sin. T h e o r d e r is logically necessary, since t h e suspensive guilt-offering c a n n o t c o m e b e f o r e the sin- o r guiltoffering for w h a t o n e is certain h e h a s d o n e . In its principal divis i o n s — t h e sin-offering as against extirpation, the suspensive guiltoffering as against the u n c o n d i t i o n a l guilt-offering—the H a l a k h a h treats in c o n c r e t e t e r m s the distinction b e t w e e n deliberate, intentional sin a n d u n i n t e n t i o n a l law-violation. N o w h e r e else in the H a l a k h a h d o we find so s h a r p a line distinguishing the u n i n t e n t i o n a l sin, p e n a l i z e d b y a n offering, a n d the intentional one, p e n a l i z e d b y extirpation. T h e reason t h a t t h a t critical distinction c o n c e r n s us in the p a r t i c u l a r H a l a k h a h at h a n d is self-evident. H e r e is w h e r e G o d intervenes, a n d it is G o d a b o v e all w h o knows w h a t is in m a n ' s h e a r t a n d c a n differentiate intentional f r o m u n i n t e n t i o n a l actions. A n d it also is G o d w h o h a s the heaviest stake in the m a t t e r of intentional sin, f o r intentional sin represents rebellion against the T o r a h a n d G o d ' s rule t h r o u g h the T o r a h .

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

51

f. Maaser Sheni S e c o n d tithe is c o m p r i s e d by ten p e r c e n t of the net yield of the c r o p after o t h e r tithes have been r e m o v e d ; in the first a n d second, f o u r t h a n d fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, second tithe is to be designated as sanctified, t h e n bodily t r a n s p o r t e d to a n d eaten in J e r u s a l e m . If that is not feasible, the sanctity i n h e r i n g in the p r o d u c e is to be converted into value in the f o r m of coins for transport a n d expenditure there. T h e rules governing the h a n d l i n g of the p r o d u c e pertain, w h e r e a p p r o p r i a t e , to the disposition of the coins. T h e s a m e rules apply to the fruit of a n o r c h a r d in the fourth year after the o r c h a r d is planted. T h a t m a t t e r is worked o u t in the laws of ' O r l a h . Lev. 19:23ff. declares that the p r o d u c e of a tree in the fourth y e a r after p l a n t i n g m u s t be "set aside for j u b i l a t i o n before the L o r d . " T h i s is taken to m e a n , fourth year fruit, like S e c o n d T i t h e , has to be eaten in J e r u s a l e m . So the two classes of p r o d u c e are subject to the laws set forth at Dt. 14:22-26. If the W r i t t e n T o r a h calls Israel to J e r u s a l e m for a m e a l with G o d as host, the O r a l T o r a h explores its o w n issues, c o n c e r n i n g the food for the meal in particular. But the exegesis treats the cases of Scripture as exemplary. T h i s it does by treating in general terms the very specific c o n c e p t i o n of the W r i t t e n T o r a h . T h a t is w h y I classify the d e v e l o p m e n t of the topic as derivative a n d not i n d e p e n d e n t l y developed. T h e governing principle deriving f r o m Scripture's case is that the sanctified food m a y be secularized, its value transferred into cash, t h e n the coins, b e a r i n g the value of sanctified food, are b r o u g h t to J e r u s a l e m a n d converted back into food. W h a t , exactly, does it m e a n to transfer "sanctity" to coins f r o m food, t h e n to food f r o m coins? H o w d o sages conceive such a transaction between Israel a n d G o d to take place? T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h in practical terms takes u p the i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m s i n h e r i n g in the conception of holiness: w h a t exactly does "holiness" entail, that is, is it a m a t t e r of substance o r of status? a n d w h e n the one, w h e n the other? T h e present case, involving the transfer of holiness or the status of sanctification to a n d f r o m p r o d u c e , to a n d f r o m coins, requires sages to translate into concrete rules w h a t e v e r c o n c e p t i o n of " t h e s a c r e d " they m a i n t a i n e d . For the sages m a y think a b o u t abstract questions, b u t they set forth their results in practical a n d concrete cases, certain that their discipies will grasp the rule i n h e r i n g in the case. So the H a l a k h a h engages sages in d e e p t h o u g h t a b o u t w h a t something's being "sanctified"

52

CHAPTER ONE

actually m e a n s : w h a t difference does it m a k e w h e n p r o d u c e or coins are sanctified, as against w h e n they are n o t sanctified? T h e n again, the affect u p o n w h a t is designated as holy that is exerted at the m o m e n t of entry into a place that is h o l y — t h e interplay of status a n d l o c a t i o n — h a s to be explored. A second c o n c e n t , the final disposition of G o d ' s share of the c r o p ("the law of removal"), so that, by a given point in the year, the h o u s e h o l d e r will have h a n d e d over w h a t is owing to G o d ' s designated surrogates receives systematic attention as well at Dt. 26:12-19. T h e law of removal assures that the crops designated as holy will not a c c u m u l a t e d in a h o a r d b u t will be distribu t e d to those for w h o m G o d has assigned t h e m , the priests, Levites, p o o r , the holy city, a n d the like. T h e exposition by the H a l a k h a h of that topic likewise r e m a i n s well within the b o r d e r s of Scripture's presentation of the same. T h e way in which things b e c o m e holy a n d cease to be holy f o r m s the p r o b l e m for sages, because in their view the sanctification is a status that is c o n f e r r e d or r e m o v e d , not a condition that is intrinsic to things. Scripture itself dictates the conception that the p r o d u c e designated as second tithe a n d so sanctified m a y be t u r n e d into m o n e y a n d carried in that f o r m to J e r u s a l e m , there to be converted back into (other) p r o d u c e for c o n s u m p t i o n in J e r u s a l e m . T h e details of the rules then yield a variety of governing principles.

g. Meilah F r o m the m o m e n t that a n a n i m a l is designated as a n offering ("sanetified"), the sacrifier m a y m a k e n o use of the beast. W h a t h a p p e n s w h e n H o l y T h i n g s unintentionally are used for o r d i n a r y purposes, G o d ' s p r o p e r t y for the c o m m o n Israelite's benefit? T o state that the sacrilege was not deliberate, the value received must be r e t u r n e d , a l o n g with a penalty of a fifth m o r e . But in the case of inadvertent sacrilege, n o f u r t h e r penalty is imposed. Lev. 5:15-16 states, "If anyo n e c o m m i t a trespass of sacrilege a n d sin t h r o u g h e r r o r in the H o l y T h i n g s of the Lord, then h e shall bring his forfeit to the Lord, a r a m w i t h o u t blemish for a guilt offering, a n d he shall m a k e restitution for that which he has d o n e amiss in the holy t h i n g a n d a d d the fifth p a r t t h e r e t o . " W e m u s t lay stress o n the phrase, " t h r o u g h e r r o r . " T h e H a l a k h a h rests u p o n the principle that people d o not deliberately steal f r o m G o d . Sacrilege involves a n y use of H o l y T h i n g s for private purposes. W h a t is involved, however, is limited. O n c e a n y party, for

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

53

a n y reason, has legitimate access to H o l y T h i n g s , t h e n sacrilege n o longer pertains, even t h o u g h the individual Israelite w h o has unin‫־‬ tentionally carried out the act has n o right to m a k e use of the H o l y T h i n g s . T h e simple law of S c r i p t u r e suffices to g e n e r a t e a sizable s e c o n d a r y e x p a n s i o n here. Scripture lays d o w n that Israel's relationship with G o d requires clear lines of distinction b e t w e e n w h a t belongs to G o d a n d w h a t belongs to the Israelite. But the distinction b e t w e e n secular a n d sacred proves c o m p l e x , the g r a d a t i o n s are several, a n d the n u a n c e s such that Scripture's a d m o n i t i o n s against trèspassing 011 the territory of the sacred a r e considerably c o m p l i c a t e d . T h e g o v e r n i n g t h e o r y is, if w e p u n i s h a person for inadvertently c o m m i t t i n g sacrilege, we treat as secular w h a t has b e e n subjected to sacrilege. T h a t principle places n a r r o w limits 011 the m a t t e r of sacrilege. For, the H a l a k h a h holds, o n c e a n y o n e m a y legitimately use w h a t is G o d ' s , then the status of sanctification —what belongs u n i q u e l y to G o d — i s s u s p e n d e d . T h e p r e m i s e of the H a l a k h a h t h e n rests o n a r e a d i n g of Israel's p r o p e r intentionality. Israelites are ass u m e d n o t to wish to a p p r o p r i a t e for their own use w h a t belongs to G o d a n d will n o t d o so. If they d o so a n d realize it, they m a k e a m e n d s . At stake in sacrilege is the m i n i m u m protection of H o l y T h i n g s f r o m i n a d v e r t e n t misuse, 011 the o n e side, a n d the m a x i m u m instantiation of the conditional, n o t absolute, status of sanctification, o n the other. T h e n , b a l a n c i n g sacrilege against sanctification, the H a l a k h a h weighs w h a t is d o n e by i n a d v e r t e n c e against w h a t is d o n e with full deliberation. T h e act of sanctification vastly outweighs the act of sacrilege. T h a t is because by the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s definition, sacrilege subject to an a t o n i n g o f f e r i n g — a n d that is w h a t is at stake h e r e — t a k e s place by i n a d v e r t e n c e , n o t by a n act of will. Sanctification, by contrast, c o m e s a b o u t by a n act of p r a i s e w o r t h y will. T h e H a l a k h a h h a s not only recapitulated the familiar notion of sanctification as a m a t t e r that is relative to c i r c u m s t a n c e , it has also m a d e a n e l o q u e n t s t a t e m e n t i n d e e d that in the cult Israel relates to G o d in full sincerity. T h e occasion of u n i n t e n d e d sacrilege, its discoveiy a n d a t o n e m e n t , m a t c h the m o m e n t of sanctification: the H a l a k h a h ' s disposition of b o t h transactions u n d e r s c o r e w h a t the H a l a k h a h finds i m p o r t a n t in the m e e t i n g of G o d a n d Israel at the altar: Israel's e x e m p l a r y love a n d loyalty to G o d . W h i l e the H a l a k h a h b e f o r e us proves rich a n d dense, the lines of d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m the category d e f i n e d by Scripture prove straight a n d true.

54

C H A P T E R ONE

h. Menahot T h e T o r a h specifies n u m e r o u s offerings of grain, w h e a t o r barley, a n d these serve diverse occasions. T h e O r a l T o r a h h o m o g e n i z e s these. It affords recognition only to two distinct grain o f f e r i n g s — t h e offering of the first barley of the n e w agricultural season, f r o m the a d v e n t of the full m o o n of N i s a n t h r o u g h Pentecost, called the ' o m e r , a n d the two loaves a n d show b r e a d placed o n the altar at Pentecost. All of the o t h e r diverse meal-offerings are e n c o m p a s s e d within a c o m m o n set of rules. T h e s e i m p o s e their o w n m o d e s of differentiation, in place of Scripture's. Five classes of votive cereal offerings are specified: [1] a m e a l offering of fine flour, a m e a l offering b a k e d in the oven in two forms, [2] cakes a n d [3] wafers, [4] a m e a l offering m a d e in a griddle a n d [5] a m e a l offering m a d e in a p a n . All are subject to the s a m e g o v e r n i n g regulations: a t e n t h e p h a h of fine flour a n d a log of oil. T h e principal p e r t i n e n t verses a r e Leviticus 2:1-13, Leviticus 6 : 7 - 1 1 / 1 4 - 1 8 , a n d Leviticus 7:9-10. O b l i g a t o r y m e a l offerings, in a d d i t i o n , include these: the m e a l offering of a p o o r sinner by reason of the sins specified at Lev. 5:11-13, the m e a l offering of jealousy, p r e s e n t e d by the w o m a n accused of a d u l t e r y ( N u m . 5:15), the m e a l offering of the a n o i n t e d priest o r t h e cakes of the high priest p r e s e n t e d every d a y (Lev. 6:13-16), a n d the meal offering b r o u g h t with drink offerings a l o n g with whole offerings of peace-offerings b r o u g h t by reason of vows o r as votive offerings ( N u m . 15:2-16), with daily w h o l e offerings a n d a d d i t i o n a l offerings ( N u m . 28:5ff.), with the w h o l e offering of a bullock ( N u m . . 15:24), with t h e offerings of a Nazirite ( N u m . 6:15), with the offerings of the ' o m e r (first barley) a n d with the two loaves of s h o w - b r e a d (Lev. 23:13, 18), with the offerings of the person healed of the skin a i l m e n t (Lev. 14:10), with the two loaves a n d the show b r e a d (Lev. 23:15-17, 24:5-9) a n d so o n . F o r its p a r t , the H a l a k h a h p r o c e e d s f r o m the general to the differentiated. First of all, the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h sets forth rules for meal-offerings of all categories a n d classifications, h o w e v e r prep a r e d , for w h a t e v e r p u r p o s e . T h e n it t u r n s to general rules f o r the p r e s e n t a t i o n of meal-offerings, e.g., the source for the grain, oil, a n d wine, the c h a r a c t e r of the m e a s u r i n g c u p s t h a t are used for t h e m all, a n d the like. It turns, third, to the special public offerings, the ' o m e r a n d the c o u n t e r p a r t s for Pentecost. At the e n d , the H a l a k h a h reviews the l a n g u a g e that is used f o r vows for votive offerings, a n d h o w that l a n g u a g e is to be i n t e r p r e t e d . T h e O r a l T o r a h insists u p o n the sys-

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

55

tematic c h a r a c t e r of the cult, u n d e r s c o r i n g the ways in which the various, diverse offerings c o n f o r m to a single p a t t e r n . But that wellcrafted a r g u m e n t draws u p o n facts supplied by Scripture a n d simply forms t h e m into a viable p a t t e r n . T h e O r a l T o r a h c a n n o t impose uniformities that d o not exist. It c a n a n d does organize a n d systematize w h a t Scripture leaves disparate. T h i s it does by listing a rule a n d t h e n exceptions thereto.

i.

Nedarim-Nazir

T h e m a n or w o m a n thereby a d o p t s certain restrictions o r prohibitions, w h e t h e r , as in N e d a r i m , not to eat certain foods of a n y sort o r to derive benefit f r o m a given person, or, as in Nazir, not to eat grapes in particular, cut hair, or a t t e n d funerals (something the busb a n d c a n n o t ever prevent the wife f r o m doing, but the Nazirite vow prevents the Nazirite f r o m doing). T h e s e restrictions, that language, serve to provoke H e a v e n ' s interest in, a n d intervention into, the cond u c t of the m a n or the w o m a n . Scripture presents the m a t t e r vowing as a d i m e n s i o n of the life of wives with their h u s b a n d s or d a u g h t e r s with their fathers. T h a t fact emerges f r o m the pertinent verses of Scripture, which are N u m b e r s 30:1-16 for N e d a r i m a n d N u m b e r s 6:10-21 for Nazir. Building o n Scripture's facts, the H a l a k h a h of N e d a r i m - N a z i r investigates the p o w e r of a person t h r o u g h invoking the n a m e of H e a v e n to affect the classification in which he or she is situated a n d so his or h e r concrete a n d material relationships with o t h e r people. Scripture's facts m a k e possible the f o r m a t i o n of the sizable construction on vows, in which sages present their o w n , derivative reflections o n the topic. But sages have not reshaped the topic into a m e d i u m for the presentation of a n essentially fresh prog r a m of reflection a n d speculation. R a t h e r , w h a t they have d o n e is to develop the m a i n lines of t h o u g h t implicit in Scripture itself, which takes exactly the view of the p o w e r of language that the H a l a k h a h amplifies.

j. Peak For tractate P e a h Scripture forms the starting point of the H a l a k h a h of the oral T o r a h for all topics b u t the soup-kitchen a n d the dole: the p e ' a h - p o r t i o n — a p a r t of a field left u n h a r v e s t e d , being specified at Lev. 19:9, gleanings at the s a m e verse, forgotten p r o d u c e at Dt.

56

CHAPTER ONE

24:19-20, the s e p a r a t e d grapes at Lev. 19:10, defective clusters at Lev. 19:10, p o o r m a n ' s tithe at Dt. 26:12-13, a n d the definition of the p o o r at Lev. 19:10, Dt. 24:19, 21. O n l y the provision of the soup kitchen a n d the p e r m a n e n t dole, t r e a t e d as a n essentially secular p r o c e d u r e here, stand outside of Scripture. T h e m a i n rules express a theory of w h a t it m e a n s for Israelite h o u s e h o l d e r s to possess the L a n d . S u p p o r t for the p o o r , like s u p p o r t for the priesthood a n d Levites, u n d e r s c o r e s G o d ' s o w n e r s h i p a n d reinforces the provisional c h a r a c t e r of the h o u s e h o l d e r ' s possession. F o r the landless—the priesthood, the Levites, a n d the p o o r — G o d sets aside w h a t is c o m i n g to h i m f r o m the p r o d u c e of the L a n d . T h a t equalizes Israel in relationship to the L a n d . S o m e possess, others d o not, portions of the L a n d , but all gain w h a t they n e e d f r o m its p r o d u c e ; the householders t h e n hold w h a t they have o n sufferance, covenantally. I n that w a y those either not enlandised with Israel to begin with o r dispossessed of their portion of the L a n d later o n gain a position within that holy c o m m u n i t y t h a t is n o u r i s h e d — a n d given d e f i n i t i o n — b y the L a n d . T h e p o o r , the priests, a n d the Levites rely u p o n G o d . T h a t reliance takes the f o r m of their d e p e n d e n c e o n divine o w n e r s h i p of the L a n d for their share in its yield. Unlike the h o u s e h o l d e r , they o w n n o t h i n g a n d possess n o t h i n g in the L a n d . But a m o n g the sacerdotal castes, the p o o r reach the pinnacle: they n o t only d o n o t possess a p o r t i o n in the L a n d , b u t the very food that the L a n d yields to t h e m itself bears n o m a r k s of individual ownership. T h e y d o not own even w h a t they e a t — a n d they also d o not worry. G o d provides—just as Scripture says.

k. Rosh Hashanah T h e celebration of the a p p e a r a n c e of the n e w m o o n defines the p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h i c category, R o s h H a s h a n a h , with its special interest in f o u r of the sequence of n e w m o n t h s , e a c h signifying the b e g i n n i n g of a n e w year for o n e p u r p o s e o r a n o t h e r . But a m o n g these, the most i m p o r t a n t is the n e w m o o n of T i s h r é , m a r k i n g R o s h H a s h a n a h , the n e w year, a n d the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h focuses u p o n the occasion as m a r k e d in synagogue, n o t in T e m p l e rites. Scripture's presentation of the t h e m e s p e r t i n e n t to the H a l a k h i c category, R o s h H a s h a n a h , c o m m e n c e with the identification of the n e w m o o n of Nisan, Ex. 12:1-2, Ex. 23:16 a n d Ex. 34:22. T h e N e w Y e a r p a r excellence, the o n e m a r k e d b y the n e w m o o n of T i s h r é , is cove r e d in Lev. 23:23-25. T h e s a m e m a t t e r is p r e s e n t e d in the m o r e

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

57

e l a b o r a t e s t a t e m e n t of N u m . 29:1-6. Scripture has d e f i n e d the key c o n c e r n s of R o s h H a s h a n a h , w h i c h are, first, celebration of the first of T i s h r é , a n d , second, the s o u n d i n g of the S h o f a r . T h e H a l a k h a h t h e n builds o n e a c h topic. T h e H a l a k h a h stresses the m a t t e r of the S h o f a r a n d the occasion for its utilization in line with G e n . 22. It follows t h a t the O r a l T o r a h , b o t h its H a l a k h a h a n d its A g g a d a h , takes u p a position entirely symmetrical with t h e W r i t t e n T o r a h . T h a t is w h y I classify the category as a derivative amplification of Scripture, if n o t solely of Scripture's law.

1. Shebïit T r a c t a t e Shebi c it elaborates the T o r a h ' s c o m m a n d m e n t , at Lev. 25:1-8. T h e l a n g u a g e of Scripture, assigning a S a b b a t h to the L a n d , dictates the topic a n d the w a y in w h i c h the H a l a k h a h will actualize the topic, start to finish. But in the s e c o n d a r y amplification of m a t ters, t h e H a l a k h a h ' s prevailing issues a n d c o n c e r n s will m a k e their m a r k as well. A second, correlative c o m m a n d m e n t , at Dt. 15:1-3, is t r e a t e d as well. T h e entire H a l a k h i c structure rests squarely u p o n the f o u n d a t i o n s of Scripture a n d systematically amplifies the principles set forth there. T h e H a l a k h a h outlines w h e r e a n d h o w m a n participates in establishing the sanctity of the S a b b a t i c a l year, e x p a n d i n g the span of the y e a r to a c c o m m o d a t e m a n ' s intentionality in w o r k i n g the l a n d n o w for a d v a n t a g e t h e n . It insists t h a t m a n ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of the facts, n o t the facts themselves, govern: w h a t looks like a law violation is a law violation. 111 these a n d o t h e r ways the H a l a k h a h of S11ebicit works o u t the p r o b l e m a t i c s of m a n ' s participation in the sanctification of the L a n d in t h e S a b b a t i c a l year. T h e topic of the law, restoring the perfection of creation, t h e n j o i n s with the g e n e r a tive p r o b l e m a t i c s of the H a l a k h a h to m a k e the point that Israel has in its p o w e r the restoration of the perfection of creation, the o r d e r i n g of all things to a c c o r d with t h e condition that prevailed w h e n G o d d e c l a r e d creation G o d , t h e r e f o r e sanctified creation a n d d e c l a r e d the S a b b a t h . S c r i p t u r e n o t only defines t h e topic a n d its generative premises. Scripture also dictates the b l a t a n t a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t G o d pays the closest a t t e n t i o n to Israel's attitudes a n d intentions p e r v a d e s the tractate. O t h e r w i s e there is n o w a y to explain the priority acc o r d e d to Israelite p e r c e p t i o n of w h e t h e r o r not the law is kept, Israelite intention in cultivating the fields in the sixth year, a n d o t h e r critical c o m p o n e n t s of the governing, generative p r o b l e m a t i c .

58

C H A P T E R ONE

m . Sheqalim S c r i p t u r e describes the half-sheqel at Ex. 30:11-16. T h e collection of the half-sheqel as a r a n s o m " t h a t there be n o plague...when you n u m b e r t h e m " plays n o role in the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h . T h e c o n c e p t i o n t h a t t h r o u g h the half-sheqel, e v e r y o n e acquires a s h a r e in the a t o n e m e n t offering p r e d o m i n a t e s . A n d the stress o n the public offerings as a t o n e m e n t offerings, w h i c h the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h picks u p , clearly begins in the W r i t t e n T o r a h . Like Scripture, the O r a l T o r a h clearly u n d e r s t a n d s the half-sheqel as a tax in supp o r t of the T e m p l e a n d its a t o n e m e n t - o f f e r i n g s in behalf of Israel. W h a t the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h c o n t r i b u t e s is the articulation of the a n a l o g o u s relationship of the half-sheqel to tithes a n d heaveoffering. It is t h r o u g h this p a r t i c u l a r m e d i u m t h a t all Israel, n o t only t h e e n l a n d i s e d c o m p o n e n t s of Israel, relate directly a n d concretely to G o d . H e r e is a fine case in w h i c h Scripture supplies n o t only the topic b u t the indicative facts t h a t are amplified b y the H a l a k h a h . Scripture's point, d e v e l o p e d by t h e M i s h n a h , is that Israel relates to G o d n o t only o n e by o n e , b u t all together. W h a t is at issue? T h e T o s e f t a m a k e s explicit w h a t is at stake in the m a t t e r : T h e y exact pledges f r o m Israelites for their shekels, so t h a t the public offerings m i g h t be m a d e of their f u n d s . T h i s is like a m a n w h o got a sore o n his foot, a n d the d o c t o r h a d to force it a n d cut off his flesh so as to heal h i m . T h u s did the H o l y O n e , blessed be he, exact a pledge f r o m Israelites for the p a y m e n t of their shekels, so t h a t the public offerings m i g h t be m a d e of their f u n d s . F o r public offerings a p p e a s e a n d effect a t o n e m e n t b e t w e e n Israel a n d their f a t h e r in h e a v e n . Likewise we find of t h e heave-offering of shekels w h i c h t h e Israelites paid in the wilderness, as it is said, " A n d you shall take the a t o n e m e n t m o n e y f r o m the p e o p l e of Israel l a n d shall a p p o i n t it f o r the service of the tent of m e e t i n g ; that it m a y b r i n g the p e o p l e of Israel to r e m e m b r a n c e b e f o r e the L o r d , so as to m a k e a t o n e m e n t for yourselves" (Ex. 30:16). So w h a t the sheqel accomplishes is to f o r m of all Israel a single entity before G o d : all have sinned, all a t o n e , all t o g e t h e r — j u s t as Scripture says.

n. Yebamot W h i l e the H a l a k h a h devotes o n e of its m o s t e l a b o r a t e a n d beautifully articulated disquisitions to the topic of the status of t h e deceased childless m a n ' s w i d o w in respect to his family, in fact, t h e H a l a k h a h

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

59

simply amplifies the explicit view of the W r i t t e n T o r a h , which f r a m e s m a t t e r s in terms of m a i n t a i n i n g the deceased's " n a m e " in Israel. T h a t m e a n s , the deceased's widow is to p r o d u c e a child with a surviving b r o t h e r , so carrying f o r w a r d the p u r p o s e of the original u n i o n , if not as originally c o n t e m p l a t e d . T h e pertinent verse of Scripture, Dt. 25:5-10. T h e m a t c h of the p e n a l t y — t h e deceased's b r o t h e r is called a n a m e — t o the f a i l u r e — n o t preserving the deceased's n a m e rests 011 the premise that the original act of consecration of this w o m a n to this m a n m e a n t to bring a n e w g e n e r a t i o n into being. T h e most i m p o r t a n t d a t u m of the H a l a k h a h is that the levirate m a r r i a g e , b r o u g h t a b o u t by H e a v e n ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n — d e a t h without offspring— is fully c o m p a r a b l e to the m a r r i a g e b r o u g h t a b o u t by a m a n with a w o m a n of his choice. T h e c o u n t e r p a r t of the act of betrothal of a secular u n i o n is the act of " b e s p e a k i n g " (my translation for the H e b r e w w o r d , ma'amar, act of speech) by w h i c h a surviving b r o t h e r indicates his intention of e n t e r i n g into levirate marriage. J u s t as the act of sanctification effects acquisition in the case of a w o m a n only w h e n b o t h of t h e m are agreed, so a s t a t e m e n t of bespeaking effects acquisition of a sister-in-law only w h e n b o t h of t h e m are agreed. T h e act of bespeaking sustains the original act of sanctification. T h e surviving b r o t h e r confirms the intentionality of the deceased b r o t h e r a n d quite properly proposes to realize the deceased's original act of will in consecrating that particular w o m a n : to p r o d u c e children. T h e u p s h o t m a y be stated very simply. T h e b e d is sanctified by the m a n ' s intention, together with the w o m a n ' s acquiescence, ratified by a deed. It is desanctified by [1] the m a n ' s intention, c o m m u n i c a t e d to a fully-sentient w o m a n , ratified by the d e e d of d r a w i n g u p a n d delivering the properly witnessed d o c u m e n t of divorce. It also is desanctified [2] by the d e a t h of the h u s b a n d , his intention h a v i n g b e e n realized in offspring. So intentionality m a y be nullified by contradictory intentionality o r by the full a c c o m p l i s h m e n t of the original i n t e n t i o n — t h e o n e or the other. I n laying o u t m a t t e r s in this way, sages have taken the facts of Scripture a n d p e n e t r a t e d into w h a t is implicit in t h e m .

X V . Where the. Letter Gives Life to the Spirit I n these fifteen category-formations of the O r a l T o r a h we see h o w the O r a l T o r a h identifies the spirit of the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d finds

60

C H A P T E R ONE

ways of translating the spirit into the life of the social o r d e r of holy Israel. H e r e the W r i t t e n T o r a h m a y be c o m p a r e d to desert flowers, the O r a l T o r a h , the rare rainfall. T h e rain brings life to the sleeping b u d , which blooms. T h e spirit w i t h o u t the letter is null. T h e letter c o m e s a b o u t solely by reason of the spirit (to violate the limits of the m e t a p h o r ) , for w i t h o u t the spirit, there is n o letter. T h e letter of the law the O r a l T o r a h r e n d e r s c h o a t e a n d concrete precisely the i n t e n t — t h e spirit—of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s topics a n d presentation of those topics. In the W r i t t e n T o r a h Moses declares idolatry a b h o r r e n t to Israel. 111 the O r a l T o r a h that principle anim a t e s detailed laws for a situation n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d in the W r i t t e n T o r a h , a L a n d of Israel in which Israel is domiciled b u t n o t in control. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h sets forth a variety of distinct rules o n firstfruits. At Bikkurim the O r a l T o r a h f r a m e s t h e m into a c o h e r e n t statement, diverse, distinct rules b e i n g m a d e to work together in t h a t o n e statement. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h explicitly differentiates i n t e n d e d f r o m u n i n t e n d e d violations of the law of the T o r a h . At Keritot the O r a l T o r a h systematizes a n d organizes the cases of the working of that distinction. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h provides a variety of cases illustrative of the d o n a t i o n a n d disposition of second tithe. As I characterize m a t t e r s in general, so here too, the O r a l T o r a h turns cases into rules. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h creates the category of theft f r o m G o d , sacrilege. T h e O r a l T o r a h adds, people d o not deliberately steal f r o m G o d , so the H a l a k h a h has to work out the implications of the inadvertence of sacrilege. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h defines a f o r m i d a b l e a r r a y of meal-offerings, a n d at M e n a h o t the O r a l T o r a h systematizes that i n f o r m a t i o n , identifying principles of classification t h a t e n c o m p a s s the whole. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h identifies l a n g u a g e as a m e d i u m of p o w e r e m b o d i e d in the vow a n d the special vow of the Nazirite. T h e O r a l T o r a h sets forth the working of that p o w e r . T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h lays o u t rules for providing a share of the crops for the p o o r . T h e O r a l T o r a h introduces, at P e a h , into that process considerations it d e e m s implicit a n d works t h e m out in detail. At R o s h H a s h a n a h we see h o w the O r a l T o r a h joins two distinct formulations of m a t t e r s by the W r i t t e n T o r a h , the H a l a k h i c a n d the Aggadic, translating w h a t is implicit in lore into the c u r r e n c y of law. H e r m e n e u t i c s that g e n e r a t e H a l a k h i c exegesis at P e a h a n i m a t e Shebi'it as well, a n d the O r a l T o r a h ' s f o r m u l a t i o n of that topic, fully exposed in the W r i t t e n T o r a h , makes concrete a n d articulate as law w h a t is implicit in the

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

61

theology of the S a b b a t h that u n d e r p i n s the H a l a k h a h of the Seventh Y e a r in Scripture itself. Scripture's letter as to the half-sheqel-tax is taken u p , generalized into a governing conception, a n d recast as detailed law at S h e q a l i m . At Y e b a m o t the written T o r a h presents rules a n d the O r a l T o r a h brings to the surface w h a t is implicit in those rules—issues of intentionality a n d the exclusion t h e r e o f — a n d f r a m e s a f u r t h e r set of rules by c o n s e q u e n c e . T h e r e m a i n i n g items follow a single pattern. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h defines the possibility of pledging personal valuations. T h e O r a l T o r a h realizes that possibility in full detail. T h e same p a t t e r n accounts for the c h a r a c t e r of Bekhorot. Any a c c o u n t of the O r a l T o r a h seen o n its own a n d n o t as a s e c o n d a r y amplification a n d d e p e n d a n t extension of the Written T o r a h will consider the cases set forth h e r e — b u t only for insight into the m e t h o d of the O r a l T o r a h . H o w , within its logic a n d rationality, does the O r a l T o r a h r e a d the W r i t t e n T o r a h . W h a t we d o not gain h e r e is access to the O r a l T o r a h ' s substantive p r o g r a m . If the O r a l T o r a h conveys a fresh way of establishing the categorical structure a n d f u n c t i o n i n g system of G o d ' s plan for Israel, we shall have to find that w a y elsewhere. W h a t follows shows us the way: n e w categories, renewal of received categories, b o t h of t h e m reliable signals of the workings of a n a u t o n o m o u s intellect.

X V I . Types of Independent Exposition of Received Category-Formations. When the Oral Torah Reorganizes the Written Torah's Category-Formation T h e O r a l T o r a h set forth its own compositions, that is, subjects of its o w n devising, realized in laws of its own making. 111 some instances, Scripture contains references to activities n o t amplified by laws, e.g., Scripture knows a b o u t fasting but not a b o u t laws on the c o n d u c t of the rite; it refers to blessings a n d prayers b u t does not set forth rules for reciting blessings a n d regulations o n h o w prayers are to be said (let alone w h a t prayers are to be said). T h e u p s h o t is, Scripture treats as episodic—even as idiosyncratic—what the O r a l T o r a h subjects to public regulation a n d systematization. A n d then there are the O r a l T o r a h ' s utterly original category-formations, topics u p o n which Scripture bears ever so lightly, articulated in accord with a p r o b l e m atic that 111 n o way a n i m a t e s the H a l a k h i c corpus of Scripture. But the O r a l T o r a h contributes category-formations of a n o t h e r class as

62

CHAPTER ONE

well. H e r e the W r i t t e n T o r a h supplies i n f o r m a t i o n , sometimes extensive in articulation, that the O r a l T o r a h p u t s together in its o w n , distinctive way. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h c a n n o t be said to have defined a c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n to i m p a r t c o h e r e n c e to diverse bits of i n f o r m a tion, a n d the O r a l T o r a h does exactly that. O r the W r i t t e n T o r a h spells o u t compositions of H a l a k h a h that the O r a l T o r a h c o m b i n e s into composites, b e a r i n g an altogether fresh message. O r — i n bet w e e n — t h e W r i t t e n T o r a h defines a category, the O r a l T o r a h , a distinct category, which is forthwith j u x t a p o s e d with that of the Written T o r a h . T h e H a l a k h a h as p o r t r a y e d in the M i s h n a h (therefore also the Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli, thus, the O r a l T o r a h ) sets forth a n u m b e r of category-formations of o n e or a n o t h e r of these three types, a n d , in e a c h case, the O r a l T o r a h t u r n s out to have m a d e a statement t h r o u g h its juxtapositions of topics, deriving either wholly o r partially f r o m Scripture. T h e same m o d e of innovation t h r o u g h r e c o m b i n a tion of topics t h e n characterizes the two T a l m u d s , particularly the second of the two. J u x t a p o s i t i o n s — t h e m a k i n g of c o n n e c t i o n s — t h a t j a r a n d disrupt b o t h in the f u n d a m e n t a l exposition of the H a l a k h a h a n d in the f o r m u l a t i o n of the T a l m u d s ' amplifications thereof t u r n o u t to b e a r a n entirely pertinent, even urgent, message for the larger discourse in which they take their place. I n d e e d , these topical c o m posites themselves c o m m o n l y constitute a c o m m e n t t h r o u g h the j u x taposition of established categories in the f o r m a t i o n of a n e w one. Properly u n d e r s t o o d , the topical miscellanies d o n o t j a r a n d d o not violate the d o c u m e n t ' s prevailing rationality. S u c h j a r r i n g juxtapositions t u r n o u t to b e a r a n entirely pertinent, even urgent, message for the larger discourse in which they take their place. T h a t message is taken for g r a n t e d , n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d b u t r a t h e r insinuated as a given. Properly u n d e r s t o o d , the O r a l T o r a h ' s composite-category-formations, like the T a l m u d s ' later topical miscellanies, d o not j a r a n d d o not violate the R a b b i n i c system's prevailing rationality: w h a t it takes for g r a n t e d as self-evident r e c o m b i n a t i o n s of initially-distinct categories. In e a c h case taken u p here, the exposition of the r e c o m b i n a n t c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n requires a close r e a d i n g of the topics that are j u x t a p o s e d a n d the rationality that makes t h e m cohere.

a. Baba Qamma-Baba-Mesia-Baba

Batra

T h e three tractates of the Civil Law, B a b a Q a m m a , the first gate,

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

63

B a b a Mesia, the middle gate, a n d B a b a Batra, the last gate, f o r m a single, c o n t i n u o u s statement. T h e Babas a i m at the preservation of the just social order, the preservation of the established wholeness, balance, p r o p o r t i o n , a n d stability of the social e c o n o m y realized at the m o m e n t of perfection T h i s idea is powerfully expressed in the organization of the three tractates that comprise the civil law, which treat first a b n o r m a l a n d then n o r m a l transactions: i.

Illicit Transactions; Restoring Order Baba Q a m m a i. D a m a g e by C h a t t e l s 1:1-6:6 ii. D a m a g e s D o n e by Persons 7:1-10:10 B a b a Mesia iii. T h e Disposition of O t h e r Peoples' Possessions; Bailments 1:1—3:12 iv. Illicit C o m m e r c i a l T r a n s a c t i o n s . O v e r c h a r g e , misrepresentation, usury 4:1-5:11 ii. Licit Transactions; Preserving Order v. H i r i n g Workers. R e n t a l s a n d Bailments 6:1-8:3 B a b a Mesia, B a b a Batra vi. R e a l Estate B.M. 8:4-10:6, B.B. 1:1-5:5 B a b a Batra vii. Licit C o m m e r c i a l T r a n s a c t i o n s 5:6-7:4 viii. Inheritances a n d Wills. O t h e r C o m m e r c i a l a n d Legal D o c u m e n t s 8:1-10-8

T h e f r a m e r s deal with d a m a g e s d o n e by chattels a n d by h u m a n beings, thefts a n d o t h e r sorts of malfeasance against the persons a n d the p r o p e r t y of others. T h e civil law in b o t h aspects pays closest attention to h o w the p r o p e r t y a n d person of the i n j u r e d p a r t y so far as possible are restored to their prior condition, that is, the state of n o r m a l i t y disrupted by the d a m a g e d o n e to p r o p e r t y or injury d o n e to a person. So attention to torts focuses u p o n penalties paid by the m a l e f a c t o r to the victim, r a t h e r t h a n u p o n penalties inflicted by the court o n the m a l e f a c t o r for w h a t he has d o n e . T h e pertinent verses of Scripture figure only within the f r a m e w o r k of the exposition of the law. T h a t is because while the triple-tractate draws heavily u p o n Scripture w h e r e Scripture pertains to its p r o g r a m , the tractate sets forth its own p r o g r a m , following the p r o b l e m a t i c defined in terms of the triple-tractate's own goals. H e r e Scripture contributes s o m e topics, n o t others, a n d the generative premises of the entire s t a t e m e n t vastly overspread the limits of Scripture's presentation of those topics that to begin with originate there. T h e H a l a k h i c category-formation intersects with Scripture's discrete categories, b u t it is asymmetrical

64

C H A P T E R ONE

a n d only partly concentric. T h e first half of the tractates, w h i c h break in the middle of B a b a Mesia, focuses u p o n repairing d a m a g e that is d o n e to the social o r d e r , the second half, u p o n preserving the b a l a n c e a n d perfection of that s a m e social o r d e r . Israel o n its o w n , in its interior relationships, is g o v e r n e d by H a l a k h a h that establishes a n d m a i n t a i n s stasis, which signifies perfection, all things in their place, all persons possessing a p p r o p r i a t e value in property, security in person. T h a t goal the H a l a k h a h accomplishes by righting imbalances a n d preserving t h e m . T h e successive c o m p o n e n t s of the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n followed in the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i m o v e f r o m a b n o r m a l to n o r m a l events, I-IV, t h e n V - V I I I . T h e whole begins with d a m a g e s d o n e by chattels o r b y persons, thefts a n d o t h e r sorts of conversion of the p r o p e r t y of others, with special attention to h o w we restore to a state of n o r m a l i t y the p r o p e r t y a n d person of the i n j u r e d party. N u m b e r s I-IV r u n t h r o u g h the whole of B a b a Q a m m a a n d half w a y t h r o u g h B a b a Mesia, to M . B.M. 5:11. T h e second half of the three tractates then shifts to n o r m a l transactions, n o t those involving torts a n d d a m ages: l a b o r relationships, rentals a n d bailments, real estate transactions, inheritances a n d estates, units V - V I I I . T h e n the whole produces two c o m p l e m e n t a r y constructions, first a b n o r m a l or illicit, then n o r m a l or licit transactions. T h a t is s h o w n by the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e of unit IV, illicit c o m m e r c i a l transactions (overcharge a n d usury) a n d unit V I I , licit c o m m e r c i a l transactions, the legal transfer of goods, unstipulated conditions a n d h o w they are enforced. T h i s plan f u r t h e r m o r e explains w h y we treat bailments twice, at III.C, d a m a g e s to bailments, a n d t h e n at V . C , E, responsibilities of the bailee. T h e f o r m e r fits into the larger structure of law o n the restoration of the b a l a n c e of the social o r d e r (here, the value possessed by parties to the transaction at the outset, equitably distributed at the end), the latter, t h a t o n the preservation of the s a m e o r d e r . If we look again at the picture of the whole given at the outset, we see a clear picture. T h e whole of B a b a Q a m m a takes u p the results of wicked intentionality, a n act of will that takes the f o r m of malice, o n the o n e side, o r flagrant neglect of o n e ' s duties, o n the other. T h e rules of B a b a Mesia address the situations in which intentionality plays a role, is excluded as irrelevant, a n d m a y or m a y n o t e n t e r into the a d j u d i c a t i o n of a situation of conflict. A n d , as we h a v e seen, the topics treated in B a b a Batra in c o m m o n take a c c o u n t of the idiosyncrasy of intentionality a n d exclude private interest f r o m intervening in c u s t o m a r y a r r a n g e merits.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

65

T h e entire repertoire of topics lays itself o u t as a h u g e essay on the role of m a n ' s intentionality a n d c o n s e q u e n t responsibility—his will, his private p l a n s — i n the o r d e r i n g of Israel's i n n e r life. All topics g r o u p e d as illicit transactions involve righting the w r o n g s d o n e by p e o p l e o n their o w n a c c o u n t . W h e n free will is taken into a c c o u n t , e n c o m p a s s i n g negligence a n d malice, the social o r d e r requires forceful intervention to right the b a l a n c e upset by individual aggression. S o m e licit transactions p e r m i t individual intentionality to register, specifically, those freely e n t e r e d into a n d fairly b a l a n c e d a m o n g contracting parties. A n d s o m e licit transactions leave n o space for t h e will of the participants a n d their idiosyncratic plans. C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of fairness take over a n d exclude a n y e n g a g e m e n t with the private a n d the personal. So Israel's social o r d e r takes a c c o u n t of intentionality, especially controlling for the d a m a g e that ill will brings a b o u t . T h e first fifteen c h a p t e r s t h e n treat intentionality in the f o r m of negligence as a critical f a c t o r in assessing d a m a g e s . But n o r m a l licit transactions a r e carried f o r w a r d in a c c o r d with those rules of bala n c e , p r o p o r t i o n , a n d c o h e r e n c e t h a t yield a society that is stable a n d e n d u r i n g , fair a n d trustworthy. 111 the second fifteen chapters, intentionality f o r m s only o n e consideration in the process of preserving the status, as to value, of parties to transactions a n d exchanges; it m a y m a k e all the difference, n o difference, s o m e difference; it m a y n o t e n t e r into consideration at all. T h a t u n d e r s c o r e s the j u d g m e n t of the H a l a k h a h that, w h e n it c o m e s to righting w r o n g s against chattels a n d persons, the m a l e f a c t o r h a s acted willfully a n d has therefore to be penalized in a n equitable m a n n e r . By his act of will, he has d i m i n ished the p r o p e r t y o r p e r s o n of the victim; he m u s t t h e n restore the p r o p e r t y o r person to its p r i o r value, so far as this is possible, a n d m a y n o t benefit f r o m w h a t h e has d o n e . W h a t Scripture presents episodically, the H a l a k h a h p o r t r a y s systematically. T h a t is certainly so in B a b a Q a m m a . But the p u r p o s e of the tractates in n o w a y c o m e s to realization in the articulation of the law of Scripture o n the topics at h a n d . T h a t is p r o v e d by the simple fact that most of B a b a Mesia a n d B a b a Batra pursues p r o b l e m s to which Scripture in n o w a y devotes itself. So w h e r e Scripture provides topics of t h e H a l a k h a h , the O r a l T o r a h faithfully a t t e n d s to t h a t H a l a k h a h ; b u t the O r a l T o r a h in n o w a y limits itself to Scripture's repertoire of topics. M o r e to the point, the O r a l T o r a h organizes the H a l a k h a h systematically, b u t in a c c o r d with its o w n system a n d its problematics, not in a c c o r d with the system the o r d e r , the pro-

66

C H A P T E R ONE

g r a m — o f the W r i t t e n T o r a h . W e have, therefore, to look elsewhere f o r the religious p r o g r a m t h a t a n i m a t e s the H a l a k h a h of the Babas. T h r o u g h their exposition of Scripture's laws of i n j u r y a n d m i s a p p r o p r i a t i o n a n d t h r o u g h their f o r m u l a t i o n of their o w n , m u c h m o r e e l a b o r a t e topical p r o g r a m f o r the civil o r d e r a n d the resolution of conflict at h o m e , sages expose the rationality a n d o r d e r that inheres in the episodic rules of Scripture. Since, in their intellectual context, consistency, immutability, c o h e r e n c e m a r k perfection, sages affirm t h a t in its details the T o r a h ' s design for dealing with conflict within holy Israel p r o m i s e s to perfect Israel's w o r k a d a y world in the m o d e l set f o r t h at Sinai. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h m a k e s clear G o d ' s intense interest in the justice a n d equity of the Israelites' o r d i n a r y transactions a m o n g themselves. T h e y a r e to f o r m t h e k i n g d o m of priests a n d the holy people. T h e i r c o n d u c t with o n e a n o t h e r — t h e W r i t t e n T o rail's civil law insists in every l i n e — s h a p e s G o d ' s j u d g m e n t of t h e m a n d t h e r e f o r e dictates their fate. So sages h e r e d e m o n s t r a t e w h a t a m a n c a n d o actively to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e perfection of the social o r d e r t h r o u g h the results of his o w n a n d his chattels' c o n d u c t . H e r e t h e consideration of m a n ' s free will proves p a r a m o u n t : w h a t m a n by a n act of will h a s upset, m a n by a n act of will m u s t restore. I n a c c o r d with t h e H a l a k h a h of B a b a Q a m m a m a n u n d e r t a k e s to a s s u m e responsibility for w h a t he does, always in just p r o p o r t i o n to causation. W i t h i n Israel's social o r d e r w h a t G o d w a n t s a m a n to d o is take responsibility for his o w n actions, for the results of w h a t h e o r his chattel has d o n e — n o m o r e , n o less. A m a n c a n a n d m u s t take responsibility f o r n o t only w h a t h e does b u t a l s o — a n d especially— w h a t h e brings a b o u t , the things h e m a y n o t d o b u t does cause to h a p p e n . V i e w e d in this way, the laws of B a b a Q a m m a f o r m a m a s sive essay u p o n the interplay of causation a n d responsibility: w h a t o n e c a n h a v e p r e v e n t e d b u t t h r o u g h negligence (in varying m e a s u r e d e p e n d i n g o n context) h a s allowed to take place, h e is d e e m e d in that s a m e m e a s u r e to h a v e caused. A n d for t h a t , he is held in that s a m e m e a s u r e to m a k e a m e n d s . Responsibility begins in right attitude. M a n m u s t f o r m the intentionality of taking responsibility for his actions; this he m u s t d o b y a n act of will. T h a t is w h y the whole of B a b a Q a m m a plays itself o u t as a n exercise in the definition of the valid intentionality in transactions involving d a m a g e a n d conflict. W h e r e o n e h a s d i m i n i s h e d a n o t h e r , h e m u s t willingly take responsibility for his d e e d of omission o r c o m m i s s i o n (as the tractate unfolds). B a b a M e s i a a n d B a b a Batra c o m p l e t e the picture. H e r e the issue is

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

67

sustaining t h e social order; attitude a n d intentionality c o m e into play, b u t in a different w a y f r o m before. Sin, crime, torts a n d d a m a g e s - these carry f o r w a r d b a d attitudes; differentiating types a n d degrees of intentionality w h e n addressing h o w the social o r d e r is disrupted yields n o t h i n g of interest. By contrast, in treating o r d i n a r y exchanges a n d transactions, the H a l a k h a h turns out to f o r m a n essay on w h e n intentionality m a t t e r s a n d w h e n it does not. W h e n it comes to restoring the perfection of society, specifically, w h e r e d o we take a c c o u n t of intentionality a n d w h e r e not? Intentionality o r attitude m a t t e r s in situations of conflict. T h e n the attitude of b o t h parties makes all the difference, since to resolve conflicting claims, we have in the e n d to conciliate all parties to a c o m m o n o u t c o m e ; there, intentionality o r attitude f o r m s the critical m e d i u m for restoring a n d sustaining bala n c e a n d order. Parties to an e x c h a n g e are n o w responsible to o n e a n o t h e r , a n d they m u s t i n t e n d the o u t c o m e to be a p r o p o r t i o n a t e a n d equal e x c h a n g e of value. Both parties m u s t accept the o u t c o m e , that is, f o r m at the e n d the same attitude t o w a r d the transaction. A claim of o w n e r s h i p e n d s in a n act of despair. Responsibility is p r o p o r t i o n a t e to the attitude of the bailee, that is, to the degree of accountability that he has accepted to begin with. So m u c h for the uses of intentionality in the restoration a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of the social order. Social o r d e r restored, the status q u o as to value regained, w h a t forces hold the whole together? W h e r e responsibility prevails, m a n ' s own will a n d intentionality, G o d ' s will in the T o r a h , a n d the customary a r r a n g e m e n t s of a stable, just society—all these variables c o m e into play a n d are to be sorted out. T h a t is why, while single message addresses the a b n o r m a l a n d the illicit, the realm of torts a n d d a m ages: take responsibility, a m u c h m o r e c o m p l e x message states the r e q u i r e m e n t s of m a i n t a i n i n g matters. T h a t message responds to the realities of the ideal society that the H a l a k h a h makes possible. Specifically, Israel in its interior a r r a n g e m e n t s is to hold in the b a l a n c e [1] personal will, [2] the T o r a h ' s law, a n d [3] the long-standing c u s t o m a r y r e q u i r e m e n t s of e n d u r i n g order. In the Babas, as this survey of the H a l a k h a h has shown, these distinct a n d inter-related forces m a n ' s will, G o d ' s law, a n d accepted public p r a c t i c e — a r e far f r o m abstractions. 111 the interplay of individual will, G o d ' s absolute law, a n d ancient, e n d u r i n g custom, c o m e s a b o u t the realization of Israel in the here a n d now. It is self-evident that the messages conveyed by the H a l a k h a h of the Babas originate not 111 the law of Scripture, which does not coalesce into a single c o h e r e n t statement in a n y

68

CHAPTER ONE

event. R a t h e r the strikingly c o h e r e n t structure before us arises out of the d e e p layers of rationality that infuse the f o r m a t i o n of the principies a n d t h e n the details of the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h : the p r o g r a m a n d its articulation a n d exegesis.

b. Hagigah H a g i g a h forms a n original c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n o u t of two closely related topics on a single t h e m e , the occasions on which c o m m o n folk c o m e to the T e m p l e , that is, the pilgrim festivals, a n d that H a l a k h a h is devoted to two matters: the festival-offerings a n d the conditions of cultic cleanness t h a t pertain a n d govern the right to c o n s u m e p a r t of the m e a t of those offerings. T h r e e pilgrim festivals then d r a w to the T e m p l e the o r d i n a r y people. T h e pilgrims' three offerings called for by the pilgrimage: a n a p p e a r a n c e - o f f e r i n g involve a b u r n t offering, w h i c h yields n o food for the sacrifier [the o n e w h o benefits, achieving a t o n e m e n t t h r o u g h the offering] or sacrificer [the o n e w h o carries out the rite, e.g., the priest]; a festal offering (Hagigah), which falls u n d e r the rules of peace-offerings a n d does yield m e a t for the sacrifier; a n d peace-offerings of rejoicing, subject to the s a m e law as the festal-offering. Since the o r d i n a r y folk are going to eat sacrificial m e a t , they have to m a k e themselves r e a d y to c o n s u m e food in the status of H o l y T h i n g s . T h e H a l a k h a h t h e n encompasses not only the p e r t i n e n t offerings b u t the rules of cleanness that govern o n the occasion of the festivals. T h e act of rejoicing encompasses the eating of m e a t . T h e three r e q u i r e m e n t s — a p p e a r i n g before G o d , keeping a feast to the L o r d , a n d r e j o i c i n g — a r e m a d e explicit in Scripture, Ex. 23:17, Dt. 16:15, a n d Dt. 16:14, respectively. T h e H a l a k h a h takes u p the pilgrims' c o m p l e m e n t a r y obligations of sacrifice a n d cultic purity. T h e Israelite is to be seen in the T e m p l e court on the feast with a whole-offering (birds o r cattle) a n d t h a t is obligatory: " N o n e shall a p p e a r before m e e m p t y - h a n d e d " (Ex. 23:15). K e e p i n g the feast furt h e r m o r e m e a n s presenting a peace-offering w h e n o n e makes his a p p e a r a n c e o n the first festival d a y of the feast. T h e d u t y of rejoicing involves a peace-offering in addition to the festal p e a c e offering: "the peace-offering of rejoicing in the feast," in line with Dt. 27:7: " A n d you shall sacrifice p e a c e offerings a n d shall eat there a n d you shall rejoice before the L o r d y o u r G o d . " As to the offerings themselves, on Passover, Pentecost, a n d T a b e r n a c l e s , families present the a p p e a r a n c e offering a n d the festal offering, a n obligatory b u r n t offering a n d

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

69

peace-offerings, respectively. T h e obligatory a p p e a r a n c e - o f f e r i n g is located by sages at Dt. 16:14-17. T h e H a l a k h a h c o n c e r n i n g the pilgrimage goes over the g r o u n d of Scripture a n d clarifies details. W e r e we to consider that p a r t of the topic o n its o w n , we should assign it to the classification of topics devised by Scripture a n d fully worked out within the f r a m e w o r k of Scripture. But the pilgrimage bears in its wake a concern for cultic cleanness in the T e m p l e , a status to be achieved by o r d i n a r y folk, not only priests a n d Levites or Jerusalemites. W h e n we c o m e to the rules of cleanness as these p e r t a i n to the cult, we find a topic taken for g r a n t e d in Scripture but i n d e p e n d e n t l y amplified by the H a l a k h a h of the Mishnah-Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli. T h e m a i n point of the H a l a k h a h of H a g i g a h is, w h a t e v e r is d o n e at h o m e serves in the household, but the cult is clearly differentiated f r o m the household, with special reference for those that preserve cultic cleanness even within the household. T h a t is expressed in connection with persons a n d utensils alike. O n e m a y i m m e r s e a utensil for p u r p o s e s of cultic cleanness, but, w h e n it comes to use in the cult, a utensil has to be processed to begin with in a state of insusceptibility to uncleanness a n d so m u s t be cultically clean w h e n it b e c o m e s susceptible, a n d still it m u s t be i m m e r s e d for use in the cult, t h a t is, in connection with H o l y T h i n g s . So too, for the cult o n e m u s t wash h a n d s even if the food that the h a n d s will t o u c h is insusceptible to uncleanness, which is not the case with heave offering. T h e attitude of the pilgrim gove m s . T h e effect of his act of purification t h r o u g h immersion is dietated by the attitude with w h i c h he immerses. If o n e was unclean a n d i m m e r s e d with the intention of b e c o m i n g clean, that serves. H e w h o immerses in o r d e r to rise u p f r o m uncleanness to cleanness, lo, this person is clean for all purposes. H e w h o immerses—if he h a d the intention of b e c o m i n g clean, he b e c o m e s clean. A n d if not, he rem a i n s unclean. If he i m m e r s e d for eating food 111 the status of H o l y T h i n g s a n d is thereby c o n f i r m e d as suitable for eating food in the status of Holy T h i n g s , he is prohibited f r o m engaging 111 the p r é p a r a tion of purification water. If, however, o n e i m m e r s e d for the m a t t e r requiring the m o r e stringent rule, he is p e r m i t t e d to engage in the m a t t e r requiring the less stringent rule. If he i m m e r s e d but was not c o n f i r m e d , it is as t h o u g h he did not immerse. But there are realms to w h i c h the attitude of the Israelite gains n o access. T h e a r e a within the veil excludes all b u t the priesthood, so the intentionality of Israelites is null therein. It is in connection with the

70

C H A P T E R ONE

pilgrimage for which H a g i g a h provides that these m a t t e r s b e c o m e urgent. A n d , we note, on that occasion, the limits of intentionality a n d its p o w e r are r e a c h e d . T h e intentionality to attain cleanness in the domestic h o u s e h o l d n o w does n o t suffice, n o r d o the rules a n d regulations that pertain w h e n o r d i n a r y folk in their h o m e s eat their food as t h o u g h they were in the T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m . T h e H a l a k h a h e m b o d i e s the difference between i m a g i n a t i o n a n d intention, o n the o n e side, a n d actuality, o n the other. W h a t suffices in the pretense that one's table f o r m s the altar, the m e m b e r s of the h o u s e h o l d , the priesthood a n d its m é n a g e , the h o m e , the T e m p l e , n o w does n o t serve. Actuality intervenes: the real T e m p l e imposes its o w n , very strict rules, a n d all of the p r o p e r intentions in the world will not serve now. T h e table c o m p a r e s to the T e m p l e , the h o u s e h o l d to the priesth o o d , the b o u n d a r i e s of the h o m e to the T e m p l e — b u t in a hierarchical structure, e n c o m p a s s i n g rules of b o t h sanctification a n d u n c l e a n ness.

c. Kelim N o w h e r e does Scripture legislate c o n c e r n i n g the definition of objects that are or are n o t susceptible to uncleanness, which is the topic of the category-formation of K e l i m . Nearly the entire c o r p u s of laws of the O r a l T o r a h that we shall e x a m i n e stands a u t o n o m o u s of the W r i t t e n part. T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h tells us a great deal a b o u t sources of uncleanness (Lev. 11-15, N u m . 19) a n d a fair a m o u n t a b o u t m o d e s of purification, b u t not a great deal a b o u t the n a t u r e of utensils to be purified: " a n article of w o o d or a g a r m e n t o r a skin o r a sack, a n y vessel that is used for a n y p u r p o s e . " Several passages of the W r i t t e n T o r a h pertain. T h e most i m p o r t a n t is Lev. 11:29-35: utensils are m a d e u n c l e a n by d e a d creeping things, a n d purification is a c c o m plished t h r o u g h breaking the object. Scripture f u r t h e r contributes facts i m p o r t a n t in the consideration of objects that are subject to cultic c o n t a m i n a t i o n at Lev. 15:4-7. Lev. 15: 9-12 t u r n s f r o m the b e n c h , bed, o r chair to the saddle, subject to m e r k a b - u n c l e a n n e s s , to be differentiated f r o m midras-uncleanness. Lev. 15:19-27 give the c o u n t e r p a r t rules for w o m e n afflicted with discharge outside of the m e n s t r u a l period. T h e uncleanness that a corpse exudes, N u m . 19:Iff., affects utensils in o n e i m p o r t a n t detail, specified at N u m . 19:14-15. N u m . 31:19-24 deals with utensils of leather a n d of metal in the context of corpse-uncleanness.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

71

T h e p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h a h is set forth in the following outline of the M i s h n a h ' s a n d the T o s e f t a ' s t r e a t m e n t of the topic: I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

P r o e m for Purities: H i e r a r c h i e s of U n c l e a n n e s s a n d C o r r e s p o n d ing H i e r a r c h i e s of Sanctification A. T h e H i e r a r c h y of S o u r c e s of U n c l e a n n e s s : F r o m Least to Most Virulent B. T h e H i e r a r c h y of S o u r c e s of U n c l e a n n e s s : T h o s e T h a t Pertain to M a n C . T h e H i e r a r c h y of Loci of Sanctification: F r o m Least to M o s t Holy T h e Susceptibility to U n c l e a n n e s s of C l a y Utensils A. W o o d , L e a t h e r , B o n e , Glass, a n d C l a y ( E a r t h e n w a r e ) B. D a m a g e T h a t R e n d e r s C l a y Utensils Useless a n d T h e r e f o r e Insusceptible to U n c l e a n n e s s C . T h e Point, in the Process of M a n u f a c t u r i n g C l a y Utensils, at W h i c h the Utensils B e c o m e Susceptible to U n c l e a n n e s s ; a n d , W h e n B r o k e n D o w n , T h e P o i n t at W h i c h T h e y cease to Be Susceptible to U n c l e a n n e s s . O v e n s D . T h e Insusceptibility to U n c l e a n n e s s of the Insides of TightlyS e a l e d C l a y Utensils Susceptibility to U n c l e a n n e s s of M e t a l Utensils A. W h e n O b j e c t s M a d e of M e t a l B e c o m e Susceptible, a n d W h e n T h e y Lose Susceptibility B. Specific M e t a l O b j e c t s a n d their Status C . T h e Point, W h e n a M e t a l O b j e c t Is Broken D o w n , at w h i c h the O b j e c t C e a s e s to be Susceptible to U n c l e a n n e s s D . F u r t h e r M e t a l O b j e c t s a n d their Status Utensils of W o o d , L e a t h e r , Bone, a n d Glass A. W h e n O b j e c t s M a d e of W o o d , L e a t h e r , Bone, a n d Glass B e c o m e Susceptible, a n d W h e n T h e y Lose Susceptibility B. Specific O b j e c t s M a d e of W o o d , L e a t h e r , Bone, a n d Glass a n d their Status C . T h e Point, in the Process of M a n u f a c t u r i n g Utensils of W o o d , at w h i c h the Utensils B e c o m e Susceptible to U n cleanness; a n d , W h e n Broken D o w n , the P o i n t at w h i c h T h e y C e a s e to Be Susceptible to U n c l e a n n e s s D . T h e Point, in the Process of M a n u f a c t u r i n g Utensils of L e a t h e r , at w h i c h the Utensils B e c o m e Susceptible to U n cleanness; a n d , W h e n Broken D o w n , the Point at w h i c h T h e y C e a s e to Be Susceptible to U n c l e a n n e s s E. T h e Status as to U n c l e a n n e s s of Specific L e a t h e r O b j e c t s T h e M e a s u r e of B r e a k a g e t h a t R e n d e r s a n O b j e c t Useless, N o t L o n g e r Fit to Serve as a R e c e p t a c l e , a n d t h e r e f o r e Insusceptible to U n c l e a n n e s s . G e n e r a l R u l e s A. Specific O b j e c t s a n d the M e a s u r e of a W h o l e T h a t R e n d e r s T h e m N o L o n g e r Serviceable as a R e c e p t a c l e B. T a k i n g the M e a s u r e of Specified O b j e c t s to Assess their Status

72

C H A P T E R ONE

VI.

T h e Effect of D i s m a n t l i n g a n O b j e c t u p o n the Status, as to U n cleanness, of Said O b j e c t A. A Bed B. L e a t h e r O b j e c t s C. Wooden Objects V I I . V a r i a b l e s : Susceptibility of O b j e c t s in O n e F o r m to O n e T y p e of U n c l e a n n e s s , a n d in a D i f f e r e n t F o r m to A n o t h e r T y p e of U n cleanness. C o r p s e - U n c l e a n n e s s , Affecting R e c e p t a c l e s , as against M i d r a s - U n c l e a n n e s s , Affecting W h a t Is U s e d f o r Sitting a n d Lyi n g [Lev. 15] A. T h e Basic Distinction, Based o n the F u n c t i o n that a Utensil Serves, b e t w e e n C o r p s e - a n d M i d r a s - U n c l e a n n e s s . C a s e s B. D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g P r i m a r y f r o m S e c o n d a r y C o m p o n e n t s of a Utensil C. Tables & Chairs D . T h e C o n t e n t s of a Utensil a n d its F u n c t i o n a n d F o r m E. M i d r a s U n c l e a n n e s s in its O w n T e r m s F. M i d r a s - U n c l e a n n e s s , C o r p s e U n c l e a n n e s s , Insusceptibility to U n c l e a n n e s s : A S y s t e m a t i c r e p e r t o i r e V I I I . D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the Insides f r o m the O u t s i d e s of Utensils f o r the P u r p o s e of Assessing U n c l e a n n e s s IX T h e Principles of the U n c l e a n n e s s of Utensils Systematically Instantiated in the Analysis of the Status of L e a t h e r O b j e c t s : I n t e n tionality a n d D e e d , R e c e p t a c l e s a n d C h a i r s X. T h e Principles of the U n c l e a n n e s s of Utensils Systematically Ins t a n t i a t e d in t h e Analysis of the Status of C l o t h O b j e c t s XI. Connection X I I . O b j e c t s M a d e of Glass

T h e m a s s of detail yields the h a n d f u l of principles t h a t g o v e r n t h r o u g h o u t . C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of f o r m a n d f u n c t i o n , m e d i a t e d by the variable of m a n ' s intentionality in respect to objects a n d their usefulness, dictate the status of utensils. A single point holds the whole together: w h a t m a n d e e m s useful for his p u r p o s e s is susceptible to uncleanness, a n d w h a t m a n disregards a n d d e e m s useless is insusceptible. T h a t is w h e r e intentionality governs. T h a t is to say, that of w h i c h m a n is unlikely to take a c c o u n t — a s h a r d , a r e m n a n t — b u t to treat as null will n o t f o r m a n object to w h i c h m a n is going to be alert, a b o u t w h i c h he will take care, of which he will take note. S u c h a useless l u m p of material c a n n o t e n t e r the status of sanctification, because sanctification takes effect for that of w h i c h m a n is cogniz a n t — t h a t c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h h e f o r m s a n intentionality (in this instance: of sanctity). W h a t m a n treats as null h e also c a n n o t sanctify, the possibility of subjecting to intentionality t h a t to w h i c h o n e is to begin with indifferent. Sanctification stands for the highest level of

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

73

consideration, a n d the status of uncleanness pertains in most intense degree to w h a t is a c c o r d e d that highest m e a s u r e of alert concern. T h e M i s h n a h ' s theory of m a t t e r s contrasts uncleanness a n d sanetification, each hierarchized o n its o w n a n d (in theory at least) in synopsis with the other. T h a t is w h a t dictates the specification of the religious principles operative in the H a l a k h a h of Kelim. So at stake in the contrast of uncleanness a n d sanctification, in the Halakhic form u l a t i o n , is w h e r e o n e can go, a n d cleanness involves access to ever holier places, uncleanness, exclusion t h e r e f r o m . Certainly the Written T o r a h will have f o u n d the m a t t e r of the spatial c o n s e q u e n c e of sanctification a n d uncleanness familiar, since o n e principal result of c o n t r a c t i n g uncleanness t h r o u g h o u t Leviticus is that o n e m a y n o t e n t e r the c a m p o r tabernacle or holy place. T h e juxtaposition a n d contrast of the hierarchization of status as to uncleanness, f r a m e d in terms of persons a n d the effects of their uncleanness, against the loci of sanctification, f r a m e d in enlandised terms, accordingly makes its o w n point. Uncleanness removes a person f r o m w h a t is most holy to w h a t is less holy, that is, f r o m the focus of sanctification, step by step, point by point, ultimately f r o m the Holy of Holies. T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h bears a second message, o n e for which the W r i t t e n T o r a h p r e p a r e s us only in part. Leviticus is explicit that w h e n priests eat their rations ("heave-offering"), they must be in a state of cultic cleanness, c o m p a r a b l e to, t h o u g h less stringent t h a n , the cultic cleanness they m u s t attain to c o n s u m e their share of the Holy T h i n g s of the altar. Scripture knows that priests should not contract corpseuncleanness except u n d e r limited circumstances, must m a r r y in accord with the restrictions, as to the sexual status of their wives, a n d m u s t be in b o d y u n f l a w e d (Lev. C h a p t e r T w e n t y - O n e ) . T h e H a l a k h a h f u r t h e r takes for g r a n t e d that (some) Israelites will not eat o r d i n a r y food that is in a state of cultic uncleanness, a n d they also will not, in a state of cultic uncleanness, eat o r d i n a r y food that is cultically clean. O n c e we have established that the opposite of u n cleanness is sanctification, we realize w h a t is at stake. Israelites, not priests, are to eat o r d i n a r y food, n o t Holy T h i n g s or priestly rations, at h o m e a n d not in the T e m p l e c o u r t y a r d o r in J e r u s a l e m , as t h o u g h they were priests, as t h o u g h the food were Holy T h i n g s o r priestly rations, a n d as t h o u g h they were located in the T e m p l e . Scripture treats sanctification as a process that works ex opere operate. I c a n n o t , f u r t h e r m o r e , point to a single passage in which, in so m a n y words or a n y t h i n g close, Scripture makes the status of unclean-

74

CHAPTER ONE

ness d e p e n d u p o n m a t t e r s of c i r c u m s t a n c e , relation, a n d attitude. J u s t as sanctification in a c o n c r e t e case takes place without regard to c i r c u m s t a n c e o r will, so uncleanness is a process that is inexorable. W h a t is susceptible to uncleanness is w h a t is useful, a n d w h a t is b r o k e n , n o longer useful, is n o longer u n c l e a n , h e n c e , n o longer susceptible to b e c o m e u n c l e a n . But that is n o t h o w the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h sees matters. W h e t h e r or not sanctity inheres, u n cleanness is relative, contextual, d e p e n d a n t u p o n m a t t e r s of will a n d attitude. P e r h a p s m a t t e r s begin with the principle of Scripture that w h a t is useless is insusceptible o r clean (as the case m a y be), which the O r a l T o r a h then amplifies: w h o defines usefulness, a n d h o w d o we know? A n d f r o m that h u m b l e question a p a t h is o p e n e d for the e n t r y of the entire m a t t e r of intentionality: h o w does o n e p r o p o s e to use a n object? w h e t h e r the attitude of o n e is the s a m e as that of the other, o r w h e t h e r we take a c c o u n t only of individual preference? h o w the f o r m of a utensil governs its usefulness, without respect to the plans of the user of the vessel? a n d on a n d on. In a n y event, w h e t h e r p u r s u i n g a line of t h o u g h t o p e n e d by the W r i t t e n T o r a h o r f o r m u l â t ing m a t t e r s in a n i n d e p e n d e n t a n d fresh way, the O r a l T o r a h in its H a l a k h a h explicitly a n d repeatedly insists that uncleanness does not inhere in things a n d is not a n absolute a n d intrinsic, material trait, b u t rather, a m a t t e r of status i m p u t e d by m a n himself. T h e status of utensils as to w h e t h e r or not they can receive u n cleanness is relative to the f o r m of materials i m p a r t e d by m a n a n d the use of materials decided by m a n : the attitude a n d intentionality of m a n , c o n f i r m e d by his actions. T i m e a n d again masses of details m a k e a single point: w h a t m a n finds useful, w h a t serves m a n ' s principal p u r p o s e a n d carries out his generative initiative, m a r k s the m a terials, that is, the object that they f o r m , as susceptible to u n c l e a n ness. So if the materials are located in a tent of a corpse, they can receive a n d retain the uncleanness e x u d i n g f r o m the corpse. A n d w h a t m a n d e e m s negligible a n d of n o a c c o u n t is useless a n d insusceptible. Materials located in a tent of a corpse that m a n has n o t f o r m e d into s o m e t h i n g of which he takes not d o n o t receive uncleanness. So it is m a n w h o decides w h e t h e r the entire system of cultic cleanness pertains o r does not pertain, a n d that represents a considerable shift f r o m the c o n c e p t i o n of uncleanness that Scripture puts forth. T h e lesson of K e l i m is clear. W h a t m a n values can be sanctified a n d therefore also can be m a d e u n c l e a n by sources of c o n t a m i n a t i o n that otherwise affect only the cult. It is by a n act of will that holy Israel,

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

75

living in the L a n d of Israel, t r a n s f o r m s itself into a k i n g d o m of priests a n d a holy people, a n d its f o o d into priestly rations. All that o r d i n a r y Israel has to u n d e r t a k e to sanctify the h o u s e h o l d a n d its table is to p a y a t t e n t i o n to those m a t t e r s that, to begin with, G o d has identified as m a t t e r s of cultic c o n c e r n . T h e H a l a k h a h in so stating has indep e n d e n t l y developed the topic that Scripture has r a t h e r casually contributed.

d. Megillah I n v e n t i n g its o w n c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n , the H a l a k h a h t r a n s f o r m s the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the holiday of P u r i m into the occasion for legislating a b o u t the d e c l a m a t i o n of the T o r a h in the synagogue; a l o n g the way, the H a l a k h a h provides s o m e f u r t h e r rules for the synagogue. W h a t m a r k s the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the category as fresh a n d i n d e p e n d e n t is the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the case, d e c l a i m i n g the Esther-scroll in public, into the rule for d e c l a i m i n g the T o r a h in the synagogue. E s t h e r 9:1632 f o r m s the basis for a c o r p u s of rules o n r e a d i n g the T o r a h in the synagogue. T h e H a l a k h a h begins with the laws covering the declam a t i o n of the scroll of Esther, t h e n p r o c e e d s to the m o r e general topics of synagogue g o v e r n a n c e a n d the d e c l a m a t i o n of the T o r a h therein. By the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of w h a t is explicitly r e q u i r e d in Scripture— the r e a d i n g of the Scroll of E s t h e r — w i t h synagogue-rules, sages establish t h a t the d e c l a m a t i o n of Scripture takes place m o s t suitably in the c o n g r e g a t i o n g a t h e r e d in a p a r t i c u l a r building erected a n d set aside for that p u r p o s e — n o t for p r a y e r , n o t for sacrifice, not for study, but for T o r a h - d e c l a m a t i o n . W h a t t h e n defines the synagogue? It is n o t c o n t a i n e d space of a p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r b u t the presence of the q u o r u m of m a l e Israelites a s s e m b l e d for the c o n d u c t of certain specific activities. T h e H a l a k h a h d o e s not specify the traits that a building m u s t exhibit to qualify for use as a synagogue, t h o u g h it does recognize t h a t a building certainly m a y be consecrated for synagogue-activities alone. But the H a l a k h a h does indicate w h a t is necessary for the c o n d u c t of the activities p a r t i c u l a r to a synagogue, a n d that is in terms of the presence of holy Israel, e m b o d i e d in ten males. By contrast, the T e m p l e c a n n o t be d e f i n e d as the place w h e r e ten Israelites c o m e together to kill a cow. T h e enlandised h o u s e h o l d c a n n o t be set forth as a location w h e r e ten Israelites p r o d u c e crops, only a plot of g r o u n d o w n e d by a n Israelite in the L a n d of Israel that p r o d u c e s crops.

76

C H A P T E R ONE

In the O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h i c vision of w h e r e G o d a n d Israel intersect, the s y n a g o g u e finds a merely s u b o r d i n a t e d place. First, the H a l a k h i c r e q u i r e m e n t s for the s y n a g o g u e scarcely specify m u c h of interest. T h e H a l a k h a h differentiates categories that it values, a n d by t h a t criterion, the s y n a g o g u e enjoys a low priority. T r u e , the location is to be t r e a t e d with respect. But while acutely detailed laws define a p p r o p r i a t e use of space for b u r y i n g the d e a d , n o c o u n t e r - p a r t rules of weight a n d substance, c o m p a r a b l e to the ones o n burial g r o u n d s , set forth the delineation of space f o r t h e synagogue. W e k n o w h o w large a burial plot m u s t be, a n d h o w m u c h space is allocated to individual kokhs; the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h does n o t tell us h o w large t h e ark that contains the T o r a h m u s t be, o r h o w m u c h space is allocated to individual scrolls. T h e H a l a k h a h devotes to the T e m p l e , n o t only its activities b u t its space, a c o r p u s of m i n u t e regulations with n o c o u n t e r p a r t f o r the synagogue. N o t h i n g c o m p a r a b l e to the tractate M i d d o t , o n the layout of the T e m p l e , a t t e n d s to synag o g u e - o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e H a l a k h a h , finally, in m i n u t e detail defines the priest, his responsibilities a n d rewards. But n o c o m p a r a b l e native-category devotes discussion to the sage a n d w h a t h e is to do. S e c o n d , the H a l a k h a h assigns to the p r o v e n i e n c e of the s y n a g o g u e as c o n s e c r a t e d space few critical activities of the life with G o d . T h e rhetoric of the H a l a k h a h takes for g r a n t e d that study of the T o r a h may take place a n y w h e r e , b u t does take place in the b e t h h a m m i d r a s h o r house of study. T h e s y n a g o g u e is n o t identified with the h o u s e of study or with the activity of study in sages' sense; dec l a i m i n g the T o r a h a n d reciting prayers in public d o n o t c o m p a r e . T h i r d , w h e n it c o m e s to public p r a y e r , the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h assigns t h a t activity to the v e n u e of the T e m p l e in the context of the Daily W h o l e O f f e r i n g , so insists the H a l a k h a h of T a m i d . T h e u p s h o t is, p r a y e r — p u b l i c o r p e r s o n a l — i n n o w a y is linked by the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h to the s y n a g o g u e in particular, a n d the synagogue enjoys only a s u b o r d i n a t e role in t h e everyday m e e t i n g with G o d that Israel u n d e r t a k e s . Its p r i m a r y p u r p o s e then finds its definition in sages' choice of topical c o m p a n i o n s for the synagogue: those h a v i n g to d o with d e c l a i m i n g the T o r a h . T h e H a l a k h a h , as always, states the m a i n p o i n t best. I n its scale of priorities, the s y n a g o g u e ranks low, well below a Torah-scroll. N o t h i n g in S c r i p t u r e h a s precipitated the u n i o n of topics, let alone systematic discussion of the synagogue, set forth by the H a l a k h a h of Megillah.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

77

e. Miqvaot T h e p a r a d o x of w a t e r is that it b o t h contracts a n d also removes uncleanness. It imparts susceptibility to uncleanness, w h e n deliberately p u t o n t o seed for e x a m p l e , a n d a m o n g o t h e r liquids w a t e r also receives uncleanness w h e n t o u c h e d by a source of uncleanness. But u n d e r s o m e conditions, in correct v o l u m e , deriving f r o m the a p p r o priate source, w a t e r also has the p o w e r to diminish or even r e m o v e uncleanness, still w a t e r the f o r m e r , flowing w a t e r the latter. So, it is clear, we shall deal with diverse classifications of water, o n the o n e side, a n d with rules governing those classifications of w a t e r that b e a r the p o w e r to r e m o v e uncleanness b u t t h e n d o not themselves receive uncleanness, o n the other. O f all this Scripture knows nothing, t h o u g h to such a t a x o n o m y of types of water, Scripture makes its contribution. W h e n Scripture speaks of p u t t i n g into w a t e r — i m m e r s i n g — a n u n c l e a n person or g a r m e n t , it f u r t h e r specifies, " a n d it shall be unclean until evening, t h e n it will be clean." So i m m e r s i o n does n o t purify, b u t 111 a m e a s u r e removes uncleanness. Scripture proves r e m a r k a b l y reticent to deal with questions involving h o w the " p u t t i n g into w a t e r " is carried out, not defining the sort of w a t e r that works, as is s h o w n by Lev. 11:31-32, Lev. 15:13, Lev. 11:40, Lev. 14:8:, Lev. 15:5, Lev. 15:16, Lev. 15:21, Lev. 15:27, Lev. 16:28, Lev. 17:15, Lev. 22:6-7, N u m . 10:7, N u m . 17:17, a n d D t . 23:11:12. Scripture supplies n o i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the c h a r a c t e r of the w a t e r into which the u n clean object is to be put, h o w such w a t e r is collected, h o w m u c h is required, a n d the like. O f the six kinds of w a t e r that the H a l a k h a h differentiates for p u r poses of r e m o v i n g uncleanness, these two take priority, still w a t e r that in the requisite v o l u m e has collected f r o m rain-drippings, which is to say, w a t e r that a c c u m u l a t e s naturally f r o m h e a v e n , a n d living o r spring o r flowing water, f r o m d e e p in the e a r t h , which removes corpse-uncleanness a n d that of the Z a b a n d of nega '-uncleanness. T h e f o r m e r defines the p r o b l e m a t i c of the H a l a k h a h , in these aspects: [1] it m u s t not be subjected to h u m a n intervention or intentionality, [2] it m u s t n o t be collected in utensils; [3] b u t it m u s t flow naturally (with the flow permissibly directed by m a n ) to its collection-point in the pool. A n d , conversely, d r a w n w a t e r i m p a r t s uncleanness a n d if p o u r e d into a collection of rain-water of a v o l u m e insufficient to constitute a valid i m m e r s i o n pool spoils the w a t e r into which it is p o u r e d . W h a t is it that t u r n s w a t e r f r o m a source of uncleanness (if

78

C H A P T E R ONE

d r a w n ) or a facilitator for the transmission of uncleanness (if p o u r e d u p o n seed t h r o u g h a n act of will) to the m e d i u m for r e m o v i n g u n cleanness is t h e n obvious. T h e m a t t e r m a y be expressed positively a n d negatively. It is the negative fact t h a t w a t e r has n o t served h u m a n p u r p o s e s or b e e n subjected to h u m a n activity. W a t e r left in its n a t u r a l condition, in sufficient v o l u m e , p o u r i n g d o w n f r o m h e a v e n in the f o r m of rain a n d collecting o n its own u p o n the e a r t h that is H e a v e n ' s m e d i u m for r e m o v i n g uncleanness. R e q u i r e d to preserve passivity, m a n m a y only dig a hole into which rain-water will n a t u rally flow. But that is h o w uncleanness takes place, by n a t u r e , rarely by a n act of h u m a n intentionality. A n d that m a t c h u n d e r s c o r e s the positive message of the H a l a k h a h . J u s t as uncleanness c o m e s a b o u t by n a t u r e not by h u m a n activity or intentionality, so n a t u r e serves to r e m o v e uncleanness a n d naturally to restore the n o r m a l condition of persons a n d objects, which is cleanness. N a t u r e restores w h a t n a t u r e has disrupted, the celestial r e m o v i n g the c h t h o n i c , so to speak. T h a t is in two stages, still w a t e r m a r k s the cessation of uncleanness, sunset the b e g i n n i n g of the n e w cycle of Israel in c o n f o r m i t y with the p u i p o s i v e c h a r a c t e r of n a t u r e . N o w t h e n we c o m e to interpret the o p p o s e d rules of w a t e r for immersion pools a n d w a t e r for the purification of corpse-uncleanness. T h e question is, w h y does still w a t e r u n a f f e c t e d by h u m a n agency restore the n a t u r a l condition d i s r u p t e d by uncleanness o t h e r t h a n that of the corpse a n d its analogues, while by contrast purificationw a t e r systematically subjected to h u m a n i n t e r v e n t i o n — c o n s t a n t att e n d o n , deliberate action, start to f i n i s h — a l o n e removes corpse-uncleanness? W e have t h e n to a c c o u n t for the exclusion of m a n f r o m the o n e process, the radical insistence u p o n his inclusion, in full deliberation, within the other. T h e reason is, we deal with two essentially distinct types of uncleanness, o n e o r d i n a r y a n d natural, the o t h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d in violation of n a t u r e . U n c l e a n n e s s that c o m e s a b o u t by reason of a n y cause b u t d e a t h a n d its analogues is r e m o v e d by the H e a v e n ' s o w n dispensation, not by m a n ' s intervention: rain-fall, sunset suffice. O r d i n a r y purification is d o n e by n a t u r e , resulting f r o m n a t u r a l processes. W a t e r that falls f r o m h e a v e n a n d , u n i m p e d e d by m a n , collects in sufficient v o l u m e restores the n a t u r a l condition of persons a n d objects that h a v e contracted uncleanness at second h a n d or by reason of m i n o r sources of c o n t a m i n a t i o n . Still w a t e r serves for the m o m e n t , until sun set m a r k s the n e w now-clean spell in the story of the person o r the object. But

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

79

as to persons a n d objects that have c o n t r a c t e d uncleanness f r o m d e a t h , n a t u r e on its o w n c a n n o t p r o d u c e the kind of w a t e r that bears the p o w e r to r e m o v e that u n c l e a n n e s s a n d restore the condition of n a t u r e . O n l y m a n can. A n d m a n c a n d o this only by the highest level of c o n c e n t r a t i o n , the m o s t deliberate a n d focussed action. T h e w a t e r is n o t still, b u t flowing water: living w a t e r o v e r c o m i n g d e a t h . A n d the w a t e r is kept alive, in c o n s t a n t m o t i o n until it is stirred with the ash. A n y extrinsic action spoils the water; s t o p p i n g to rest o n a b e n c h , d o i n g a n y d e e d o t h e r t h a n r e q u i r e d for the rite itself—these disrupt the circle of sanctification within the world of uncleanness that the b u r n i n g of the cow h a s required. So the facts lead us to the critical question at the h e a r t of matters: w h y does the state of h u m a n i n t e n tionality govern in the c o n f r o n t a t i o n with corpse-uncleanness? M a n ' s s u p r e m e act of will, e m b o d y i n g intentionality in highlypurposive activity, can o v e r c o m e even the effects of d e a t h . If the H a l a k h a h wished to say, m a n c a n o v e r c o m e d e a t h t h r o u g h the correct a n d deliberate attitude, it could n o t have e m b o d i e d t h a i message in m o r e p o w e r f u l l a n g u a g e t h a n the activities r e q u i r e d for the f o r m u lation of purification-water. M a n ' s act of will o v e r c o m e s the u n c l e a n ness of d e a t h , just as m a n ' s act of deliberate rebellion b r o u g h t a b o u t d e a t h to begin with. M a n restores w h a t m a n has disrupted. As to the rest, m a n refrains f r o m deliberate action, a n d n a t u r e , providing purifying w a t e r f r o m h e a v e n , accomplishes the restoration. T h a t is because the o t h e r f o r m s of u n c l e a n n e s s c o m e a b o u t by n a t u r e ' s o w n failure to realize itself, so n a t u r e provides the m e d i u m of the r e m o v a l of the c o n s e q u e n c e : w a t e r that H e a v e n supplies naturally m a t c h e s n a t u r e ' s condition.

f.

Sanhedrin-Makkot

T h e H a l a k h a h set forth in the tractate of S a n h é d r i n — M i s h n a h , T o s e f t a , Y e r u s h a l m i , Bavli—deals with the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the Israelite g o v e r n m e n t a n d courts a n d p u n i s h m e n t s a d m i n i s t e r e d thereby. T h e c o u r t system is set forth in the M i s h n a h ' s s t a t e m e n t of m a t t e r s at M . 1:1-5:5, the d e a t h - p e n a l t y at 6:1-1 1:6, a n d extra-judicial penalties at 9:5-6, 10:1-6. T h e penalties o t h e r t h a n capital are set forth in tractate M a k k o t , covering p e r j u r y (with variable penalties), b a n i s h m e n t , a n d flogging. W h i l e Scripture supplies m a n y facts, the O r a l T o r a h organizes a n d lays m a t t e r s o u t in its o w n way. W h e r e the W r i t t e n T o r a h does n o t p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n that sages d e e m logical

80

C H A P T E R ONE

a n d necessary, they m a k e things u p for themselves. W h e r e verses of Scripture play a role in t h e H a l a k h i c s t a t e m e n t of m a t t e r s , they are cited in context. T h e details of the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the c o u r t system d o n o t derive f r o m the W r i t t e n T o r a h , n o r are t h e specificities of the d e a t h p e n a l t y supplied there. T h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of the W r i t t e n T o r a h is t h e r e f o r e episodic. D t . 16:18-20 specifies a p p o i n t i n g j u d g e s , Dt. 17:8-13 provides f o r a n appellate system, "If a n y case arises r e q u i r i n g a decision b e t w e e n o n e kind of h o m i c i d e a n d a n o t h e r , o n e kind of legal right a n d a n o t h e r , o r o n e kind of assault a n d a n o t h e r , a n y case within y o u r towns t h a t is too difficult for y o u , t h e n you shall arise a n d go u p to the place t h a t t h e L o r d y o u r G o d will choose...." T h e d e a t h p e n a l t y for m u r d e r is specified at N u m . 35:30, o n the testimony of two or three witnesses, D t . 17:6-7. T h e c o m p a r i s o n of the high priest a n d the king at M . S a n . 2:Iff., rests o n Lev. 21:10-12 for the high priest a n d D t . 17:14-20 for the king. T h e d e a t h p e n a l t y involving h a n g i n g the b o d y o n a tree until night b u t burial the s a m e d a y is at D t . 21:2^-23; t h e s t u b b o r n a n d rebellious son at D t . 21:18-21. T h e city t h a t is w i p e d o u t b e c a u s e of idolatry is treated at D t . 13:12-18. T h e u p s h o t is t h a t at specific topics, Scripture, cited h e r e a n d there, c o n t r i b u t e s facts, b u t the s h a p e a n d p r o g r a m of the tractate as a w h o l e is n o t to be p r e d i c t e d o n the basis of the W r i t t e n T o r a h . O n t h a t basis I classify the d u a l - t r a c t a t e as I do. A n outline of the H a l a k h a h as set forth in the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a Yerushalmi-Bavli provides a n overview of t h e t r e a t m e n t of the topic: i.

T h e C o u r t System A. V a r i o u s K i n d s of C o u r t s a n d their J u r i s d i c t i o n B. T h e H e a d s of the Israelite N a t i o n a n d t h e C o u r t System C . T h e P r o c e d u r e s of the C o u r t System: P r o p e r t y C a s e s D . T h e P r o c e d u r e s of the C o u r t - S y s t e m : C a p i t a l C a s e s ii. T h e D e a t h P e n a l t y A. S t o n i n g B. T h e F o u r M o d e s of E x e c u t i o n t h a t Lie in the P o w e r of the C o u r t a n d how they are Administered C. Stoning D . B u r n i n g or D e c a p i t a t i o n E. S t r a n g l i n g F. E x t r a - j u d i c i a l P u n i s h m e n t G . D e a t h At the H a n d s of H e a v e n : D e n i a l of E t e r n a l life T h i s f i n a l i t e m is a s f o l l o w s : M . 11:1

[ M i s h n a h = 10:1, a n d so t h r o u g h o u t ] AH Israelites h a v e a s h a r e in the w o r l d to c o m e , as it is said, " y o u r p e o p l e also

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

81

shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the l a n d forever; the b r a n c h of m y p l a n t i n g , the w o r k of m y h a n d s , that I m a y be glorified" (Is. 60:21). A n d these a r e the ones w h o h a v e n o p o r t i o n in the w o r l d to c o m e : H e w h o says, the r e s u r r e c t i o n of the d e a d is a t e a c h i n g w h i c h does n o t derive f r o m the T o r a h , a n d the T o r a h does n o t c o m e f r o m H e a v e n ; a n d a n E p i c u rean.

O n c e we see whole a n d c o m p l e t e the H a l a k h a h in its classical statem e n t , we find n o difficulty in d e f i n i n g the p r o b l e m a t i c s of the topic. T h e topic is sanctions for the p r o t e c t i o n of the social o r d e r , t h a t is t r e a t e d in the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n d e f i n e d at tractate S a n h é d r i n . T h e p r o b l e m a t i c is revealed in the exposition of the topic. W h a t c a p t u r e s sages' interest in the topic is a h i e r a r c h i z a t i o n of sins or crimes as indicated by the severity of the penalties that are i m p o s e d , m a t c h e d , also, by t h e formality a n d p r o c e d u r a l punctiliousness of the courts' process. S t a t e d simply, we m a y say t h a t sages find i m p o r t a n t in the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n , criminal justice, the issue, w h i c h sin is m o r e severe t h a n the o t h e r , a n d h o w does the p e n a l t y fit the c r i m e in a set of h i e r a r c h i z e d sins with m a t c h i n g sanctions? T h a t is the c e n t e r of the m a t t e r . O n c e t h a t question is asked of this t o p i c — t h e p r o b l e m a t i c s of h i e r a r c h i z a t i o n as that pertains to criminal justice-—the o r d e r of prèse n t a t i o n is set, the s e q u e n c e dictated, start to finish, with only a few flaws. M a k k o t c o n c e r n s itself with the judicial sanctions of flogging a n d b a n i s h m e n t . T h e o r d e r of the topical exposition is s o m e w h a t p u z zling, since C h a p t e r s O n e a n d T h r e e b e l o n g together. T h e following outline shows the picture clearly: i. ii.

Penalties f o r P e r j u r y T h e Penalty of Exile ( b a n i s h m e n t ) A. T h o s e W h o a r e S e n t into exile B. T h e Cities of Exile iii. T h e Penalty of Flogging A. T h o s e W h o Are Flogged B. T h e C o n d u c t of the Flogging

W i t h i n Israel's social o r d e r the H a l a k h a h addresses f r o m a theological perspective t h e p r o f o u n d question of social justice: w h a t shall we m a k e of the Israelite sinner or criminal? Specifically, does the sin o r crime, w h i c h has e s t r a n g e d h i m f r o m G o d , close the d o o r to life eternal? If it does, t h e n justice is i m p l a c a b l e a n d perfect. If it does not, t h e n G o d shows his m e r c y — b u t w h a t of justice? Seeing the H a l a k h i c s t a t e m e n t whole, we see h o w the topics set forth by Scrip-

82

C H A P T E R ONE

t u r e are r e w o r k e d in a n original a n d fresh w a y to f r a m e a n i n d e p e n d ent proposition, integral to the T o r a h viewed whole. W e c a n u n d e r stand the a n s w e r only if we keep in m i n d t h a t the H a l a k h a h takes for g r a n t e d the resurrection of the d e a d , the final j u d g m e n t , a n d the life of the world to c o m e b e y o n d the grave. F r o m t h a t perspective, d e a t h b e c o m e s a n event in life b u t n o t t h e e n d of life. A n d , it m u s t follow, t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y too does n o t m a r k the u t t e r annihilation of the person of the sinner o r criminal. O n t h e c o n t r a r y , because h e pays for his c r i m e o r sin in this life, h e situates himself with all of the rest of s u p e r n a t u r a l Israel, r e a d y f o r the final j u d g m e n t . H a v i n g b e e n j u d g e d , h e will " s t a n d in j u d g m e n t , " m e a n i n g , h e will find his w a y to the life of the world to c o m e a l o n g with everyone else.

g. 2^ebahim O f t h e issues that p r e d o m i n a t e in the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n of Z e b a h i m —especially the role of intentionality in linking G o d a n d Israel— S c r i p t u r e knows little o r n o t h i n g . But w h e r e v e r t h e y c a n , the O r a l T o r a h ' s sages find in Scripture the starting point for their o w n syst e m a t i c reflection. F o r its p a r t , Scripture's g o v e r n i n g provisions for a n i m a l offerings a r e set forth at, Lev. 1:1-9, Lev. 1:14-17, Lev. 3:1-5, Lev. 4:27-31, Lev. 6:27-28, Lev. 7:1-7, a n d Lev. 17:3ff. T h e Priestly C o d e organizes i n f o r m a t i o n within its g o v e r n i n g categories, just as does the O r a l T o r a h ; these categories go over the s a m e topics, b u t e a c h focuses facts in its o w n way. T h e c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n is new, because the O r a l T o r a h a i m s at treating as a single classification a set of distinct rules, t h e r e with respect to the diverse m e a l offerings, here, the diverse a n i m a l offerings. W h e r e Scripture differentiates a n d t h e n c o m p a r e s a n d contrasts, the O r a l T o r a h h o m o g e n i z e s , subjects to a single b o d y of g o v e r n i n g principles. T h e starting p o i n t should n o t be missed. W h i l e Scripture presents the t r a n s a c t i o n that takes place at the altar by classifying types of offerings, e.g., the burnt-offering, sinoffering, guilt-offering, p e a c e offerings, firstling, tithe of cattle, a n d the Passover, the O r a l T o r a h f o r m s its o w n classifications, setting forth rules that a p p l y to all (or most) classes of offerings t h r o u g h o u t . So the O r a l T o r a h systematizes by identifying the f o u r cultic acts that, p r o p e r l y p e r f o r m e d by the priest, r e n d e r the animal-sacrifice suitable for yielding parts for the altar fires a n d p a r t s for the priests' c o n s u m p t i o n . T h e s e f o u r acts p e r t a i n to all classifications of offerings of beasts.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

83

T h e focus a n d d y n a m i c of the work of systematization r e m a i n to be identified. T h e s e e m e r g e f r o m the problematic, of the O r a l T o r a h a n d c o m e to full e x p o s u r e in the a c c o u n t of the generative religious principles that the O r a l T o r a h e m b o d i e s a n d actualizes. T h e O r a l T o r a h sets forth, in c o n n e c t i o n with a n i m a l offerings, f o u r bodies of rules, most of t h e m addressing issues n o t taken u p in Scripture b u t precipitated b y Scripture's a c c o u n t of matters. O u t of a n d in line with the e l a b o r a t e a c c o u n t of the W r i t t e n T o r a h , the O r a l T o r a h identifies its own c o n c e n t s . It w a n t s to k n o w , specifically, a b o u t the role of intentionality in the sacrificial cult, a n issue n o t explicitly addressed in the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s t r e a t m e n t of the s a m e subject b u t d e e m e d implicit therein. F u r t h e r interest e n c o m p a s s e s issues systematically addressed in the O r a l T o r a h ' s e x a m i n a t i o n of a b r o a d variety of topics, e.g., issues of mixtures a n d c o n f u s i o n of categories, rules of p r e c e d e n c e , a n d the like. H e r e too, the W r i t t e n T o r a h supplies the h a r d facts that the O r a l T o r a h systematizes, in w h i c h the O r a l T o r a h finds indicative traits susceptible to o r d e r i n g . Finally, while Scripture does n o t differentiate a m o n g the locations at which the altar is located, the O r a l T o r a h systematizes i n f o r m a t i o n o n the s a m e m a t t e r a n d deals with the diverse rules g o v e r n i n g sacrifices at the several locations at which Israel m a d e offerings p r i o r to the building of t h e T e m p l e . T h e entire enterprise of the O r a l T o r a h proves to be o n e of generalization a n d systematization, b u t at the s a m e time, the O r a l T o r a h contains within itself r e m a r k a b l y fresh initiatives of inquiry. W e r e we e n g a g e d by the question of h o w the O r a l T o r a h responds to t h a t of the W r i t t e n o n e , we should find h e r e t h e e x e m p l a r y cases for d e f i n i n g principles of that response. T h e facts derive f r o m Scripture, the generative p r o b l e m a t i c s f r o m the resources of the O r a l T o r a h . T a k e t h e case of the blood-rite itself: the effect d e p e n d s entirely o n p r o p e r attitude, even w h e n n o t m a t c h e d by correct action. T h e blood-rite f o r m s the c e n t e r of the t r a n s a c t i o n b e t w e e n Israel a n d G o d at the altar. T h a t is s h o w n in the a n s w e r to the question, At w h a t p o i n t is the offering validated, so that the disposition of the a n i m a l b e a r s consequences? It is w h e n the blood h a s b e e n p r o p e r l y sprinkled or tossed. T h e basic c o n c e p t i o n is, w h e n the rite is p e r f o r m e d p r o p e r l y with the correct intentionality, it accomplishes its goals (it is "valid"). W h e n the rite is p e r f o r m e d p r o p erly b u t classified incorrectly, it is invalid. T h e O r a l T o r a h bears n o messages c o n c e r n i n g the m e a n i n g of the blood-rite, only t h e conditions that are r e q u i r e d for its effective a c c o m p l i s h m e n t . T h e O r a l

84

C H A P T E R ONE

T o r a h takes as its p r o b l e m a n issue o n w h i c h the W r i t t e n T o r a h m a k e s n o s t a t e m e n t within t h e f r a m e w o r k of n o r m a t i v e prescriptions, b u t m a k e s a n e l a b o r a t e s t a t e m e n t i n d e e d within the setting of n a r r a tive of e x e m p l a r y events a n d transactions f r o m the b e g i n n i n g to the e n d . So in the present setting the O r a l T o r a h takes as its task the e m b o d i m e n t in ritual of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s m y t h . W h y the stress o n intentionality, a n d w h a t o u t c o m e for Israel's relationship with G o d d o we discern? T h e simple fact is, the Israelite has the p o w e r to c h a n g e t h e status of a beast f r o m secular to sacred, a n d this he does by a n act of will. H e designates a beast as sacred, specifying t h e p u r p o s e of the act of sanctification. So the entire process of p r e s e n t i n g p e r s o n a l offerings (as distinct f r o m the public ones) d e p e n d s u p o n the act of will effected by the individual Israelite. A n d since t h e rites are carried o u t at t h e critical turnings b y the priest, the attitude t h a t governs his activities likewise m u s t register. N e i t h e r the Israelite n o r the priest is p o r t r a y e d as a n a u t o m a t o n , n o r d o the actions of the two parties e m e r g e as coerced o r a u t o m a t i c . W h a t the Israelite does realizes his will, w h i c h is w h y the d e e d m a k e s a difference, a n d , the O r a l T o r a h takes for g r a n t e d , the priest too engages t h r o u g h a n act of will. Both a r e d e e m e d to have, a n d to m a k e , choices, a n d these choices r e s p o n d to the intentionality t h a t motivates the entire t r a n s a c t i o n , start to finish. So the O r a l T o r a h p o r trays the cult as t h e stage o n w h i c h Israel—priest a n d Israelite alike work o u t in c o n c r e t e actions the results of their interior reflections. W e should n o t miss the negative, for it yields a positive result. It is n o t e n o u g h that the Israelite designate the a n i m a l ; G o d m u s t k n o w that the priest h a s p r e p a r e d it in a c c o r d with the definition of the sanctification t h a t h a s taken hold of t h a t a n i m a l by reason of the Israelite's act of sanctification: the priest m u s t c a r r y out the action within the s a m e f r a m e w o r k of p u r p o s e established by t h e Israelite for the beast. So it does n o t suffice for the priest to i m p o s e his j u d g m e n t u p o n the disposition of the beast; the initial act of sanctification has i m p o s e d limits u p o n his p u r p o s e . T h e Israelite requires priestly conf o r m i t y to his, the Israelite's, act of will in designating the beast. T h e priest effects the correct offering only w h e n h e s u b o r d i n a t e s his will to t h a t of the Israelite. T h e Israelite attains a t o n e m e n t a n d reconciliation with G o d only w h e n , a f t e r a n u n i n t e n d e d violation of the T o r a h , h e d e m o n s t r a t e s that, in giving s o m e t h i n g back (whether a costly beast, w h e t h e r a bird of n o account), he s u b o r d i n a t e s his will to t h a t

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

85

of G o d . W e find m a t c h e d acts of willful a n d deliberate s u b o r d i n a t i o n — t h e priest's to the Israelite's, the Israelite's to G o d ' s . G o d closely a t t e n d s to the m a t c h of deliberation a n d deed, a n d only w h e n the Israelite's intent a n d the priest's intent coincide does G o d c o n f i r m his gracious a c c e p t a n c e of the result, propitiation resulting. So while the p r e s e n t a t i o n of offerings superficially places the h u m a n side of the transaction at the c e n t e r — i t is the Israelite's, t h e n the priest's parts that effect the r e l a t i o n s h i p — i n fact, it is G o d ' s eng a g e m e n t with the s a m e transaction, his close a n d careful surveillance of the m a t c h of intent a n d action, w o r d a n d d e e d , that m a k e s all the difference. In the cult Israel relates to G o d intimately a n d concretely. O n c e the Israelite u n d e r t a k e s by a n act of will to engage in a d e e d of sanctification, G o d ' s participation in the process, step by step, his close attention to the interior of the activities c o n s e q u e n c e u p o n the u n d e r t a k i n g — t h e s e responses e m b o d y G o d ' s intense interest in the Israelite's attitude, to w h i c h G o d responds. T h a t is w h y "intentionality" takes 011 very c o n c r e t e a n d specific m e a n i n g s in the setting of the offering to G o d of the gifts of the L a n d , m e a t , wine, oil, grain a n d the like. W h e n a n Israelite expresses his intentionality to sanctify a p a r t i c u l a r a n i m a l for a specified offering, that consecrates the beast for G o d ' s service at the altar. But the intentionality of the Israelite t h e n requires a c o r r e s p o n d i n g attitude o n the p a r t of, with a c o n f i r m i n g action by, the officiating priest. If he does the deeds of the sacrifice for s o m e p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n the a n n o u n c e d o n e of the Israelite, h e denies the Israelite the benefit of c o n f i r m a t i o n of his intentionality by a cultic action. W h a t is the result of the priest's misconceiving of matters? W h e r e the beast c a n serve for s o m e a p p r o priate cultic p u r p o s e , it does so. T h a t is to say, the original action of the Israelite in sanctifying the beast is n o t nullified by the c o n t r a d i c tory intentionality of the priest. But w h e r e the beast is designated for a very p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e a n d can t h e n serve n o other, the sacrificial act is lost. W h a t a b o u t the O r a l T o r a h ' s rules for the regulation of the altar? T h e s e g o over five distinct issues: disposing of sacrificial p o r t i o n s or blood that derive f r o m diverse classes of sacrifices a n d have b e e n c o n f u s e d ; w h a t the altar sanctifies, which is w h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e to it, b u t n o t w h a t is n o t a p p r o p r i a t e to it; p r e c e d e n c e in use of the altar; blood of a sin-offering that spurts o n t o a g a r m e n t ; a n d the division a m o n g the eligible priests of the m e a t a n d hides of sacrificial animals. O f these five m a t t e r s three yield e n c o m p a s s i n g generalizations, the

86

C H A P T E R ONE

o t h e r two p r o d u c i n g a d h o c rules t h a t articulate the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s details. T h e p r o g r a m of the O r a l T o r a h aims at sorting o u t c o n f u s i o n in a practical, rational way. If a n i m a l s are c o n f u s e d , so that s o m e m a y be suitable for the altar, s o m e not, we wait until a blemish disqualifies the beasts a n d sell t h e m , using the p r o c e e d s for the altar. A correct b u t practical solution resolves the m a t t e r , the sanctity imp a r t e d to the beast by the act of c o n s e c r a t i o n n o t indelibly affecting the a n i m a l ; it is relative to t h e a n i m a l ' s o w n suitability for its p u r p o s e . T h e value is c o n s e c r a t e d , t h e b o d y of the a n i m a l not. So too, the altar sanctifies w h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e to it b u t h a s n o affect u p o n w h a t is n o t a p p r o p r i a t e to it. Sanctification does n o t i n h e r e in the altar, such t h a t m e r e c o n t a c t with the altar t r a n s f o r m s w h a t t o u c h e s the altar into s o m e t h i n g p e r m a n e n t l y sacred. A n d a l o n g these s a m e lines, perfectly rational considerations g o v e r n questions of p r e c e d e n c e . In all three instances of the disposition of " t h e s a c r e d , " we find sanctity n o t a n i n h e r e n t trait b u t o n e that d e p e n d s u p o n c i r c u m s t a n c e a n d suitability. T h e full m e a n i n g of these i m p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t s of the O r a l T o r a h e m e r g e s only w h e n we consider the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s j u d g m e n t of the s a m e m a t t e r , w h i c h is stated at Ex. 29:37: " t h e altar shall b e m o s t holy; w h a t e v e r t o u c h e s the altar shall b e c o m e holy." T h a t of the O r a l T o r a h significantly qualifies t h a t s t a t e m e n t , a d d i n g the l a n g u a g e " t h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e " to the p h r a s e , " w h a t e v e r touches...." T h e issue is w h e t h e r sanctification is indelible o r stipulative. Schismatic o p i n i o n holds t h a t w h a t is sanctified in the s a n c t u a r y is indelibly sanctified so is n o t r e m o v e d f r o m the altar. If, t h e n , the cause of invalidation for the altar took place in the sanctuary, the s a n c t u a r y accepts t h e t h i n g in a n y event a n d it is n o t r e m o v e d f r o m the altar. If its invalidity did n o t take place in the sanctuary, t h e s a n c t u a r y does n o t accept it a n d it should be r e m o v e d f r o m t h e altar. But t h a t position c o n c e r n i n g sanctification by b e i n g assigned to a n a m e d sage as against "sages" is labeled as n o t n o r m a t i v e , a n d consequently the O r a l T o r a h u n d e r s c o r e s the logic of its generative position, w h i c h is, sanctification affects status, n o t substance.

X V I I . Kaleidoscopic Discourse T o gain perspective o n the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s before us, I invoke as a m e t a p h o r , the kaleidoscope. I n v e n t e d in 1817, it is " a n optical

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

87

i n s t r u m e n t consisting of f r o m two to f o u r reflecting surfaces placed in a tube, at o n e e n d of w h i c h is a small c o m p a r t m e n t c o n t a i n i n g pieces of colored glass. O n looking t h r o u g h the tube, n u m e r o u s reflections of these are seen, p r o d u c i n g brightly colored symmetrical figures, w h i c h m a y be constantly altered by rotation of the i n s t r u m e n t " (Oxford English Dictionary [ O x f o r d , 1971], s.v.). T h e H a l a k h i c topics are the colored glass. T h e i r j u x t a p o s i t i o n s in the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s just n o w surveyed result f r o m the O r a l T o r a h ' s c o u n t e r p a r t to " t h e rotation of the i n s t r u m e n t . " T h e symmetrical figures that we perceive in o u r survey of the O r a l T o r a h ' s i n d e p e n d e n t definition of categoryf o r m a t i o n s then c o m e a b o u t by reason of the c h a r a c t e r of the reflecting surfaces, the planes a n d angles, c o n c a v e o r convex f o r m a t i o n , a n d the like. T h e O r a l T o r a h affords n o t only a glimpse at the fixed light but, p r o p e r l y perceived, the surfaces that s h a p e the light into the fixture w e n o w perceive. T o apply the m e t a p h o r : w h e n we h a v e identified the distinctive rationality of the O r a l T o r a h viewed whole, we shall k n o w the c o u n t e r p a r t to those planes a n d angles, c o n c a v e o r convex f o r m a t i o n s , that govern the light of the colored glass a n d p r o d u c e the galaxy of c o m b i n a t i o n s of the kaleidoscope. T h e greatest categorical a c h i e v e m e n t of the entire O r a l T o r a h , the u n i t a r y H a l a k h a h of B a b a Q a m m a , B a b a Mesia, a n d B a b a Batra, utilizes colored glass of its o w n as well as of Scripture, b u t (as is the fact, by definition) o n its o w n has polished the surfaces that s h a p e the light into the p a t t e r n e d reflection we perceive. It is a fixed p a t t e r n , o n e that c a n n o t c h a n g e 111 the rotation of the tube; i n d e e d , to cross the b o u n d s of the m e t a p h o r , the O r a l T o r a h f o r m s the t u b e a n d fixes its p a r t s into a w o r k i n g whole: o n e that will n o t m o v e . T h e point of i n s i s t e n c e — t h e stasis of the well-ordered society, its interplay with the disruptions of intentionality t h e n f o r m s a s t a t e m e n t that the individual p a r t i c i p a n t , with his o w n attitudes a n d wishes, m a y register, b u t the n o r m a l , a n d n o r m a t i v e , society will t r a n s c e n d w h a t variegates a n d disrupts. It will establish w h a t is n o t only fair b u t also e n d u r i n g , w h a t m a n by a n act of will has upset, m a n by a n act of will m u s t restore, the whole assessed by a p p e a l to the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y of classes of causation. So intentionality intersects with responsibility, yielding a n original c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n a n d , by the way, a set of topical inquiries precipitated by the n e w c o m b i n a t i o n . W h e n , at H a g i g a h , the O r a l T o r a h ' s c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n j o i n s the topic of the pilgrimage with the topic of cultic cleanness, it p r o d u c e s the r e m a r k a b l e exercise in the c o m p a r i s o n a n d contrast of categories

88

C H A P T E R ONE

of cultic c l e a n n e s s — t h e l a y m a n , the priest's, t h e c u l t ' s — t h a t in the very details of t h e law f o r m a single construction of the two subjects. If o n e keeps cultic cleanness at h o m e , t h a t requires o n e class of observances, o n e level of alertness; w h e n he does so to e n t e r the T e m p l e , t h a t requires a h i g h e r level of alertness. T h e n the laws of cultic cleanness vary, a n d t h a t is in a c c o r d with the intentionality of the Israelite participant. If h e i n t e n d s to b e c o m e cultically clean for o n e p u r p o s e , he takes o n e set of steps, a n d f o r a n o t h e r , a different set of steps. His wishes t h e n classify his obligations in the m a t t e r of cultic cleanness, even t h o u g h the status o n the surface r e m a i n s u n i f o r m , t h a t is, u n c l e a n or clean. O n c e we a d d , u n c l e a n a n d t h e n clean for this p u r p o s e , in this context, the variable of intentionality takes over. K e l i m constructs a c o m p l e x grid, o n e that holds t o g e t h e r within a single f r a m e w o r k these variables: t h e materials of w h i c h objects are m a d e ; t h e f o r m s t h a t objects require to be serviceable, e.g., f o r m i n g a receptacle o r flat; the state, as to m a n u f a c t u r e , of the utensils, i n c o m plete o r complete; the c o n d i t i o n of the utensils, whole, b r o k e n , o r only partially usable; a n d the attitude of the person w h o is to use the utensils, h o w a n d for w h a t p u r p o s e he intends to utilize t h e m . All of these distinct planes of analysis a r e held t o g e t h e r in a c o h e r e n t a n d e n c o m p a s s i n g c o m p o s i t i o n , o n e in w h i c h three d i m e n s i o n s c o m p r e h e n d the whole: f o r m , f u n c t i o n , a n d the user's p u r p o s e o r attitude. T h e entire composite, the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n a n d its c o m p o n e n t s , attests to the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the O r a l T o r a h . N o t h i n g in the W r i t t e n T o r a h precipitates speculation, w h e t h e r in c o n c r e t e or abstract f o r m a n d l a n g u a g e , u p o n the m a t t e r of h o w the h u m a n will interacts with the material world of things. Megillah a n d M o e d Q a t a n b e a r in c o m m o n the quality of j o i n i n g i n c o n g r u o u s topics. Megillah's i n c o n g r u i t y derives f r o m the disprop o r t i o n of j u x t a p o s i n g rules o n the r e a d i n g of a particular b o o k of Scripture with rules o n the c o n d u c t a n d g o v e r n a n c e of synagogue affairs all together, with a focus u p o n r e a d i n g Scripture in general. M o e d Q a t a n j a r s because celebration of the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the festival a n d burial of the d e a d represent o p p o s e d activities, the o n e joyful, t h e o t h e r m o u r n f u l . E a c h m a k e s its s t a t e m e n t , a n d the two s t a t e m e n t s b e a r the traits of c o h e r e n c e a n d cogency. H e r e the analogy to the kaleidoscope works well: fixed colors w h e n differently r e f r a c t e d c o m b i n e into n e w shades. W h e n t h e O r a l T o r a h organizes Scripture's facts into its o w n cate g o r y - f o r m a t i o n , it does so because it wishes to m a k e a s t a t e m e n t

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

89

that only that reconstitution of givens brings a b o u t . At M i q v a o t we find a key to the m o d e of t h o u g h t that yields the particular message. It is o n e of c o m p a r i s o n a n d contrast of categories. If we wish to think in the m a n n e r in w h i c h the O r a l T o r a h carries o u t its analytical inquiry, t h e n , we h a v e to identify the f o u n d a t i o n s of c o m p a r i s o n a n d the p u r p o s e of contrast. H e r e we establish a s h a r e d genus, w h i c h is, w a t e r that purifies. T h e n we speciate. T h e g r o u n d s of speciation— w h e t h e r o r n o t m a n m a y intervene in the collection of the water; w h e t h e r o r n o t the w a t e r m a y be collected in utensils, t h a t is, by h u m a n action; h o w w a t e r n o t collected by m a n m u s t be t r e a t e d to f o r m a pool; h o w the diverse classes of w a t e r are utilized to effect purification a n d the like—these o n c e m o r e f o r m a n exercise in the interplay of h u m a n will a n d the m a t e r i a l facts of n a t u r e . O n l y by f o r m i n g the category, penalties for sin a n d c r i m e viewed a l t o g e t h e r ( S a n h e d r i n - M a k k o t ) c a n the O r a l T o r a h deliver its message o n the w a y G o d balances justice a n d mercy. Specifically, the social o r d e r brings a b o u t justice in this world, w h i c h is a n act of m e r c y because it o p e n s the w a y for t h e sinner or criminal to e n t e r into the world to c o m e . W e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d h o w M e n a h o t systematizes a n d organizes a vast c o r p u s of d a t a of the W r i t t e n T o r a h . Z e b a h i m accomplishes the s a m e work, b u t in laying o u t generalizations to hold t o g e t h e r Scripture's facts c o n c e r n i n g a n i m a l offerings, the O r a l T o r a h ' s c o u n t e r p a r t , generalizing c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n also m a k e s a n original statem e n t . T h a t s t a t e m e n t plays itself o u t o n two planes, f o r m e d into a grid. T h e o n e h a s to d o with intentionality, the other, sanctification. T h e o n e brings a b o u t the other. But is sanctification substantive or relative, a n intrinsic characteristic of t h a t w h i c h h a s b e e n sanctified, o r a c o n t i n g e n t characteristic responsive to context, c i r c u m s t a n c e , a n d will? T h e grid of these two basic principles holds t o g e t h e r most, t h o u g h n o t all, of the systematic, analytical expositions of law in this category-formation. In all of these cases, therefore, the O r a l T o r a h has invented cate g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s in response to its o w n r e q u i r e m e n t s : to deliver the message at h a n d , only the f a b r i c a t e d category c a n serve as the effective m e d i u m . A n d for t h e most p a r t , t h o u g h n o t entirely so, the particular message t h a t the O r a l T o r a h wishes to set d o w n c o n c e r n s the p o w e r , a n d the limits, of t h e h u m a n will: w h e r e m a n m a k e s consequential choices, w h e r e his will b e a r s n o weight whatsoever, a n d the in-between cases t h a t fill u p the a g e n d a of the H a l a k h a h . A

90

C H A P T E R ONE

clear p i c t u r e of the p r o g r a m a n d plan of the O r a l T o r a h takes s h a p e . W h e r e the O r a l T o r a h redefines w h a t m a t t e r s in the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a tions of the W r i t t e n T o r a h , t h a t s h a p e b e c o m e s still m o r e vividly exposed.

X V I I I . Same Letter, New Spirit: When the Oral Torah Asks its Own Questions about the Written Torah's Topical Program T h i s a c c o u n t of the O r a l T o r a h ' s o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n reaches its climax w h e n we ask, w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n t h e O r a l T o r a h takes over a n d m a k e s its o w n the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s a n d expositions of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ? N o w , by contrast to t h e c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s c o n s i d e r e d in C h a p t e r F o u r , the O r a l T o r a h reveals its a u t o n o m o u s p r o g r a m , a n d , p r o p e r l y described, a n a l y z e d , a n d i n t e r p r e t e d , we c o n t e m p l a t e a truly original a n d subtle o n e at that. H e r e the O r a l T o r a h places o n display its p a r t i c u l a r a n d distinguishing traits of m i n d , d o i n g so by h o w it defines a received c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n a n d e x p o u n d s it. T h e O r a l T o r a h in the identified c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s t h e r e b y recasts m a t t e r s so as to m a k e a fresh a n d distinctive s t a t e m e n t of its own. A n d w h e n we e x a m i n e all of the s t a t e m e n t s a n d ask the interpretive question, h o w d o they fit t o g e t h e r a n d w h a t d o they say seen whole, the a n s w e r proves quite r e m a r k a b l e . P u r s u i n g a p r o g r a m of p r o b lems, indicative of its o w n sustained p r o b l e m a t i c , o n e that in H a l a k h i c discourse the W r i t t e n T o r a h in 110 w a y a d u m b r a t e s , the O r a l T o r a h defines its o w n c h a r a c t e r . A n d , as we shall see at the e n d , t h a t self-definition f r a m e s the O r a l T o r a h as the necessary c o m p l e m e n t , the fulfillment, in the social o r d e r , of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s n a r r a t i v e of Israel: o n e w h o l e T o r a h i n d e e d . T h a t is w h a t I m e a n w h e n I identify c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s d e f i n e d b y the W r i t t e n T o r a h b u t entirely r e f r a m e d , n o t just recapitulated a n d amplified, by the O r a l T o r a h . T h e O r a l T o r a h presents itself as original a n d recapitulative in a fresh, necessary l a n g u a g e . T h e full originality of the O r a l T o r a h , its i m p a r t i n g a n e w spirit to a received l e t t e r — t h e s e r e m a r k a b l e traits e m e r g e with clarity a n d force. But w h e n w e g r a s p t h e s t a t e m e n t that the O r a l T o r a h sets forth, w e shall see w h y the W r i t t e n T o r a h r e q u i r e d , m a d e absolutely necessary, the a c h i e v e m e n t of, the O r a l T o r a h . N o m o r e c o m p e l l i n g evidence of the c h a r a c t e r of the O r a l T o r a h c o m e s to h a n d t h a n w h a t follows. It vastly t r a n s c e n d s the f o r m u l a t i o n of a wholly n e w set of questions to

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

91

a d d r e s s to a received topical p r o g r a m . W h a t we c o n t e m p l a t e in the O r a l T o r a h e m e r g e s as the r e w o r k i n g of the W r i t t e n T o r a h , in the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s o w n spirit, into a wholly n e w s t a t e m e n t of a single, e n d u r i n g t r u t h . Stated simply: we shall see exactly h o w the letter of the law gives life to the spirit of the story the T o r a h tells a b o u t m a n .

a. Besah Besah (a.k.a., Y o m T o b , festival) deals with the p r e p a r a t i o n of food o n the festival clay itself. Scripture p e r m i t s d o i n g so: " O n the first d a y you shall hold a holy assembly, a n d o n the seventh d a y a holy assembly; n o work shall b e d o n e 011 those days; b u t w h a t everyone m u s t eat, t h a t only m a y be p r e p a r e d by y o u " (Ex. 12:16). W h a t is p e r m i t ted 011 the first a n d seventh days of Passover also is p e r m i t t e d o n Pentecost a n d 011 the first a n d seventh days of T a b e r n a c l e s . T h e s t a t e m e n t of the topic in S c r i p t u r e in n o way p r e p a r e s us for the r e m a r k a b l e c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n set forth in the n a m e of Besah. T h e exposition of the topic shows the c o m p l e t e i n d e p e n d e n c e of the Halakhic presentation: I. P r e p a r i n g F o o d 011 the Festival D a y A. C a s e s a n d their I m p l i c a t i o n s B. D e s i g n a t i n g F o o d b e f o r e the Festival for U s e 011 the Festival C . D o i n g Actions C o n n e c t e d with P r e p a r i n g F o o d o n a Festival D a y in a D i f f e r e n t M a n n e r f r o m o n O r d i n a r y Days. O t h e r R e strictions D . T h e Status of a P e r s o n ' s Possessions in R e s p e c t to the S a b b a t h Limit

Clearly, at issue are considerations n o t c o n t a i n e d within Scripture's laconic s t a t e m e n t . T h e issues e n c a p s u l a t e d in the g o v e r n i n g principies, n o n e of t h e m dictated by Scripture's t r e a t m e n t of the subject, are these: [1] m u s t f o o d for use o n the festival be available a n d designated f o r t h a t p u r p o s e , actually o r potentially, prior to the festival? F u r t h e r , [2] m a y o r m a y n o t o n e carry o n the p r e p a r a t i o n of f o o d o n the festival in exactly the s a m e w a y in w h i c h o n e does so 011 a n o r d i n a r y day? N e x t , [3] m a y o r m a y n o t o n e p r e p a r e w h a t is r e q u i r e d for the p r e p a r a t i o n of f o o d , t h a t is, s e c o n d a r y o r tertiary acts of labor, in the w a y in w h i c h o n e m a y d o so 011 a n o r d i n a r y day? Finally, [4] m a y o r m a y n o t o n e d o such acts of l a b o r at all? T h e S a b b a t h supplies the g o v e r n i n g analogy. T h e tractate asks a b o u t distinguishing the actual p r e p a r a t i o n of f o o d , w h i c h the W r i t t e n T o r a h

92

C H A P T E R ONE

permits, f r o m acts of l a b o r r e q u i r e d for f o o d b u t n o t directly p e r t a i n ing thereto; acts of l a b o r indirectly involved in f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n . T h e a n a l o g y of the S a b b a t h is ever present. W e deal with o n e of the t r i u m p h s of the H a l a k h i c i m a g i n a t i o n . T h e generative premises of t h e H a l a k h a h f o r m a n a t u r a l c o n n e c t i o n to the topic at h a n d , b u t every o n e of t h e m works well, also, in o t h e r contexts altogether, a n d n o n e is p a r t i c u l a r to the topic, let a l o n e i n s i n u a t e d by Scripture's m e a g e r s t a t e m e n t o n t h e topic, of festival cooking. W h a t we h a v e b e f o r e us is a quite i n d e p e n d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of a subject r a t h e r casually stated by Scripture. All of the complexities, a n d the premises t h a t g e n e r a t e t h e m , derive f r o m o t h e r m i n d s altogether, even t h o u g h , o n e m a y fairly claim, all of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g intellects c o n c u r o n everything i m p o r t a n t within the g o v e r n i n g logic that c o m p r e h e n d s the law of Scripture a n d the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h — b o t h . O n e m a y p r e p a r e f o o d o n the festival days of Passover, Pentecost, a n d T a b e r n a c l e s . S c r i p t u r e is explicit o n that point. But the H a l a k h a h of Besah wishes to raise s e a r c h i n g questions. If I h a d to select the single m o s t pervasive principle of H a l a k h a h , it is the insiste n c e o n designating f o o d b e f o r e the festival for use o n the festival, o n the o n e side, a n d linking the status of the h o u s e h o l d to t h e status (e. g. , as to location) of his possessions, o n t h e other. In a d v a n c e of the h o u s e h o l d e r m u s t designate for use o n the festival w h a t h e is going to p r e p a r e o n the festival. T h a t represents a n act of particularization, this b a t c h of f o o d for this festival in particular, a n d it is entirely familiar to us in a n o t h e r context altogether. O n c e m o r e we observe the H a l a k h a h ' s r e c u r r e n t stress o n the particularity of intentionality. H e r e the principle is, o n e m u s t in a d v a n c e of the festival designate f o r use o n t h e festival w h a t e v e r o n e is going to utilize on t h a t day. W h e n it c o m e s to things o t h e r t h a n edibles, a d v a n c e p l a n n i n g is absolutely required. T h e s e reflections o n intentionality intersect with d e e p t h o u g h t o n the potential a n d the a c t u a l to create a c o m p l e x grid of analysis of cases by a p p e a l to the o n e principle o r to the other. But they lead to a theological principle t h a t t h e sacred, e. g., sacred time, m u s t b e designated a n d differentiated as a n act of intentionality. O n e m u s t p r e p a r e in a d v a n c e f o r the a d v e n t of the festival b y designating w h a t is going to serve the legitimate tasks of t h a t day. O n c e m o r e the T o s e f t a states a case t h a t b e a r s the principle: ashes f r o m a fire w h i c h o n e lit o n the festival d a y d o they n o t use to cover b l o o d of a beast slaughtered o n that festival day, f o r they are n o t t h a t w h i c h was m a d e r e a d y b e f o r e the festival day.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

93

b. Eriibin T h e H a l a k h a h set forth by E r u b i n focuses o n the verses, Ex. 16:2930, that link the act of eating with the locus of residence: "See! T h e L o r d has given y o u the S a b b a t h , t h e r e f o r e o n the sixth d a y h e gives y o u b r e a d for two days; r e m a i n every m a n of you in his place; let n o m a n go out of his place o n the seventh day. So the people rested o n the seventh d a y . "

T h e prohibition of "going out of o n e ' s place" o n the S a b b a t h is linked to eating meals in one's place on the holy day. T h e juxtaposition of a double-supply of b r e a d for Friday a n d S a t u r d a y a n d rem a i n i n g in place leaves n o d o u b t that [1] o n e stays h o m e , on the o n e side, a n d that [2] h o m e is w h e r e o n e eats, o n the other. By extension, o n e m u s t r e m a i n within the limits of o n e ' s residence on the S a b b a t h . T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h defines the S a b b a t h in p a r t by sending Israel to its tents o n that occasion. R e p o s e involves entry into a stationary condition. T h e given of the H a l a k h a h o f ' E r u b i n is that people are to stay in their place o n the S a b b a t h day. T h a t m e a n s each person has a place, defined as f o u r cubits (enough for a burial plot), a n d , f u r t h e r , that he m a y m o v e f r o m that place for the distance of two t h o u s a n d cubits in a n y direction. Scripture yields the proposition at h a n d , t h o u g h if that is the case, then Scripture is r e m a r k a b l y reticent to define a n y details of the law. In play t h r o u g h o u t the exposition of the H a l a k h a h of E r u b i n are these propositions: [1] o n e m a y not transport objects f r o m private to public d o m a i n , but [2] there are types of d o m a i n that are neither the o n e n o r the other, specifically, the c o u r t y a r d linking a n u m b e r of private properties, a n d the alleyway o n t o which a n u m b e r of courtyards d e b a u c h . T o these givens the H a l a k h a h of E r u b i n takes for g r a n t e d a n u m b e r of propositions, u p o n which all else is f o u n d e d . T h e s e are as follows: [1] R e m a i n i n g in one's place does n o t m e a n o n e m a y not leave his house; o n e m a y m o v e a b o u t his own property; he m a y m o v e to the limit of 2,000 cubits f r o m one's own residence. [2] T h r o u g h a fictive meal or an 'eriib—a meal of commingling— o n e m a y c o m m i n g l e ownership of a c o u r t y a r d shared with others. Similarly, t h r o u g h a fictive meal, or a shittuf, a meal of p a r t n e r s h i p , a n alleyway into w h i c h a n u m b e r of c o u r t y a r d s d e b a u c h m a y be f o r m e d into a c o m m o n c o u r t y a r d ; this is signaled by m a r k i n g the alleyway as a single d o m a i n by establishing a gateway, a n d then the

94

CHAPTER ONE

shared meal establishes that all of the private d o m a i n s are c o m m i n gled as to ownership. [3] O n e must r e m a i n in his own village, that is, the settled a r e a a n d its n a t u r a l environs. [4] O n e m a y establish residence at some place o t h e r t h a n his o w n household, by m a k i n g provision for eating a m e a l at that o t h e r place. T h e meal m u s t be located in its place by s u n d o w n o n the S a b b a t h , but a verbal declaration accomplishes the s a m e p u r p o s e . T h a t fictive residence permits him to m e a s u r e his allotted a r e a for travel f r o m that o t h e r place. T h e Written T o r a h has therefore defined the category-formation, but the O r a l T o r a h , its m e a n i n g a n d significance. W h y d o sages devote their r e a d i n g of the H a l a k h a h of E r u b i n above all to differentiating public f r o m private d o m a i n ? T h e H a l a k h a h has i n d e p e n d e n t l y developed a topic that, to begin with, Scripture introduces without elaboration. Yet all of E r u b i n a n d a fair c o m p o n e n t of S h a b b a t focus u p o n that m a t t e r . T h e answer derives f r o m the governing theology of the S a b b a t h . T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h at G e n . 1:1-2:3 represents the S a b b a t h as the climax of creation. T h e theology of the S a b b a t h p u t forth in the O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h derives f r o m a systematization of definitions implicit in the m y t h of E d e n that envelopes the S a b b a t h . Sages' thinking a b o u t the S a b b a t h invokes in t h e f o r m a t i o n of the n o r m a t i v e law defining the m a t t e r the m o d e l of the first S a b b a t h , the o n e of E d e n . T h e two p a r a m o u n t points of concern-—[1] the systematic definition of private d o m a i n , w h e r e o r d i n a r y activity is p e r m i t t e d , a n d [2] the r a t h e r particular definition of w h a t constitutes a prohibited act of l a b o r o n the Sabb a t h — p r e c i p i t a t e d e e p t h o u g h t a n d a n i m a t e the h a n d f u l of principies b r o u g h t to concrete realization in the two tractates. W e c a n m a k e sense of the H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t - E r u b i n only by a p p e a l to the story of C r e a t i o n , the g o v e r n i n g m e t a p h o r derived t h e r e f r o m , the sages' philosophical reflections that t r a n s f o r m into principles of a general a n d universal c h a r a c t e r the case at h a n d . Both a n 'erub-fence a n d a n ' e r u b - m e a l r e n d e r private d o m a i n public t h r o u g h the sharing of ownership. T h e 'erub-fence for its p a r t renders public d o m a i n private, b u t only in the same sense that private d o m a i n o w n e d by diverse owners is shared, o w n e r s h i p b e i n g c o m m i n g l e d . T h e ' e r u b - f e n c e signals the f o r m a t i o n for p u r p o s e s of the sanctification of time of private d o m a i n — b u t with the o w n e r s h i p c o m m i n g l e d . So w h a t is " p r i v a t e " a b o u t "private d o m a i n " is different o n the S a b b a t h f r o m in secular time. By definition, for p r o p e r t y to be

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

95

private in the setting of the S a b b a t h , it m u s t be shared a m o n g householders. O n the S a b b a t h , d o m a i n that is totally private, its o w n e r s h i p n o t c o m m i n g l e d for the occasion, b e c o m e s a prison, the h o u s e h o l d e r b e i n g u n a b l e to c o n d u c t himself in the n o r m a l m a n n e r in the courtyard b e y o n d his d o o r , let alone in o t h e r c o u r t y a r d s in the s a m e alleyway, or in o t h e r alleyways that d e b a u c h o n t o the s a m e street. A n d the H a l a k h a h , as w h o d o n o t offer their p r o p r i e t o r s h i p of their h o u s e h o l d s for c o m m i n g l i n g for the S a b b a t h . W h a t h a p p e n s , therefore, t h r o u g h the ' e r u b - f e n c e o r ' e r u b - m e a l is the re-definition of proprietorship: w h a t is private is 110 longer personal, a n d n o o n e totally owns w h a t is his, b u t t h e n everyone (who wishes to participate, himself a n d his h o u s e h o l d together) o w n s a share everywhere. So m u c h for the "in his p l a c e " p a r t of " e a c h m a n in his place." His place constitutes a n a r e a w h e r e o r d i n a r y life goes o n , b u t it is 110 longer "his" in the way in which the l a n d is subject to his will a n d activity in o r d i n a r y time. If c o n s t r u c t i n g a fence serves to signify j o i n t o w n e r s h i p of the village, n o w t u r n e d into private d o m a i n , or c o n s t r u c t i n g the gateway, of the alleyway a n d its courtyards, w h a t a b o u t the meal? T h e ' e r u b - m e a l signifies the s h a r e d c h a r a c t e r of w h a t is e a t e n . It is food t h a t belongs to all w h o wish to share it. But it is the provision of a personal meal, also, t h a t allows a n individual to designate for h i m self a place of S a b b a t h residence o t h e r t h a n the h o u s e h o l d to which he belongs. So the S a b b a t h loosens b o n d s , those of the h o u s e h o l d e r to his p r o p e r t y , those of the individual to the h o u s e h o l d . T h e a d v e n t of the S a b b a t h f o r m s c o m m u n i t i e s , the h o u s e h o l d e r s of a c o u r t y a r d into a c o m m u n i t y of shared o w n e r s h i p of the entire c o u r t y a r d , the individual into a c o m m u n i t y o t h e r t h a n that f o r m e d by the h o u s e h o l d to w h i c h he b e l o n g s — n o w the c o m m u n i t y of disciples of a given sage, the c o m m u n i t y of a family o t h e r t h a n t h a t in residence in the household, to use two of the e x a m p l e s c o m m o n in the H a l a k h a h . J u s t as the S a b b a t h redefines o w n e r s h i p of the L a n d a n d its p r o d u c e , t u m ing all Israelites into a single social entity, "all Israel," which, all together, possesses the L a n d in c o m m o n o w n e r s h i p , so the S a b b a t h redefines the social relationships of the h o u s e h o l d , allowing persons to s e p a r a t e themselves f r o m the residence of the h o u s e h o l d a n d designate s o m e o t h e r , s o m e personal, p o i n t of residence instead. T h e S a b b a t h recapitulates the condition of E d e n , w h e n A d a m a n d Eve could go w h e r e they wished a n d eat w h a t they w a n t e d , masters of all they c o n t e m p l a t e d , a l o n g with G o d . Israel o n the S a b b a t h in the

96

C H A P T E R ONE

L a n d , like A d a m o n the S a b b a t h of E d e n t h a t celebrates C r e a t i o n , shares private d o m a i n a n d its p r o d u c e . T h e O r a l T o r a h has s h o w n h o w this is a c c o m p l i s h e d .

c. Gittin T h e topic, writs of divorce, derives f r o m Scripture, w h i c h is explicit that at the cessation of t h e m a r i t a l b o n d (for w h i c h in Scripture the l a n g u a g e of sanctification d o e s n o t enter) a writ of divorce be h a n d e d to t h e w o m a n . T h e p e r t i n e n t verse of Scripture, Dt. 24:1-4, is as follows: " W h e n a m a n takes a wife a n d m a r r i e s her, a n d it h a p p e n s t h a t she finds n o f a v o r in his eyes b e c a u s e h e h a s f o u n d s o m e u n c l e a n n e s s in h e r a n d h e writes h e r a certificate of divorce, p u t s it in h e r h a n d a n d sends h e r o u t of his h o u s e , w h e n she has d e p a r t e d f r o m his h o u s e a n d goes a n d b e c o m e s a n o t h e r m a n ' s wife, if the latter h u s b a n d detests h e r a n d writes h e r a certificate of divorce, puts it in h e r h a n d a n d sends h e r o u t of his h o u s e , or if the latter h u s b a n d dies w h o took h e r as his wife, t h e n h e r f o r m e r h u s b a n d w h o d i v o r c e d h e r m u s t n o t take h e r b a c k to be his wife a f t e r she has b e e n defiled; f o r t h a t is a n a b o m i n a t i o n b e f o r e the L o r d , a n d y o u shall n o t b r i n g sin o n the l a n d t h a t the L o r d y o u r G o d is giving y o u as a n i n h e r i t a n c e . "

S c r i p t u r e lays e m p h a s i s u p o n the p r o h i b i t i o n of a divorced w o m a n , o n c e r e m a r r i e d , to r e t u r n to t h e h u s b a n d w h o h a s divorced her. T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h , by contrast, finds its focus of interest in the s u b o r d i n a t e d details of the t r a n s a c t i o n set f o r t h in Scripture. T h e topical p r o g r a m does n o t signal t h e foci of interest t h a t the H a l a k h a h will identify for itself. H e r e is t h e outline of the H a l a k h a h as set forth by the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i : I.

II. III. IV. V. VI.

T h e W r i t of D i v o r c e A. T r a n s m i t t i n g the W r i t of D i v o r c e B. T h e W r i t of D i v o r c e a n d the W r i t of E m a n c i p a t i o n of Slaves C . P r e p a r i n g a W r i t of D i v o r c e R u l e s of A g e n c y a n d W r i t s of D i v o r c e R u l i n g s P e r t i n e n t to the W r i t of D i v o r c e M a d e f o r G o o d O r d e r of the W o r l d , a n d O t h e r R u l i n g s in the S a m e Classification T h e Slave T h e W i f e ' s R e c e i p t of the W r i t of D i v o r c e T h e H u s b a n d ' s I n s t r u c t i o n s o n the P r e p a r a t i o n & Delivery of t h e Writ A. I n s t r u c t i n g A g e n t s to P r e p a r e the W r i t B. T h e C o n d i t i o n a l W r i t of D i v o r c e

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

97

V I I . T h e I m p a i r e d W r i t of D i v o r c e A. T h e W r i t of D i v o r c e t h a t is S u b j e c t to D o u b t B. T h e W r i t of D i v o r c e t h a t is S u b j e c t to Flaws or I m p e r f e c t i o n s C . A n I n v a l i d a t i n g Restriction in a W r i t of D i v o r c e D . C o n f u s i n g W r i t s of D i v o r c e

T h e H a l a k h a h takes as its principal p r o b l e m the delivery of the writ of divorce to the wife. N o t only m u s t the d o c u m e n t be p a r t i c u l a r to t h a t w o m e n , b u t it m u s t also a c c o m m o d a t e h e r preferences as to its delivery. T h a t u n d e r s c o r e s h e r active role in the p r o c e d u r e ; she m u s t be fully c o g n i z a n t of the m a t t e r . Since the d o c u m e n t m u s t c o n f o r m to the law or yields n o effect a n d leaves h e r sanctified to that particular m a n , she h a s to m a k e sure it is validly p r e p a r e d at its critical points. T h a t is w h y she dictates the conditions of the writ's delivery. W h i l e she c a n n o t initiate the p r o c e d u r e — S c r i p t u r e has a c c o r d e d h e r n o role in the transaction b u t t h e passive o n e of receiving the d o c u m e n t — l i e r will governs w h e r e a n d h o w the writ will be h a n d e d over to her. W h a t is at stake in these r e q u i r e m e n t s ? T h e y serve to m a k e certain the writ is valid a n d takes effect, so that all parties to the t r a n s a c t i o n k n o w t h a t the w o m a n ' s status has c h a n g e d irrevocably. But t h a t m e a n s , even a n i m p e r f e c t i o n w i t h o u t a n y b e a r i n g o n the substance of the t r a n s a c t i o n , such as m i s d a t i n g or misidentifying the writ (using t h e w r o n g d a t e , o r misidentifying the locale of the husb a n d , suffices to invalidate the writ. So too, if the scribe e r r e d a n d gave the writ of divorce to t h e w o m a n a n d the q u i t t a n c e to the m a n , r a t h e r t h a n giving the writ to the m a n to give to his wife a n d vice versa, it is a c o m p l e t e disaster. B o t h cases a n d c o m p a r a b l e ones b r i n g to b e a r the m o s t severe penalties. T h e n , if the actually-not-divorced wife should r e m a r r y o n t h e strength of the i m p a i r e d writ of divorce, h e r entire situation is r u i n e d . S h e has to get a n e w writ of divorce f r o m the first h u s b a n d a n d f r o m the second; she loses h e r alimony; she loses m a n y of the benefits a n d g u a r a n t e e s of the marriage-settlem e n t . A11d the offspring f r o m the m a r r i a g e fall into the category of those w h o s e p a r e n t s are legally u n a b l e to w e d , e.g., the offspring of a m a r r i e d w o m a n by a m a n o t h e r t h a n h e r h u s b a n d . Everything is lost b y reason of t h e i n n o c e n t actions of the wife in r e m a r r y i n g o n the strength of a n i m p a i r e d writ, a n d t h a t m e a n s , the wife has a n a c u t e interest in, a n d bears full responsibility for, the validity of the writ. T h e h u s b a n d ' s only u n i q u e p o w e r is to direct the writing a n d delivery of the writ; otherwise, the wife bears e q u a l responsibility for the a c c u r a t e p r e p a r a t i o n of the d o c u m e n t , the valid delivery (hence in-

98

C H A P T E R ONE

sistence t h a t she be alert to t h e transaction), a n d the fully-correct details inscribed therein. T h e passage of S c r i p t u r e p e r t i n e n t to writs of divorce in n o w a y p r e p a r e s us for t h e issues of the H a l a k h a h . Critical to the O r a l T o r a h is the c o n c e p t i o n t h a t H e a v e n , n o t only the h u s b a n d a n d wife, conc e n t s itself with t h e c h a n g e in the w o m a n ' s status as holy. W h e r e , in t h e repertoire of the H a l a k h a h , does that c o n c e r n express itself? It is in the valid p r e p a r a t i o n of the d o c u m e n t itself. T h a t d o c u m e n t — p r o p e r l y written, p r o p e r l y witnessed, p r o p e r l y h a n d e d over—serves to d e c o n s e c r a t e d the w o m a n , as surely as the rites of disposition of the c o n s e c r a t e d a n i m a l n o t used for its correct p u r p o s e deal with the c h a n g e in status of t h a t beast. So it is the d o c u m e n t t h a t is the m e d i u m of effecting, o r of annulling, the status of consecration. A n d w h a t gives the d o c u m e n t effect? T h e a n s w e r is in two parts. First, w e k n o w , t h e witnesses are t h e key-element in the process; the d o c u m e n t is validated by valid witnesses, a n d lacking valid witnesses, even t h o u g h it is correctly written a n d delivered, it h a s n o effect at all. I n the e n d the particular witnesses attest n o t only to the facts of w h a t is incised in the writing b u t also to the specificity of the writing: this m a n , this w o m a n , this d o c u m e n t . T h e n w h a t is to be said a b o u t the witnesses to the p r e p a r a t i o n of the d o c u m e n t , for w h o m d o t h e y stand? T h e witnesses validate the d o c u m e n t a n d give it effect b e c a u s e they s t a n d as H e a v e n ' s surrogates. Israelite males n o t related to the parties, the witnesses a c c o r d c o g n i z a n c e o n e a r t h in b e h a l f of H e a v e n to t h a t c h a n g e in intentionality a n d status t h a t the d o c u m e n t attests. W h e n the witnesses to the validity of the writ p r e p a r e d overseas say, "Before us it was written a n d b e f o r e us it w a s signed" (that is, b y the witnesses to the d o c u m e n t itself), they c o n f i r m w h a t is at stake in the entire transaction: H e a v e n h a s b e e n i n f o r m e d of the c h a n g e of i n t e n t i o n o n the p a r t of the h u s b a n d , releasing the wife f r o m h e r status of sanctification to him. So t h e c h a n g e in intentionality m u s t b e attested o n e a r t h in behalf of H e a v e n . A n d that w h i c h is certified b y the witnesses is n o t only the validity of the writing of t h e d o c u m e n t b u t the explicit transaction t h a t h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e writing: the h u s b a n d h a s instructed the scribe to write the writ of divorce, that p a r t i c u l a r writ of divorce, for his wife, f o r t h e n a m e d wife a n d n o o t h e r w o m a n (even of the s a m e n a m e ) . W h e n h e h a s d o n e that, p r o n o u n c i n g his intent to nullify t h e relationship of sanctification t h a t h e p r o f f e r e d a n d t h e w o m a n accepted, t h e n all else follows. But, second, H e a v e n w a n t s s o m e t h i n g

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

99

else as well. N o t only must the intention be articulated, a n d explicitly in the transaction at h a n d a n d n o other. T h e d o c u m e n t itself m u s t give evidence of c o u n t e r p a r t specificity. W h a t makes all the difference? T h e H a l a k h a h specifies irregularities of two classes, first, those that d o n o t f u n d a m e n t a l l y invalidate the transaction, second, those that so completely invalidate the transaction that the original status of sanctification retains effect, despite w h a t the h u s b a n d has said, despite w h a t the wife has correctly received by w a y of d o c u m e n t a r y c o n f i r m a t i o n of the c h a n g e of intentionality a n d therefore status, his a n d hers, respectively. T h a t represents a most weighty result, with long-term consequences. 111 two circumstances the h u s b a n d ' s intentionality does not register with H e a v e n , so M . 8:5 (and M . 8:8): M . 8:5 If h e wrote the writ of divorce d a t i n g it a c c o r d i n g to a n era w h i c h is not applicable, for e x a m p l e , a c c o r d i n g to the era of the M e d e s , a c c o r d i n g to the e r a of the Greeks, a c c o r d i n g to the building of the T e m p l e , a c c o r d i n g to the destruction of the T e m p l e , [if] he was in the east a n d wrote, " I n the west," in the west a n d wrote, " I n the east," she goes forth f r o m this o n e [ w h o m she m a r r i e d on the strength of the divorce f r o m the f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] a n d f r o m that o n e [the first husb a n d ] . A n d she requires a writ of divorce f r o m this o n e a n d f r o m that one.

W h o then has the p o w e r to nullify even the effect of the intentionality of the h u s b a n d ? It is the scribe. If he errs in d a t i n g the d o c u m e n t , o r if he errs a n d writes d o w n the w r o n g location of the participant, t h e n , w h a t e v e r the h u s b a n d ' s intentionality a n d w h a t e v e r the wife's (wrong) impression of w h a t has taken place, the writ is null, a n d the result is as specified, chaotic. So too if the scribe m a d e a mistake in transmitting the d o c u m e n t s that are to be e x c h a n g e d , the transaction is null. W h y has the scribe so critical a role in the transaction that he can utterly upset the intentionality of the o n e a n d the c o n s e q u e n t conclusion d r a w n by the o t h e r party, h u s b a n d a n d wife, respectively? T h e H a l a k h a h attributes to the scribe a role 111 the transaction as critical, in its way, as the role of the h u s b a n d in commissioning the d o c u m e n t a n d the wife 111 receiving it. A n d w h a t is it that the scribe can d o to ruin the transaction? First, he can c o m m i t the u n p a r d o n able sin of not delivering the d o c u m e n t to the correct party at the h u s b a n d ' s instructions. T h a t is, the h u s b a n d has told him to deliver the writ of divorce to the wife, b u t h e has given h e r the q u i t t a n c e instead. T h e w o m a n has never validly received the writ. T h e scribe

100

CHAPTER ONE

m u s t realize a n d not t h w a r t the h u s b a n d ' s intentionality. But w h a t a b o u t the o t h e r m a t t e r , misdating the d o c u m e n t , misidentifying the parties? H e r e w h a t has h a p p e n e d is that the writ n o longer pertains to those m e n t i o n e d in it. T h e scribe has placed the parties in a different p e r i o d f r o m that in which they live, d a t i n g t h e m , by reason of the d o c u m e n t , in some o t h e r time; o r he has placed t h e m in a different locale f r o m the o n e w h e r e they are situated. H e has set forth a d o c u m e n t for s o m e others t h a n the ones before him, a n d h e has given to those before h i m a spurious time a n d place. So the H a l a k h a h raises yet again its r e q u i r e m e n t on the acute localization of the piece of writing: this w o m a n , here a n d n o w , h e r a n d h e r alone, this m a n , here a n d n o w , h i m a n d h i m alone. T h a t is to say, the H a l a k h a h has u n d e r s c o r e d the conception, the conviction really, t h a t the m o m e n t a n d act of sanctification are u n i q u e , specific, n o t to be duplicated or replicated in a n y w a y or m a n n e r . W h e n G o d oversees this holy relationship, he does not wish it to be confused with a n y other. T h a t is why, w h e n G o d is i n f o r m e d of the c h a n g e of intentionality that has b r o u g h t a b o u t the consecration of the w o m a n to the m a n , he must be given exact i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e H a l a k h a h before us rests o n p r o f o u n d reflection a b o u t the c h a r a c t e r of intentionality a n d its effects. W h a t the law ascertains encompasses not only the intentionality a n d will of the h u s b a n d , n o t only the conscious, explicit cognizance of the wife, b u t the facts of the case. Specifically, the H a l a k h a h insists that the h u s b a n d ' s act of will carries effect only w h e n c o n f i r m e d by valid action. Intention on its own is null. T h e full realization of the intention, involving valid provision for all required actions, alone carries effect. N o t only so, b u t a third party, the scribe, intervenes in the realization of the h u s b a n d ' s will. T h a t m e a n s , facts b e y o n d the h u s b a n d ' s control a n d the wife's p o w e r to secure a right to supervise a n d review m a t t e r s take o v e r — w i t h truly d r e a d f u l a n d p e r m a n e n t results. But the scribe possesses n o intentionality in the transaction (other t h a n the will we assume motivates his practice of his profession, that is, professionalism). T h e very role a c c o r d e d to the scribe, not to the c o n t r a c t i n g parties, u n d e r scores the position of the H a l a k h a h . It is that intentionality not confirmed by the correct deeds in the e n d does not suffice.

d. Hallah T h e H a l l a h - o r d o u g h - o f f e r i n g is given to the priest, so N u m . 15:17-

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

101

21. Sages u n d e r s t a n d the verses to require the separation of a portion f r o m the b r e a d ; it is to be coarse meal, taken to m e a n u n b a k e d b r e a d - d o u g h . M i s h n a h - t r a c t a t e H a l l a h also explores two m a t t e r s o n w h i c h Scripture is silent: first, the precise point in the processing of the d o u g h at which the d o u g h b e c o m e s liable to the offering; a n d , second, the a m o u n t t h a t o n e m u s t s e p a r a t e . " T h r e e principal considerations intersect: w h a t constitutes b r e a d t h a t is liable to d o u g h - o f f e r ing, w h e n liability takes effect, a n d w h e r e the offering is required? W h e n we k n o w the answers to these t h r e e questions, we realize h o w fresh a n d original is the t h o u g h t of the H a l a k h a h o n Scripture's topic. Bread is a b a k e d food p r o d u c t that is m a d e of flour that, u p o n b e i n g m o i s t e n e d a n d k n e a d e d a n d f e r m e n t e d , rises. W h a t derives f r o m flour that does n o t leaven is n o t liable to d o u g h - o f f e r i n g a n d n o t classified as b r e a d for p u r p o s e s of Passover either. T w o criteria of liability coexist, o n e m a r k i n g the beginning, the o t h e r the e n d , of the spell. First, people snack o n d o u g h w i t h o u t giving d o u g h offering until the d o u g h is m a d e into a ball o r is rolled o u t in a solid mass. But f o r m a l liability takes effect w h e n a crust forms, w h i c h is to say, w h e n the e n z y m e that brings a b o u t leavening dies. T h e s e points of d e m a r c a t i o n — w h e n the liability c o m m e n c e s , w h e n the liability m u s t b e m e t — c o r r e s p o n d to the points at which the c r o p in the field may be tithed, at the outset, a n d must be tithed, at the e n d of the harvestingprocess. So the spell of liability c o m m e n c e s with the m i x t u r e of flour a n d w a t e r a n d the working of the two into a mass, a n d it is fixed with the conclusion of the s a m e process. T h e u p s h o t is, the span of susceptibility coincides with the process of f e r m e n t a t i o n : the activation of the e n z y m e , at the outset, t h e n the cultivation of the f e r m e n t a t i o n process, a n d finally the realization of the goal of that process in the f o r m i n g of a crust, the conclusion of f e r m e n t a t i o n . W e m a y say that the critical criterion is [1] d o u g h that has i n c u r r e d liability within the L a n d of Israel a n d [2] that is c o n s u m e d by Israelites in the L a n d . So there is a very specific point of intersection that dictates w h i c h d o u g h is liable to dough-offering: [11 d o u g h p r e p a r e d f r o m w h e a t a n d c o m p a r a b l e flour, which, w h e n mixed with yeast a n d water, has the p o w e r to f e r m e n t ; [2] d o u g h at the point at which the f e r m e n t a t i o n process h a s realized its goal. L e a v e n i n g t h e n is the key to the defmition of b r e a d . T a k e n as a n a t u r a l process, leavening is perceived as animate. At the m o m e n t of a d d i n g w a t e r to the yeast a n d d o u g h w h e n m a k i n g b r e a d , life renews itself t h r o u g h the life-precipitating t o u c h of

102

C H A P T E R ONE

w a t e r to the flour a n d the yeast. H e r e considerations of u n c l e a n n e s s a n d those of sanctification intersect. T h a t is the p o i n t that precipitates c o n c e r n with the forces of d e a t h , p r i m e source of cultic u n c l e a n ness. T h e n , to preserve purity, Israel goes o n the alert for the d a n g e r of pollution: at the m o m e n t w h e n yeast, flour, a n d w a t e r ignite the processes of a n i m a t i o n . So too f o r all of their c o u n t e r p a r t s : "if w a t e r be p u t o n the s e e d / ' (Lev. 11:34, 37) take care. N o w we see the o t h e r half of the story. U n c l e a n o r otherwise, the d o u g h congeals, the yeast f e r m e n t s a n d yields gas, a n d so, life-processes h a v i n g c o m m e n c e d , t h o u g h d e a t h a n d its surrogates t h r e a t e n . T h e n the h o u s e h o l d e r goes o n the alert—if he cares, if by a n act of deliberation h e h a s m a d e life h a p p e n . A n d there too, by s h a r i n g the o u t c o m e of the f e r m e n t a t i o n with G o d , the h o u s e h o l d e r acknowledges the opposite of d e a t h , w h i c h is life, e m b o d i e d in the living processes by w h i c h the b r e a d c o m e s into being, a n d resulting in the presence, within the d o u g h , of a p o r t i o n subject to sanctification: d o n a t i o n to t h e priest in the p r e s e n t instance. It is the processing of flour into b r e a d to sustain life w h e r e f e r m e n t a t i o n represents life m a r k s the occasion for the aflirm a t i o n of G o d ' s presence in all life-forms a n d processes: G o d lays his claim to his share, because G o d ' s claim u p o n the Israelite househ o l d e r e x t e n d s to t h e o u t e r limits of vitality. W h i l e Scripture surely c o n c u r s o n all these points, the H a l a k h a h , n o t Scripture, h a s identified t h e generative premises a n d the critical tensions a n d points of special c o n c e r n that it brings to the subject Scripture has defined.

e. Hullin As at the Babas, so h e r e too, Scripture provides a considerable c o r p u s of facts, b u t the H a l a k h a h recasts a n d reshapes these facts a n d m a k e s of t h e m a s t a t e m e n t that is quite i n d e p e n d e n t of Scripture's p r e s e n t a tion of the s a m e topic. W h a t the H a l a k h a h does, essentially, is to f o r m diverse facts into a single c o h e r e n t construction a n d t h r o u g h t h e m to m a k e a striking point. T h e verses of Scripture that p e r t a i n are D t . 12:20-24, Ex. 22:30, D t . 14:21, Lev. 22:28, Lev. 17:13-14, G e n . 32:33, D t . 18:3, Dt. 22:6-7. W h a t is it that the H a l a k h a h makes of these several rules a b o u t m e a t - p r e p a r a t i o n in the h o u s e h o l d ? T h e category, Hullin, covers the p r e p a r a t i o n of m e a t for the table at h o m e , its c o u n t e r p a r t b e i n g Z e b a h i m , o n the p r e p a r a t i o n of m e a t for the altar in the T e m p l e . W h e n it c o m e s to the p r e p a r a t i o n of m e a t , the H a l a k h a h deals with three settings: [1] the T e m p l e , [2] the L a n d

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

103

of Israel, a n d [3] foreign land. A n d for all three, it insists, the s a m e rules pertain, even despite the considerable differences that apply. Since all territory outside of the L a n d of Israel is by definition u n clean, the premise of the H a l a k h a h is that, despite that fact, Israel is to c o n s u m e its secular m e a t in accord with those rules of sanctification that pertain to food a n d its p r e p a r a t i o n . T h e laws of cultic cleanness m a y apply to the h o u s e h o l d in the L a n d of Israel but c a n n o t pertain a b r o a d ; nonetheless, the o t h e r principal a d m o n i t i o n s apply overseas. T h e existence of the T e m p l e or its destruction makes n o difference. T h e topical p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h a h , as set forth in the M i s h n a h Tosefta-Bavli, is as follows: i.

ii.

Rules of S l a u g h t e r i n g U n c o n s e c r a t e d A n i m a l s for Use at H o m e or in the T e m p l e A. G e n e r a l Rules of S l a u g h t e r B. Specific Regulations. Terefah-Ru\es C . Slaughter a n d Illicit Sacrifice D. Terefah- a n d Valid Carcasses E. T h e Affect of Valid S l a u g h t e r o n the Parts of a Beast's Body, e.g., o n the Foots O t h e r Rules G o v e r n i n g the P r e p a r a t i o n of F o o d , Principally for Use at H o m e A. N o t S l a u g h t e r i n g "It a n d Its Y o u n g " (Lev. 22:28) B. T h e R e q u i r e m e n t to C o v e r U p the Blood (Lev. 17:13-14) C . T h e Prohibition of the Sciatic N e r v e (Gen. 32:32) D . T h e S e p a r a t i o n of Milk a n d M e a t (Ex. 23:19, 34:26, Dt. 12:21) C o n n e c t i o n for the Purposes of C o n t r a c t i n g U n c l e a n n e s s F. T h e Gifts to the Priest T a k e n f r o m a Beast S l a u g h t e r e d for Secular Purposes: T h e S h o u l d e r , T w o Cheeks, a n d M a w (Dt. 18;3) G . T h e Gift to the Priest of the First Fleece of a S h e e p (Dt. 18:4) H . Letting the D a m G o f r o m the N e s t W h e n T a k i n g the Y o u n g (Dt. 22:6-7)

Scripture clearly has c o n t r i b u t e d a substantial repertoire of subjects. H e r e the governing problematics defines a r e m a r k a b l y cogent exposition of diverse, related topics, the s a m e point being m a d e c o n c e r n ing various subjects within the larger a g e n d u m at h a n d : killing animais for m e a t . T h e governing problematics derives f r o m the premise that the altar a n d the table c o m p a r e , belonging to a single c o n t i n u u m of sanctification a n d c o n f o r m i n g to a single set of cogent rules. So the generative issue t h r o u g h o u t is, h o w is the table like the altar? A n d that draws in its wake the c o m p l e m e n t a r y issue, how is it different?

104

CHAPTER ONE

T h e n h o w the circumstance of the o n e imposes a different rule f r o m that of the o t h e r will d e m a n d detailed attention. Since the table c o m p a r e s with the altar, h o w a n d w h e r e a n d w h y is it subject to a different rule f r o m that p e r t a i n i n g to the altar? T h a t the O r a l T o r a h i n d e p e n d e n t l y develops Scripture's topic is clear. T h e H a l a k h a h states in so m a n y w o r d s w h a t it w a n t s to know, which is w h e t h e r [1] the destruction of the T e m p l e a n d cessation of the offerings, 2] the d e g r a d a t i o n of the L a n d of Israel, a n d [3] the exile of the holy people, Israel, f r o m the H o l y L a n d , affect the rules of sustenance in the m o d e l of the n o u r i s h m e n t of G o d in the T e m p l e , in the L a n d , a m o n g the holy people. T h e a n s w e r is, w h a t e v e r the condition of the T e m p l e a n d its altar, w h a t e v e r the s o u r c e — t h e H o l y L a n d or u n c l e a n gentile l a n d s — o f animals, a n d w h a t e v e r the location of Israel, w h e t h e r enlandised or n o t , o n e thing persists. T h e sanctification of Israel, the people, e n d u r e s [1] in the absence of the cult a n d [2] in alien, u n c l e a n territory a n d [3] w h a t e v e r the source of the food that Israel eats. Israel's sanctity is eternal, n o t contingent, absolute. T h e sanctification that inheres in Israel, the people, transcends the L a n d a n d outlives the T e m p l e a n d its cult. T h e s e p r o p o sitions f o r m a r e m a r k a b l y fresh s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g the received topic. T h e H a l a k h a h to m a k e its s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the eternal sanctification of the people, Israel, explicidy responds to three facts: [1] Israelites live n o t only in the holy land b u t a b r o a d , in u n c l e a n land; [2] the T e m p l e has been destroyed; [3] a n d , consequently, animals are slaughtered n o t only in the T e m p l e in the L a n d b u t in u n c o n s e c r a t e d space a n d a b r o a d , a n d the m e a t is eaten n o t only in a cultic b u t in a p r o f a n e circumstance. A n y o n e w h o w o n d e r s w h e t h e r the H a l a k h a h that applied to the T e m p l e a n d the h o m e w h e n the T e m p l e was standing a n d Israel was in the L a n d of Israel continues to apply with the T e m p l e in ruins a n d Israel in exile here finds his answer. Alt h o u g h the sanctity of the T e m p l e stands in abeyance, the sanctity of the Israelite table persists; a l t h o u g h Israel is in exile f r o m the H o l y L a n d , Israel r e m a i n s holy; a l t h o u g h in the T e m p l e rules of uncleanness are not n o w kept, they c o n t i n u e in force w h e r e they can be. Birds a n d a n i m a l s that flourish outside of the L a n d w h e n p r e p a r e d for the Israelite table are regulated by the s a m e rules that apply in the L a n d a n d even (where relevant) at the altar. So Israel, the people, not only retains sanctity b u t preserves it outside of the L a n d , a n d the sanctity of Israel transcends that of the T e m p l e a n d its altar.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

105

T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h supplies a law that contains the entire message, w h e n it imposes the s a m e r e q u i r e m e n t s that pertain to slaughter of a n a n i m a l sacrifice for the altar in J e r u s a l e m to killing a n a n i m a l for the use of Israel at h o m e . T h a t m e a n s m e a t Israel eats is subject to the s a m e regulations that apply to m e a t G o d receives on the altar-fires. T h e same law is explicit that m e a t for those w h o are n o t holy, that is, gentile-idolaters, is not subject to the s a m e rules (Ex. 22:30, Dt. 14:21). So the point c a n n o t be missed: food for G o d a n d for Israel m u s t be p r e p a r e d in c o m p a r a b l e m a n n e r , which does not apply to food for gentiles. H o w does that principle affect animals raised a b r o a d ? T h e laws of Hullin apply to t h e m , because the laws apply to u n c o n s e c r a t e d animals as m u c h as consecrated ones. T h e d e s t i n y — n o u r i s h i n g Israel—is w h a t counts, that alone. T h e beast i n t e n d e d for Israelite c o n s u m p t i o n at the table even in a foreign c o u n t r y m u s t be p r e p a r e d as t h o u g h for G o d on the altar in J e r u s a lem, a n d that can only m e a n , because the beast is i n t e n d e d (by the act of correct slaughter) for Israel, the use of the beast by Israel sanctifies the beast a n d necessitates c o n f o r m i t y with the rules of slaughter for G o d in the T e m p l e . Israel, even a b r o a d , renders the food that it eats c o m p a r a b l e to food for the altar. T h e H a l a k h a h rests o n generative premises of its o w n , r e s p o n d i n g to a set of questions in n o way p r o p o s e d by Scripture.

f. Moed Qatan T h e H a l a k h a h of M o e d Q a t a n deals with two distinct matters a n d joins t h e m into a single category-formation: first, actions that are p e r m i t t e d or prohibited o n the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of Passover a n d of the Festival of T a b e r n a c l e s , with special reference to f a n n i n g a n d c o m m e r c e , a n d , second, special p r o b l e m s involving burial of the d e a d o n those days. T h e governing principles for the f o r m e r corpus of H a l a k h a h are [1] o n e m a y carry out a n act of labor that prevents substantial loss, but only if the act is not onerous; a n d [2] that work that o u g h t to have been d o n e prior to the festival m a y not be left over to be d o n e on the intermediate days. T h e s e m a y not be treated as o r d i n a r y work days, even t h o u g h they also are not observed as festival days are, with the complete cessation of all labor except for cooking. Scripture knows prohibitions of labor for the o p e n i n g a n d closing days of the specified festivals (Ex. 12:16, Lev. 23:7-8, N u m . 28:18, 25, 29:12-35). N u m . 28:18-25 provide for offerings for Passover a n d the

106

CHAPTER ONE

intervening days. For the Festival of T a b e r n a c l e s , N u m . 29:12-35 provides a h u g e toll of a n i m a l sacrifices. It follows that the intermediate days are observed in the T e m p l e . T h e i n t e r m e d i a t e days require sacrifices designated for that occasion, so are differentiated f r o m days that require merely everyday offerings in the T e m p l e . But 110 explicit restrictions govern c o n d u c t on the i n t e r m e d i a t e days. T h e premise of the H a l a k h a h , that the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the Festivals of Passover a n d T a b e r n a c l e s are subjected to restrictions c o m p a r a b l e to, t h o u g h of lesser severity t h a n , those for the o p e n i n g a n d c o n c l u d i n g Festival days themselves, requires explanation. T h e topical p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h a h is indicated by the following outline of the tractate in the Mislmah-Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli: i.

L a b o r o n the I n t e r m e d i a t e D a y s of the Festival A. In the Fields B. Miscellanies C . Cases of E m e r g e n c y a n d Loss ii. C o m m e r c e iii. Burial of the D e a d , M o u r n i n g 011 the I n t e r m e d i a t e D a y s of a Festival

T h e generative premise of the H a l a k h a h stands b e h i n d two distinct issues: [1] restricting l a b o r o n the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the festival, a n d [2] linking the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the festival in a single category-formation with the laws 011 m o u n t i n g . N e i t h e r o n e is invited by Scripture's presentation of the topic; b o t h represent the results of i n d e p e n d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of the subject. First, w h a t m a d e sages suppose to begin with that a n y restrictions at all should pertain o n the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the Festival as c o m p a r a b l e to those for the Festival, t h o u g h subject to diminished restrictions? T h e a n s w e r e m e r g e s w h e n we consider the activities in the T e m p l e o n those s a m e days. N u m . 28:17ff. for Passover, N u m . 29:12-35 for T a b e r n a c l e s , as we have seen, provide for T e m p l e rites in observance of the i n t e r m e d i a t e days, over a n d above the daily offerings. T h e u p s h o t is, the T e m p l e offerings r e s p o n d to the sanctity of the i n t e r m e d i a t e festival days. T h e h o u s e h o l d then does n o less. T h e h o u s e h o l d on the i n t e r m e d i a t e days is b r o u g h t into a c o n t i n u u m with the T e m p l e ; the a d v e n t of the festival, like the S a b b a t h , transf o r m s the h o u s e h o l d in exactly the w a y the W r i t t e n T o r a h e m p h a sizes: as to the acts of labor p e r f o r m e d therein. S e c o n d , w h a t links the two subjects of the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n at h a n d ? T h e M i s h n a h , a n d therefore within the discipline of the H a l a k h a h ' s presentation, also

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

107

the T o s e f t a , Y e r u s h a l m i , a n d Bavli, in dealing with the topic, the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the Festivals, all focus a sizable p r o p o r t i o n of the H a l a k h a h u p o n the rules of burial. W h a t has d e a t h to d o with the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the festival? T o a n s w e r that question we r e m i n d ourselves h o w the H a l a k h i c f o u n d e r s , the f r a m e r s of the M i s h n a h , c o n d u c t e d their speculative t h o u g h t . T h e principal m o d e of t h o u g h t of the M i s h n a h is t h a t of c o m p a r i s o n a n d contrast. S o m e t h i n g is like s o m e t h i n g else, therefore follows its rule; o r it is unlike the o t h e r , therefore follows the opposite of the rule g o v e r n i n g that s o m e t h i n g else. H o w d o d e a t h a n d m o u n t i n g c o m p a r e to the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the festival? T h e p o i n t of opposition the contrastive p a r t of the e q u a t i o n — t h e n proves blatant. D e a t h is the e x t r e m e opposite of the celebration of the festival. T h e o n e brings m o u r n i n g , the o t h e r , joy. A n d the M i s h n a h ' s inclusion of the m o u r n e r o n its list of those whose special situation m u s t be taken into a c c o u n t t h e n precipitates t h o u g h t a b o u t the item o n the list—the m o u r n e r — t h a t most clearly e m b o d i e s the special c i r c u m s t a n c e of all items o n the list.

g. Maaserot M a ' a s e r o t t h r o u g h a mass of small rules sets forth a message of b r o a d c o n s e q u e n c e in amplifying Dt. 14:22. T h e H a l a k h a h answers three questions: at w h a t point does p r o d u c e b e c o m e liable to the désignation a n d separation of tithes, w h a t p r o d u c e falls into the category of tithing, a n d w h e n is the act of tithing required? T h e answers to these H a l a k h i c questions a p p e a l to a single theological c o n c e p t i o n . T h e questions logically amplify the simple fact that Scripture sets d o w n . T h e answers carry us far b e y o n d the f r a m e w o r k of the fact that Scripture supplies. T h e basic principle is that w h e n the p r o d u c e is suitable for use by its o w n e r , t h e n it b e c o m e s subject to tithing a n d m a y n o t be used until it is tithed. But crops must be tithed w h e n the f a r m e r claims the p r o d u c e as his o w n . N o t h i n g in Scripture leads to such a distinction between " m a y " a n d " m u s t " be tithed, n o r does the c o n c e p t i o n that p r o d u c e m u s t be tithed w h e n the o w n e r claims it as his o w n derive f r o m Scripture's law. So w h a t m a k e s the difference? It is n o t the condition of the p r o d u c e at all, but, r a t h e r , the attitude t o w a r d the p r o d u c e that is taken by the f a r m e r w h o has g r o w n it. T h a t attitude takes effect t h r o u g h the f a r m e r ' s act of o w n e r s h i p , b e y o n d possession. Asserting o w n e r s h i p takes place w h e n he brings u n t i t h e d p r o d u c e f r o m the field to the c o u r t y a r d o r p r e p a r e s it for

108

C H A P T E R ONE

sale in the m a r k e t . At that m o m e n t , the f a r m e r h a v i n g indicated his claim to the p r o d u c e a n d intent to use it for his o w n purposes, G o d ' s interest is a r o u s e d , his share t h e n is d u e . G o d r e s p o n d s to m a n , specifically, G o d ' s attitudes c o r r e s p o n d to those of m a n : w h e n (Israelite) m a n w a n t s to o w n the c r o p a n d dispose of it as h e wishes, t h e n , G o d d e m a n d s his share. T h e principal religious issue of the H a l a k h a h of M a a s e r o t is simpie: the distinction b e t w e e n possession, w h i c h is conditional, a n d o w n e r s h i p , w h i c h is absolute. Israel possesses the L a n d , G o d o w n s it, a n d the H a l a k h a h a i m s at establishing the relationship of Israel to G o d , t h r o u g h the use of the L a n d , as a relationship that is stipulative, a gift a n d n o t a given. 111 this r e g a r d , o n e m u s t invoke the category of c o v e n a n t , as the W r i t t e n T o r a h does w h e n speaking of the L a n d , a n d state very simply, the g o v e r n i n g religious principle of M a ' a s e r o t is, Israel's possession of the L a n d is subject to the conditions of the c o v e n a n t , a n d Israel's r e n d e r i n g to G o d w h a t G o d requires as his share of the p r o d u c e f o r m s a principal expression of Israel's relationship with G o d . It follows that the H a l a k h a h rests u p o n the principle that, while Israel possesses it, G o d owns the L a n d , a n d the agricultural offerings t h a t Israel sets aside for those designated by G o d as his scheduled c a s t e s — t h e priest, the p o o r , the s u p p o r t of J e r u s a l e m , for e x a m p l e — r e p r e s e n t G o d ' s s h a r e of the crops. G o d a n d m a n lay claim to the p r o d u c e of the L a n d . O n l y w h e n the p r o d u c e is s h o w n by t h e actions of the f a r m e r to b e valuable to the f a r m e r does G o d ' s claim e m e r g e . T h e f a r m e r m a y use the p r o d u c e as his o w n only w h e n he has a c k n o w l e d g e d G o d ' s claim, n o t e a t i n g the p r o d u c e as if it were his o w n , b u t only a f t e r setting aside G o d ' s share. If the f a r m e r p r e p a r e s to m a k e a m e a l of the p r o d u c e in the field o r claims to be sole o w n e r , he loses his right to eat the food until h e tithes. M e e t i n g G o d ' s claim, the f a r m e r m a y t h e n use the p r o d u c e . W h e n the f a r m e r w h o possesses the L a n d proposes to exercise the rights of o w n e r s h i p of the L a n d , specifically by m a k i n g his o w n the p r o d u c e of the L a n d , t h e n G o d enters his rights of o w n e r s h i p a n d expects his share of t h e c r o p . Israel possesses the L a n d b u t does n o t o w n it, G o d o w n s it, a n d the relationship b e t w e e n Israel a n d G o d is w o r k e d o u t in t h a t distinction b e t w e e n w h a t a m o u n t s to u s u f r u c t a n d w h a t represents absolute d o m a i n . 111 attitude a n d e m o t i o n , Israel is like G o d , in t h e c o n c r e t e case, the Israelite f a r m e r a n d G o d see m a t t e r s in exactly the s a m e w a y w h e n it c o m e s to assessing the value a n d use of the L a n d a n d its crops. Both parties—Israel a n d G o d —

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

109

value the L a n d . Both lay claim to it, a n d b o t h affect a n d are affected by w h a t takes place o n it. But while in Scripture, possession of the L a n d f o r m s a critical c o m p o n e n t of t h e history of Israel, in the O r a l T o r a h possession of the L a n d defines h o w G o d a n d Israel relate t h r o u g h the n a t u r a l world, t h r o u g h creation. H o w is it t h a t Israel a n d G o d relate in so c o n c r e t e a n d specific a situation as is defined by the course of n a t u r e , the ripening of the crops? It is because, the H a l a kliah takes for g r a n t e d , G o d a n d Israel b e a r the s a m e attitudes, feel the s a m e emotions, f o r m c o r r e s p o n d i n g intentions. O n the f o u n d a tions of that conviction the H a l a k h a h builds its structure.

h.

Makhshirin

I n c o n n e c t i o n with i m p a r t i n g susceptibility to uncleanness to p r o d u c e , Scripture contributes the facts, sages the problematics. T h a t is to say, sages u n d e r s t a n d Lev. 11:34, 37, to hold that p r o d u c e t h a t is d r y is u n a f f e c t e d by u n c l e a n n e s s f r o m a n y source a n d falls outside of the system. O n l y w h e n p r o d u c e is wet d o w n is it susceptible. T h e y f u r t h e r take as a fact t h a t p r o d u c e t h a t is wet d o w n by the intent of the o w n e r is affected, but that wet d o w n inadvertently, u n d e r duress, or by third parties is not. W e look in vain for the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s recognition of t h a t fact. T h e t r e a t m e n t of the topic shows h o w the H a l a k h a h h a s d e f i n e d m a t t e r s within the f r a m e w o r k of its o w n interests, n o t in response to the d a t a S c r i p t u r e h a s provided: I. II.

I n t e n t i o n : Divisible o r Indivisible W a t e r C a p a b l e of I m p a r t i n g Susceptibility M i x e d with W a t e r Inc a p a b l e of I m p a r t i n g Susceptibility III. A b s o r p t i o n of W a t e r I V . W a t e r U s e d for O n e P u r p o s e : Its Status as to a S e c o n d a r y P u r pose V. T h e S t r e a m as a C o n n e c t o r V I . T h e Insusceptibility of Liquids that are N o t U s e d Intentionally V I I . T h e Liquids t h a t H a v e the P o w e r to I m p a r t Susceptibility to U n cleanness

T h e H a l a k h a h b e f o r e us f o r m s a sustained essay o n the p r o b l e m a t i c s i n h e r e n t in the t h e m e , h u m a n intentionality. T h e o p e n i n g question is, w h a t h a p p e n s if I c h a n g e m y m i n d ? If I w a n t s o m e t h i n g b u t t h e n decide I d o n o t w a n t it, does that c h a n g e of attitude affect the outc o m e ? N o , the H a l a k h a h m a i n t a i n s , it does not. C o n c o m i t a n t l y , d o I have the p o w e r b y a n act of will to o v e r c o m e a physical actuality? If liquid is u n c l e a n , can the fact t h a t I d o n o t w a n t the liquid to wet

110

C H A P T E R ONE

d o w n m y p r o d u c e p r e v e n t c o n t a m i n a t i o n of m y p r o d u c e ? Predictably, since u n c l e a n n e s s works ex opere operate, u n c l e a n n e s s takes effect at the very m o m e n t of c o n t a c t with the p r o d u c e , a n d m y will t h a t the p r o d u c e stay d r y is null: U n c l e a n liquids i m p a r t u n c l e a n n e s s [ w h e t h e r they are] a c c e p t a b l e o r not acceptable. I n t e n t i o n is t e m p o rally indivisible. Liquid gains b u t n e v e r loses the capacity to i m p a r t susceptibility to u n c l e a n n e s s a n d to r e n d e r that o n w h i c h it falls susceptible. T h e really critical a n d generative question asks a b o u t the relationship of action to intentionality. D o we decide o n the basis of w h a t o n e h a s d o n e the c h a r a c t e r of his prior intention, t h a t is, of w h a t h e i n t e n d e d to do? W e h a v e a variety of positions. T h e first is, [1] intention w i t h o u t action is null; [2] action is retrospectively determ i n a t i v e of the c h a r a c t e r of i n t e n t i o n — w e j u d g e the intention by the result. A f u r t h e r view is that p r i o r intention plays a b a l a n c i n g role in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the status of t h e water. W e d o n o t decide solely by w h a t o n e h a s d o n e , b y the ultimate disposition of the water. W h a t Scripture treats as a m a t t e r of fixed a n d final classification— s o m e t h i n g is either wet o r d r y — i s t r a n s f o r m e d by the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h into a m a t t e r t h a t is relative a n d c o n t i n g e n t . W h a t results is t h a t t h e consideration of w h e t h e r o r n o t s o m e t h i n g is wet d o w n 111 the e n d is s u b o r d i n a t e d to a t t i t u d e a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e . As in K e l i m a n d T o h o r o t , for utensils a n d food alike, t h e h o u s e h o l d e r has the p o w e r to i n a u g u r a t e the w o r k i n g of the system. T h e susceptibility to u n c l e a n n e s s of utensils a n d f o o d is relative to the attitude a n d will of the h o u s e h o l d e r . W h a t is wet is n o t necessarily susceptible to u n cleanness. T h e m a t t e r is relative, n o t absolute, extrinsic a n d contingent, n o t m a t e r i a l a n d inexorable; it is d e p e n d e n t o n c i r c u m s t a n c e a n d i n t e n t i o n , n o t u n c o n t i n g e n t . It w o u l d b e difficult to state m o r e explicitly, o r radically, the position t h a t all things a r e relative to intentionality t h a n in the H a l a k h a h t h a t differentiates in c o n n e c t i o n with the s a m e b u n d l e of leeks w a t e r t h a t i m p a r t s susceptibility to u n c l e a n n e s s f r o m w a t e r t h a t does not. T h e entire c o r p u s of H a l a k h a h at h a n d celebrates the p r i m a c y of h u m a n wishes: w a t e r t h a t has in its history c o n f o r m e d to a m a n ' s w i s h e s — a t s o m e p o i n t m a n h a s lifted it u p a n d s h o w n t h a t h e w a n t s it f o r s o m e p u r p o s e — h a s t h e capacity to i m p a r t susceptibility to uncleanness, a n d w a t e r t h a t has n o t r e m a i n s n e u t r a l in the system. T h e u p s h o t of the H a l a k h a h m a y b e stated very simply: [1] Liquids i m p a r t susceptibility to u n c l e a n n e s s only if they are useful to m a n , d r a w n with a p p r o v a l , subject to h u m a n deliberation a n d intention.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

Ill

[2] Liquids that can i m p a r t susceptibility to uncleanness d o so only if they serve a p e r s o n ' s p u r p o s e , a r e deliberately applied to p r o d u c e , irrigate s o m e t h i n g t h r o u g h h u m a n deliberation a n d intention. Preserving the cultic purity of f o o d , i n c l u d i n g clothing a n d u t e n sils, so that the h o u s e h o l d m a y take its place u p o n that c o n t i n u u m t h a t the indelible sanctification of holy Israel establishes by its very presence, defines w h a t is at stake. R e m e m b e r i n g w h a t o n e has d o n e a n d w h a t has h a p p e n e d , r e m a i n i n g ever alert to the d a n g e r s of pollution a n d the o p p o r t u n i t i e s of sanctification represented by o n e ' s o w n r e s t r a i n t — t h e s e too derive f r o m the T o r a h as the sages r e a d it. H e r e is a n instance in which sages d o m u c h with very little.

i. Ohalot C o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s e m b o d i e s 111 a viscous liquid the effect of the soul w h e n u p o n d e a t h it leaves the b o d y a n d flows out. It is " t h e u n c l e a n ness effected by the soul" ( t u m a ' t h a n n e p e s h ) . Scripture defines but does n o t characterize, the u n c l e a n n e s s a n d its effects as the H a l a k h a h p o r t r a y s t h e m . T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h takes u p the task of defining, 111 c o n c r e t e terms, the c h a r a c t e r a n d workings of corpseu n c l e a n n e s s as p o r t r a y e d at N u m . 19:1 1-22. U n c l e a n n e s s is t r a n s m i t ted t h r o u g h c o n t a c t ("touching"), a n d , in a d d i t i o n , c o r p s e - u n c l e a n ness is conveyed t h r o u g h the effects of the T e n t , that is to say, the o v e r s h a d o w i n g of the corpse by a roof, which transmits the corpseu n c l e a n n e s s to w h a t e v e r is o v e r s h a d o w e d , except for the c o n t e n t s of tightly sealed clay utensils, t h r o u g h w h i c h , it is held, the corpseu n c l e a n n e s s c a n n o t p e n e t r a t e . T h e exposition of the H a l a k h a h follows the outline below, set forth in the M i s h n a h a n d p a r a m o u n t in t h e T o s e f t a as well: I.

C o r p s e - U n c l e a n n e s s , its Affects o n M a n a n d Utensils A. T h e M a t t e r of R e m o v e s B. T h e C o m p a r i s o n of Susceptibility of M a n a n d Utensils to Corpse- and O t h e r Uncleanness C . D e f i n i n g the C o r p s e o r c o r p s e - m a t t e r t h a t conveys c o r p s e - U n cleanness D D e f i n i n g C o r p s e - m a t t e r that D o e s not C o n v e y C o r p s e - U n cleanness t h r o u g h O v e r s h a d o w i n g , but only t h r o u g h C o n t a c t and Carrying Ε D e f i n i n g C o r p s e - m a t t e r that D o e s not C o n v e y U n c l e a n n e s s at All

112

C H A P T E R ONE

F.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

C o r p s e - m a t t e r t h a t Is Divided; C o r p s e - M a t t e r t h a t is J o i n e d T o g e t h e r , to f o r m the R e q u i s i t e V o l u m e to C o n v e y U n c l e a n ness T h e O p e n i n g of a H a n d b r e a d t h S q u a r e d A f f o r d s Passage to U n cleanness o r I n t e r p o s e s against t h e T r a n s m i s s i o n of U n c l e a n n e s s A. Effecting C o n t a m i n a t i o n a n d A f f o r d i n g P r o t e c t i o n B. T h e Utensil a n d the T e n t : Effecting C o n t a m i n a t i o n a n d Affording Protection C . M a n , Utensils a n d the T e n t D C o r p s e - M a t t e r in a Wall D e f i n i n g the T e n t : Its Sides, its A p e r t u r e s , the M a t e r i a l s of w h i c h it is C o n s t r u c t e d A. T h e S l o p i n g Sides of the T e n t B. T h e A p e r t u r e s C . T h e M a t e r i a l s of W h i c h the T e n t Is C o n s t r u c t e d D . T h e Utensil a n d the T e n t , Illustrated by T h e H i v e a n d the T e n t E. T h e H a t c h w a y of the T e n t D i v i d i n g the T e n t or H o u s e ; D i v i d i n g Utensils. Interposition A. D i v i d i n g the H o u s e h o l d a n d its A p p u r t e n a n c e s B. W a l l i n g off the Flow of C o r p s e - U n c l e a n n e s s in V a r i o u s C i r cumstances C . H o l e s in the Walls of T e n t s a n d Utensils a n d the Passage of C o r p s e - U n c l e a n n e s s , a n d D i m i n i s h i n g the D i m e n s i o n s of the H o l e to I m p e d e the Flow of C o r p s e - U n c l e a n n e s s D . W a l l - P r o j e c t i o n s a n d the Flow of C o r p s e - U n c l e a n n e s s E. O t h e r M e d i a of I n t e r p o s i t i o n F. D i v i d i n g the H o u s e / R o o m by Füling It with D i r t a n d S t o n e G. The Moving Tent Graveyards a n d C o n t a m i n a t e d Dirt

T h e u n c l e a n n e s s of the corpse b e a r s n o traits p a r t i c u l a r to itself t h a t require exposition, b u t the w a y in w h i c h c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s is diss e m i n a t e d does. A n d nearly the entire exposition of the H a l a k h a h focuses u p o n p r o b l e m s of dissemination. First c o m e s dissemination of c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s t h r o u g h direct c o n t a c t with the corpse, a n d t h a t involves the differentiation of the effects of c o n t a c t with a corpse u p o n m a n a n d u p o n utensils (e.g., clothing, vessels). S e c o n d , we deal with c a r r y i n g c o r p s e - m a t t e r even t h o u g h not t o u c h i n g it. But the p a r a m o u n t m o d e of the dissemination of c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s c o m e s a b o u t t h r o u g h the effects of o v e r s h a d o w i n g . T h e s h a n k of the M i s h n a h ' s a n d T o s e f t a ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h occupies itself with a n abstract r e a d i n g of " t h e t e n t . " N u m bers 19 does n o t p r e p a r e us f o r this discussion. A " t e n t " is d e f i n e d as a c o n t a i n e d space of a cubic h a n d b r e a d t h : t h u s a c u b i c h a n d b r e a d t h i n t r o d u c e s the u n c l e a n n e s s a n d interposes b e f o r e the uncleanness.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

113

H e r e " t h e t e n t " m a t t e r s because it affords passage to, or prevents entry by, corpse-uncleanness. Accordingly, we c o n c e r n ourselves, in particular, with the space that selves to p e r m i t the passage of corpsem a t t e r o r to p r e v e n t the e n t r y of c o r p s e - m a t t e r . C o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s is d e f i n e d in the d i m e n s i o n s of a h a n d b r e a d t h , a n d it is f u r t h e r u n d e r s t o o d to f u n c t i o n as does a liquid, t h a t is, if it is c o m p r e s s e d , it shoots u p w a r d a n d d o w n w a r d , a n d if not, it spreads laterally. T h e generative p r o b l e m a t i c s of the H a l a k h a h then takes s h a p e in response to three large issues, e a c h with its subdivisions a n d its f o r m u lation in t e r m s of c o n c r e t e p r o b l e m s of conflict a m o n g established principles: 1 the workings of the o p e n i n g of a h a n d b r e a d t h s q u a r e d in aff o r d i n g passage to u n c l e a n n e s s or i n t e r p o s i n g against it, involving the c o m p a r i s o n of the tent a n d the utensil, 2 the definition of the tent with special attention to its apertures, o n the o n e side, a n d the materials of w h i c h it is c o n s t r u c t e d , on the o t h e r , n o w with a f u r t h e r c o m p a r i s o n of the utensil a n d the tent, a n d finally, 3 subdivisions of the tent o r the house (or room), o n c e m o r e r e q u i r i n g attention to the c o m p a r i s o n of the tent a n d the utensil. T h e s e rules f o r m simple exercises in p r o b l e m s of the d y n a m i c s of fluids a n d leave n o d o u b t of the H a l a k h i c c o n c e p t i o n of this f o r m of u n c l e a n n e s s as essentially p a l p a b l e a n d material. Scripture c a n n o t be said to h a v e dictated the m a i n lines of the d e v e l o p m e n t of this topic. T h e H a l a k h a h contains within itself a p r o f o u n d c o n c e p t i o n , which we m a y u n c o v e r by identifying the following g o v e r n i n g principle: corpse-uncleanness passes t h r o u g h a h a n d b r e a d t h of o p e n space; its passage is i m p e d e d by a h a n d b r e a d t h of closed space. It is a trait of corpse-uncleanness that Scripture does n o t indicate. T h e h a n d b r e a d t h in b r e a d t h , d e p t h , a n d height, sufficient to c o n t a i n the corpse-uncleanness that exudes f r o m a corpse or c o r p s e - m a t t e r , has n o relationship with a tent except in abstract f o r m a n d (equally abstract) f u n c t i o n . W h a t exactly does the c o n t a i n e d space of a cubic h a n d b r e a d t h contain? It contains a kind of thick liquid, w h i c h flows a n d dissipates in the airspace that is c o n t a i n e d by the tent as defined in the p u r e abstraction, A cubic h a n d b r e a d t h introduces uncleanness a n d interposes before uncleanness. T o that s t a t e m e n t we n e e d only a d d , w h a t is c o n t a i n e d in the cubic h a n d b r e a d t h of c o n t a i n e d space is the uncleanness of the corpse, w h i c h is to say, that invisible m a t t e r that flows like liquid f r o m the b o d y of the deceased. T h e n we refer to

114

C H A P T E R ONE

w h a t leaves the b o d y at d e a t h , h a v i n g b e e n c o n t a i n e d therein t h r o u g h life. W h a t e x u d e s f r o m the corpse at d e a t h , that viscous m a t t e r t h a t is u n s e e n b u t a t t a c h e s itself to w h a t e v e r in the c o n t a i n e d space of the tent is not tightly sealed, is a f o u r t h of the v o l u m e t h a t a p e r s o n occupies in the space of the world. T h a t is, a h u m a n b e i n g d e e m e d to o c c u p y t h r e e cubits f o r p u r p o s e s of S a b b a t h rest. T h a t is t h e physical d i m e n s i o n of the o r d i n a r y person. T h e b o d y retains its physical d i m e n s i o n s in d e a t h , so the cubic h a n d b r e a d t h of viscous fluid t h a t the b o d y emits, t h a t w h i c h a n i m a t e s the b o d y in life, defines the u n c l e a n n e s s of the corpse. T o state m a t t e r s as bluntly as sages d o , c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s stands for " t h e u n c l e a n n e s s of the soul." T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h speaks of a tent o r h o u s e in w h i c h whole a n d h e a l t h y people live. Revising the t e r m s of discussion in a highly a b stract m a n n e r , the O r a l T o r a h speaks of a tent as a space that is c a p a b l e of c o n t a i n i n g that w h i c h e x u d e s f r o m the b o d y at the m o m e n t of d e a t h , a tent that replaces the b o d y a n d holds w h a t the b o d y held o r transmits t h a t p o r t i o n of the p e r s o n t h a t e x u d e s at d e a t h . T h e h a n d b r e a d t h t h a t is at the f o u n d a t i o n of dissemination or interposition is the space t h r o u g h w h i c h the effects of the corpse m a k e s its way. A tent is n o t the s a m e t h i n g as a house o r building in w h i c h people c a n live; it is the c o n t a i n e d space that holds the gaseous effusion of the corpse. W h e n we say that a tent m u s t m e a s u r e a h a n d b r e a d t h s q u a r e d , either to p r e v e n t u n c l e a n n e s s f r o m e n t e r i n g a n enclosed space o r to keep u n c l e a n n e s s within a n enclosed space, we speak of n o t w h a t holds the b o d y b u t w h a t holds the p a r t of the person that exudes at d e a t h , the soul. If c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s is somet h i n g that c a n be c o n t a i n e d by a tent, a n d a tent is s o m e t h i n g that c a n c o n t a i n o r interpose against corpse-uncleanness, t h e n we deal, in a tent, with the f u n c t i o n equivalent of the b o d y . T h e tent takes the place of the b o d y , m a k e s a place for that w h i c h , in the b o d y , leaves at the p o i n t of d e a t h . It is to be u n d e r s t o o d t h e n as a surrogate for the body, restoring the i m b a l a n c e that has taken place with the leaving of t h e b o d y by that w h i c h exudes f r o m it. D e a t h h a s released this excretion or effusion, the tent can c o n t a i n it. W h a t exudes f r o m the corpse at such a viscosity as to pass t h r o u g h a n o p e n space of at least a h a n d b r e a d t h is the u n c l e a n n e s s of the corpse; it is the soul, the spirit surviving a f t e r d e a t h a n d r e q u i r i n g a n e w locus. T h a t n o t i o n is expressed in so m a n y words by Philo, w h e n h e says (Special Laws 3:206-7, trans. F. H . C o l s o n , p. 605):

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

115

" T h o s e w h o e n t e r a house in w h i c h a n y o n e has died are o r d e r e d not to t o u c h a n y t h i n g until they h a v e b a t h e d themselves a n d also w a s h e d the clothes that they w e r e w e a r i n g . A n d all the vessels a n d articles of f u r n i ture a n d a n y t h i n g else t h a t h a p p e n s to be inside, practically everything is held by him to be u n c l e a n . F o r a m a n ' s soul is a precious thing, a n d w h e n it d e p a r t s to seek a n o t h e r h o m e , all t h a t will be left b e h i n d is defiled, d e p r i v e d as it is of the divine i m a g e . F o r it is the m i n d of m a n t h a t has the f o r m of G o d , b e i n g s h a p e d in c o n f o r m i t y with the ideal a r c h e t y p e , the W o r d t h a t is a b o v e all."

W h e t h e r sages will h a v e f o u n d Philo's e x p l a n a t i o n for the u n c l e a n ness of w h a t the soul leaves b e h i n d I d o u b t , since in their view, it is that e f f u s i o n — t h a t w h i c h leaves the c o r p s e — t h a t constitutes w h a t is u n c l e a n . T h e tent selves as a b r o k e n utensil. T h e utensil w h e n whole c a n n o t hold back uncleanness, w h e n b r o k e n it can. T h e n the object is n o t susceptible to uncleanness a n d c a n n o t be acted u p o n by u n cleanness. T h e soul, h a v i n g left its b r o k e n utensil, the corpse, finds a domicile only in a n o t h e r b r o k e n utensil. W h a t I find critical in the H a l a k h a h is the intense e n g a g e m e n t with the issue of h o w the u n cleanness t h a t exudes f r o m the corpse, which we c o r r e s p o n d s to the soul leaving the b o d y , is domiciled 111 the long interval b e t w e e n d e a t h a n d resurrection.

j. Parah Scripture defines a distinctive process of purification f r o m corpseu n c l e a n n e s s in particular. T h i s it does by p r o v i d i n g for the p r é p a r a tion of purification-water, a m i x t u r e of t h e ashes of a red cow a n d water, a n d for the application of that w a t e r u p o n a person or object that has suffered corpse-uncleanness. T h e m i x t u r e is applied o n the third a n d seventh days a f t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n , a n d o n the seventh clay the u n c l e a n person i m m e r s e s a n d regains cleanness with the sunset, so N u m b e r s 19:1-22. Scripture says little, a n d the H a l a k h a h m u c h , a b o u t the collection a n d m i x i n g of w a t e r a n d ash, the protection of b o t h f r o m uncleanness, the role of intentionality in the p r o c e d u r e , a n d t h e like. M o r e o v e r , Scripture's rules leave o p e n the generative question that the H a l a k h a h takes as the c e n t e r of its p r o g r a m : h o w does a rite c o n d u c t e d outside of the T e m p l e c o u r t y a r d ("the c a m p " ) relate to the rules g o v e r n i n g rites c o n d u c t e d inside? A n d h o w c a n the m i x t u r e of ash a n d w a t e r t h a t purifies derive f r o m a rite t h a t cont a m i n a t e s all of its participants, a n d h o w can that s a m e purificationw a t e r b o t h purify the person t h a t is m a d e u n c l e a n by a corpse a n d

116

C H A P T E R ONE

also c o n t a m i n a t e the p e r s o n t h a t applies the water? T h e rite as set forth in Scripture a n d amplified in the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h e n c o m p a s s e s two p a r a d o x e s , involving t h e creation of cleanness o u t of uncleanness, a n d u n c l e a n n e s s o u t of cleanness. T h e first p a r a d o x is that it is possible to create a realm of cultic cleanness in the u n c l e a n world t h a t lies outside the b o u n d a r i e s of the T e m p l e — t h e world of d e a t h . T h i s is expressed in the proposition t h a t the c o w is b u r n e d outside of the c a m p , that is to say, outside of the T e m p l e , in a n u n c l e a n place. Its blood is tossed n o t o n the altar b u t in the direction of the altar, t o w a r d the f r o n t of the tent of meeting. T h e n the c o w is b u n t e d outside of the T e m p l e , the ashes a r e g a t h e r e d a n d m i x e d with water, a n d the p u r i f i c a t i o n - w a t e r is t h e n p r e p a r e d . So the H a l a k h a h u n d e r s c o r e s that, in the condition of uncleanness, m e d i a for achieving cleanness f r o m the m o s t virulent source of uncleanness, the corpse, are to be b r o u g h t into being. T h e second p a r a d o x is that, even e n c o m p a s s i n g those w h o h a v e g a i n e d the highest level of purification, u n c l e a n n e s s envelops the world, f o r all d e a t h is ever-present. T h u s those w h o h a v e a t t a i n e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d the e x t r a o r d i n a r y level of consciousness r e q u i r e d to participate in the rite of b u r n i n g the cow, collecting the ashes, gathe r i n g a n d t r a n s p o r t i n g water, a n d m i x i n g the ash a n d the water, as well as those w h o p r o p o s e to utilize the purification-water so b r o u g h t into b e i n g — a l l by virtue of their very activity in creating m e d i a of purification are d e e m e d u n c l e a n . T h e y h a v e defied d e a t h in the realm of d e a t h a n d o v e r c o m e — b u t have c o n t r a c t e d uncleanness nonetheless, i n d e e d a p a r a d o x : o u t of a c o n t a m i n a t i n g rite c o m e s w a t e r f o r purification, a n d , still, the o n e w h o sprinkles the purification-water also b e c o m e s u n c l e a n . N o w sages explore the requirem e n t s of a n offering c o n d u c t e d in a condition of uncleanness, in a place that is u n c l e a n by definition, by priests w h o c o n t r a c t u n c l e a n ness (but n o t corpse-uncleanness) by p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the rite. D o e s t h a t m e a n we i m p o s e m o r e stringent purification-rules, to create a circle of cleanness in the u n c l e a n world? O r d o we impose d i m i n ished rules, taking a c c o u n t of the givens of the circumstance? A l o n g these s a m e lines, d o we p e r f o r m the rite exactly as we should in the T e m p l e at the altar, o r d o we p e r f o r m the rite in exactly the opposite way, t h a t is, as a m i r r o r - i m a g e of h o w it w o u l d be d o n e in the T e m p l e ? T h e s e parallel questions p r o v o k e d by the t w i n - p a r a d o x e s of Scripture's a n d the H a l a k h a h ' s rules for the rite, respectively, define the p r o b l e m a d d r e s s e d by the H a l a k h a h , w h i c h contains the O r a l

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

117

T o r a h ' s deepest thinking u p o n the m e a n i n g of sanctifying the secular, o r d i n a r y world. T h e H a l a k h a h decisively answers the generative question: the highest level of alertness, the keenest exercise of c a u t i o n against u n c l e a n n e s s — t h e s e alone will create that circle of cleanness in the world b e y o n d the T e m p l e c o u r t y a r d that, by definition, is u n c l e a n . T h a t a c c o u n t s for the bizarre a r r a n g e m e n t s for t r a n s p o r t i n g the youngsters with the stone cups f r o m the T e m p l e , w h e r e they h a v e been b o m a n d b r o u g h t u p , to the Siloam pool a n d t h e n c e to the M o u n t of Olives—all to avoid c o r p s e - m a t t e r b u r i e d at great d e p t h s . A n d still m o r e to the point, the H a l a k h a h suspends the strict purityrules p r o t e c t i n g f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n n o t only c o m m o n food or priestly rations b u t even H o l y T h i n g s a n d imposes m u c h m o r e stringent ones. T h i s it does three ways. First, while h a n d - w a s h i n g suffices for eating in a state of cleanness f o o d in the familiar classifications, to p u r i f y oneself for p a r t i c i p a t i n g in p r e p a r i n g the purification-water, total i m m e r s i o n is required; the familiar distinction b e t w e e n h a n d s a n d b o d y falls away. S e c o n d a n d m o r e decisive, purification-water contracts u n c l e a n n e s s (and so is r e n d e r e d useless) at a n y n u m b e r of r e m o v e s f r o m the original source of uncleanness, even o n e h u n d r e d ; t h a t is to say, we d o n o t c o u n t removes. E v e r y t h i n g is u n c l e a n b y reason of its h i s t o r y — a history of w h i c h we m a y well be i g n o r a n t . T h i r d , persons involved 111 p r e p a r i n g the m i x t u r e — c o l l e c t i n g the ashes, g a t h e r i n g the water, m i x i n g the t w o — m u s t r e m a i n n o t only constantly alert b u t perpetually active. F r o m the b e g i n n i n g to the e n d of their work, they m a y d o only w h a t c o n c e r n s the task. If they sit d o w n 011 a chair o r lie d o w n o n a bed, they automatically c o n t r a c t uncleanness, for w h a t c a n c o n t r a c t u n c l e a n n e s s is d e e m e d u n c l e a n for t h e m . A n d intentionality enters in at critical points in the classification of actions, e.g., w h e t h e r or not they are extrinsic to the rite. Perfect c o n c e n t r a t i o n 011 the task, u n i n t e r r u p t e d by a n y extrinsic action or even consideration, alone suffices. T h e s e rules f o r m the p a r a d i g m of w h a t it m e a n s , of w h a t is req u i r e d , to attain cultic cleanness: the most intense, best focussed, c o n c e n t r a t i o n 011 the m a t t e r at h a n d . Cultic cleanness b e y o n d the cult is possible, only t h r o u g h the exercise of e n o r m o u s resources of will a n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n . But h o w e v e r devotedly Israel u n d e r t a k e s the work, the p e r p e t u a l prevalence of u n c l e a n n e s s persists: the person w h o h a s a t t a i n e d an astonishing level of cleanness to participate in the rite a n d w h o has c o n c e n t r a t e d all his energies a n d attention u p o n

118

C H A P T E R ONE

the rite a n d succeeded that p e r s o n , Scripture itself decrees, e m e r g e s u n c l e a n f r o m his l a b o r in perfect cleanness to p r e p a r e purificationwater. T h e o n e p r o p o s i t i o n — t o participate, the highest, m o s t ext r a o r d i n a r y level of cleanness is r e q u i r e d — r e q u i r e s the o t h e r — o n e e m e r g e s u n c l e a n f r o m the labor. T h u s cultic cleanness b e y o n d the cult is possible, b u t the world b e y o n d the T e m p l e r e m a i n s w h a t it i s — n o m a t t e r w h a t . H a v i n g c r e a t e d the i n s t r u m e n t s f o r r e m o v i n g corpse-uncleanness, the parties to the rite i m m e r s e just as they ordinarily w o u l d , wait for sunset, a n d only t h e n eat their e v e n i n g m e a l in the condition of cultic purity t h a t the H a l a k h a h m a k e s possible: the o r d i n a r y i m m e r s i o n - p o o l , the q u o t i d i a n sunset suffice, b u t only p r o visionally. T o m o r r o w is a n o t h e r day, a n d it a l r e a d y h a s b e g u n , if in the state of cleanness t h a t is, o r o u g h t to be, the n o r m for Israel. T o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of t h a t message, Scripture has c o n t r i b u t e d facts. T h e H a l a k h a h has p r o v i d e d t h e insight a n d t h e d y n a m i c s to translated the insight into detailed n o r m s .

k. Shabbat T h e W r i t t e n T o r a h sets the stage. T h e S a b b a t h m a r k s the célébration of creation's perfection (Gen. 2:1-3). F o o d for the d a y is to be p r e p a r e d in a d v a n c e (Ex. 16:22-26, 29-30). Fire is n o t to be kindled o n t h a t day, t h u s n o cooking (Ex. 34:2-3). Servile l a b o r is n o t to be e a r n e d o n that d a y by the h o u s e h o l d e r a n d his d e p e n d e n t s , e n c o m passing his chattel (Ex. 20:5-11, Ex. 23:13, 31:12-17, 34:21). T h e " w h e r e " m a t t e r s as m u c h as the " w h e n " a n d the " h o w : " people are s u p p o s e d to stay in their place: " L e t e a c h person r e m a i n in place, let n o o n e leave his place o n the seventh d a y " (Ex. 16:29-30), u n d e r s t a n d i n g by place the private d o m a i n of t h e h o u s e h o l d (subject to f u r t h e r clarification in d u e course). N o H a l a k h i c c a t e g o r y c o m e s to m o r e explicit f o r m u l a t i o n in Scripture t h a n S h a b b a t at M i s h n a h Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli. Yet n o n e reshapes t h e topic m o r e distinctively t h a n the o n e at h a n d . I n the setting of its topic, the S a b b a t h , the H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t articulates only a few generative c o n c e p tions. But these, expressed in a c u t e detail, e n c o m p a s s the whole. T h e result of the applied reason a n d practical logic, most, t h o u g h n o t all, of the c o n c r e t e rulings e m b o d y those few conceptions. Six g o v e r n i n g principles cover nearly the entire M i s h n a h - t r a c t a t e , a n d , it follows, nearly the whole of the H a l a k h a h (since the T o s e f t a m a i n l y amplifies

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

a n d refines t h e principles initially stated b y t h e M i s h n a h , a n d

119 the

T a l m u d s c o n t r i b u t e little H a l a k h a h t o b e g i n w i t h ) . T h e c o n c e p t i o n s a r e of t w o types, the o n e distinctive to the S a b b a t h , the o t h e r p e r t i n e n t to a b r o a d s p e c t r u m of H a l a k h i c categories b u t h e r e illustrated by cases involving the S a b b a t h . W e begin with the m o r e general. T h e latter type supplies the larger n u m b e r of gene r a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n s , c o n c e r n i n g , first, i n t e n t i o n a l i t y , s e c o n d , c a u s a l i t y (cause a n d effect), a n d , t h i r d , h o w m a n y t h i n g s a r e o n e a n d

one

m a n y . T h e s e constitute philosophical, not theological problems. Let us consider the r e c u r r e n t c o n c e r n s that t r a n s c e n d the S a b b a t h altogether, starting with intentionality: 1. Intentionality: T h e classification of a n action is g o v e r n e d by the intention by w h i c h it is c a r r i e d out, so too the c o n s e q u e n c e : A. O n e is n o t s u p p o s e d to extinguish a f l a m e , but if he does so for valid reasons, it is not a culpable action; if it is for selfish reasons, it is. If o n e deliberately violated the S a b b a t h , after the S a b b a t h o n e m a y n o t benefit f r o m the action; if it was i n a d v e r t ent, he m a y . W e c o n s i d e r also the intentionality of gentiles. O n e m a y not benefit i n d i r e c d y f r o m a s o u r c e of h e a t . But w h a t h a p p e n s en passant, a n d n o t by d e l i b e r a t i o n , is n o t subject to p r o h i b i t i o n . T h u s if a gentile lit a c a n d l e for his o w n p u r p o s e s , the Israelite m a y benefit, but if h e did so for a n Israelite, the Israelite m a y not benefit. B. If o n e did a variety of actions of a single classification in a single spell of i n a d v e r t e n c e , h e is liable o n only o n e c o u n t . C . 111 the case of a n y t h i n g t h a t is n o t r e g a r d e d as suitable for storage, the like of w h i c h in general p e o p l e d o not store a w a y , but w h i c h a given individual lias d e e m e d fit for storage a n d has stored a w a y , a n d w h i c h a n o t h e r p a r t y has c o m e a l o n g a n d r e m o v e d f r o m storage a n d taken f r o m o n e d o m a i n to a n o t h e r o n the S a b b a t h the p a r t y w h o m o v e d the o b j e c t across the line t h a t s e p a r a t e d the two d o m a i n s has b e c o m e liable by reason of the intentionality of the p a r t y w h o stored a w a y this t h i n g that is n o t ordinarily stored. D . T h e act m u s t be c a r r i e d o u t in a c c o r d with the intent for c u l p a bility to b e i n c u r r e d . T h e w r o n g intention invalidates a n act, the right o n e validates the s a m e act. T h u s a p e r s o n breaks a j a r to eat dried figs f r o m it, o n c o n d i t i o n that h e n o t i n t e n d [in o p e n i n g the j a r ] to m a k e it into a utensil. M . 2:5, T . 2:16, T . 2:14, T . 2:17-18, 21, M . 7:1-2, 10:4, 22:3-4 2. N o t only direct, but indirect c o n s e q u e n c e s a r e taken into a c c o u n t . A. Since o n e m a y n o t p e r f o r m a n act of h e a l i n g o n the S a b b a t h , o n e m a y not c o n s u m e substances that serve solely as m e d i c i n e . But o n e m a y c o n s u m e those t h a t a r e e a t e n as f o o d but also heal. O n e m a y lift a child, even t h o u g h the child is h o l d i n g

120

C H A P T E R ONE

s o m e t h i n g t h a t o n e is n o t p e r m i t t e d to h a n d l e or m o v e a b o u t ; o n e m a y h a n d l e f o o d t h a t o n e m a y n o t eat (e.g., unclean) a l o n g with f o o d t h a t o n e m a y eat. O n e m a y n o t ask gentiles to d o w h a t h e m a y n o t d o , b u t o n e m a y wait at the S a b b a t h limit at twilight to d o w h a t o n e m a y ask a n o t h e r p e r s o n to do. T h u s : they d o n o t go to the S a b b a t h limit to wait nightfall to b r i n g in a beast. But if the beast was s t a n d i n g outside the S a b b a t h limit, o n e calls it a n d it c o m e s o n its o w n . M . 3:3, 4, 5, M . 4:2, M . 14:3-4, 16:7-8, 21:1-3, 23:3-4, 24:1-4 3. In assessing culpability f o r violating the H a l a k h a h of the S a b b a t h , w e r e c k o n that a n action n o t only m a y be s u b d i v i d e d but it also m a y be j o i n e d with a n o t h e r a c t i o n , so t h a t multiple actions yield a single c o u n t of culpability. A. T h u s w h o e v e r forgets the basic principle of the S a b b a t h a n d p e r f o r m s m a n y acts of l a b o r o n m a n y different S a b b a t h days is liable only f o r a single sin-offering. H e w h o k n o w s the principle of the S a b b a t h a n d p e r f o r m s m a n y acts of l a b o r o n m a n y different S a b b a t h s is liable f o r the violation of e a c h a n d every S a b bath. B. H e w h o k n o w s t h a t it is the S a b b a t h a n d p e r f o r m s m a n y acts of l a b o r o n m a n y different S a b b a t h s is liable f o r the violation of e a c h a n d every g e n e r a t i v e c a t e g o r y of l a b o r . H e w h o p e r f o r m s m a n y acts of l a b o r of a single type is liable only f o r a single sinoffering. M . 7:1-2, 22:5

A p r o g r a m of questions of general applicability to a variety of topics of the H a l a k h a h clearly s h a p e d the p r o b l e m a t i c s of S h a b b a t . Intentionality, causality, a n d classification of the m a n y as o n e a n d the o n e as m a n y — t h e s e s t a n d a r d t h e m e s of philosophical i n q u i r y t u m o u t to s h a p e the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h at h a n d . If w e w e r e c o m p o s ing a h a n d b o o k of H a l a k h i c exegesis for a c o m m e n t a t o r intent o n covering the entire surface of the H a l a k h a h , the issue of the m a n y a n d t h e o n e would take its place, alongside the issues of causality, direct a n d indirect, a n d the t a x o n o m i c p o w e r of intentionality. But the specificities of the H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t in n o w a y t h e n provide m o r e t h a n the occasion for a r o u t i n e reprise of these familiar foci of exegesis. So if we h a d to stop at this p o i n t a n d generalize u p o n o u r results, w e should c o n c l u d e t h a t the H a l a k h a h o n the S a b b a t h serves as a m e r e vehicle for the transmission of philosophical principles of general applicability. S u c h a result even merely on the face of things w o u l d p r o v e d u b i o u s . F o r w e should be left with a b o d y of law d i s c o n n e c t e d f r o m the religious life t h a t a c c o r d s to t h a t law origins in revelation a n d a u t h o r i t y in G o d ' s will. T h e H a l a k h a h w o u l d e m e r g e

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

121

as the concretization of philosophical reflections b e a r n o c o n s e q u e n c e for the knowledge of G o d a n d w h a t G o d h a s in m i n d for holy Israel. Let m e specify w h a t I conceive to be the e n c o m p a s s i n g principles, the generative c o n c e p t i o n s t h a t the laws e m b o d y a n d that a n i m a t e the law in its m o s t sustained a n d a m b i t i o u s statements. T h e y c o n c e r n t h r e e m a t t e r s , [1] space, [2] time, a n d [3] activity, as the a d v e n t of the S a b b a t h affects all three. T h e a d v e n t of the S a b b a t h t r a n s f o r m s creation, specifically r e o r g a n i z i n g space a n d time a n d r e o r d e r i n g the r a n g e of permissible activity. First c o m e s the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of space t h a t takes effect at s u n d o w n at the e n d of the sixth d a y a n d t h a t e n d s at s u n d o w n of the S a b b a t h day. At that time, for holy Israel, the entire world is divided into public d o m a i n a n d private d o m a i n , a n d w h a t is located in the o n e m a y n o t be t r a n s p o r t e d into the o t h e r . W h a t is located in public d o m a i n m a y be t r a n s p o r t e d only f o u r cubits, that is, within the space o c c u p i e d b y a p e r s o n ' s body. W h a t is in private d o m a i n m a y be t r a n s p o r t e d within the entire d e m a r c a t e d space of t h a t d o m a i n . All public d o m a i n is d e e m e d a single spatial entity, so too all private d o m a i n , so o n e m a y t r a n s p o r t objects f r o m o n e private d o m a i n to a n o t h e r . T h e net effect of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of space is to m o v e nearly all p e r m i t t e d activity to private d o m a i n a n d to close off public d o m a i n for all b u t the m o s t severely limited activities; people m a y n o t t r a n s p o r t objects f r o m o n e d o m a i n to the o t h e r , b u t they m a y t r a n s p o r t objects within private d o m a i n , so the closure of public d o m a i n f r o m m o s t activity, a n d nearly all material o r physical activity, c o m e s in c o n s e q u e n c e of the division of space effected by sunset at the e n d of the sixth d a y of the week. 1. S p a c e : O n the S a b b a t h the h o u s e h o l d a n d village divide into private a n d public d o m a i n , a n d it is f o r b i d d e n to t r a n s p o r t objects f r o m the o n e d o m a i n to the other: A. Private d o m a i n is d e f i n e d as at the very least a n a r e a ten h a n d b r e a d t h s d e e p o r high by f o u r wide, public d o m a i n , a n u n i m p e d e d space o p e n to the public. T h e r e o n e m a y c a r r y a n object for n o m o r e t h a n f o u r cubits, w h i c h sages m a i n t a i n is the d i m e n s i o n of m a n . B. T h e sea, plain, karmelit [neutral d o m a i n ] , c o l o n n a d e , a n d a threshold a r e n e i t h e r private d o m a i n n o r public d o m a i n . T h e y d o not c a r r y or p u t [things] in such places. But if o n e c a r r i e d or p u t [ s o m e t h i n g into such a place], h e is e x e m p t [from p u n i s h ment]. C . If in public d o m a i n o n e is liable for c a r r y i n g a n o b j e c t f o u r cubits, in private d o m a i n , t h e r e is n o limit o t h e r t h a n the o u t e r b o u n d a r i e s of the d e m a r c a t e d a r e a of the private d o m a i n , e.g., within the walls of the h o u s e h o l d .

122

C H A P T E R ONE

D.

W h a t is w o r n for c l o t h i n g or o r n a m e n t does n o t violate the p r o h i b i t i o n against c a r r y i n g things f r o m private to public d o m a i n . If o n e t r a n s p o r t s a n o b j e c t f r o m private d o m a i n to private d o m a i n w i t h o u t b r i n g i n g the o b j e c t into public d o m a i n , e.g., by tossing it f r o m private to private d o m a i n , h e is n o t culpable. M . 1:1, M . 6:1-9, 11:1-6 2. T I M E : W h a t Is to be U s e d o n the S a b b a t h M u s t Be S o D e s i g n a t e d in A d v a n c e . A. F o r e x a m p l e , o n t h e S a b b a t h p e o p l e d o n o t p u t a utensil u n d e r a l a m p to c a t c h the oil. But if o n e p u t it t h e r e while it is still day, it is p e r m i t t e d . But they d o n o t use a n y of t h a t oil o n the S a b b a t h , since it is n o t s o m e t h i n g w h i c h was p r e p a r e d [before the S a b b a t h f o r use o n the S a b b a t h . B. W h a t o n e uses o n t h e S a b b a t h m u s t be d e s i g n a t e d in a d v a n c e f o r that p u r p o s e , either in a r o u t i n e w a y (what is ordinarily used o n the S a b b a t h , e.g., f o r f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n , does n o t h a v e to b e d e s i g n a t e d especially for t h a t p u r p o s e ) or in a n e x c e p t i o n a l m a n n e r . But within t h a t proviso, all utensils m a y be h a n d l e d o n the S a b b a t h , for a p e r m i t t e d p u r p o s e . If s o m e t h i n g is n o t ordinarily used as f o o d b u t o n e d e s i g n a t e d it f o r t h a t p u r p o s e , e.g., for c a t d e , it m a y b e h a n d l e d o n the S a b b a t h . M . 3:6, 17:1-8, 18:2, 20:5, 22:2 3. A C T I V I T Y : O n the S a b b a t h o n e is liable f o r the i n t e n t i o n a l c o m mission of a c o m p l e t e d act of constructive l a b o r , e.g., t r a n s p o r t i n g a n o b j e c t f r o m o n e d o m a i n to t h e o t h e r , if o n e has p e r f o r m e d , in t h e n o r m a l m a n n e r , t h e entire a c t i o n b e g i n n i n g to e n d . A. If o n e has p e r f o r m e d only p a r t of a n a c t i o n , the m a t t e r b e i n g c o m p l e t e d by a n o t h e r party, h e is e x e m p t . If o n e has p e r f o r m e d a n entire action b u t d o n e so in a n - o t h e r - t h a n - o r d i n a r y m a n n e r , h e is e x e m p t . If o n e t r a n s p o r t s a n o b j e c t only to the threshold a n d p u t s it d o w n there, h e is e x e m p t , even t h o u g h , later o n , h e picks it u p a n d c o m p l e t e s the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o u t w a r d to public domain. B. H e o n e p e r f o r m e d a f o r b i d d e n action but did n o t i n t e n d to d o so, h e is e x e m p t . If o n e p e r f o r m e d a f o r b i d d e n action b u t in d o i n g so did n o t a c c o m p l i s h his goal, h e is e x e m p t : If o n e t r a n s p o r t e d a n o b j e c t o r b r o u g h t a n o b j e c t i n — i f h e did so i n a d v e r t e n d y , h e is liable for a sin offering. If h e did so deliberately, h e is subject to the p u n i s h m e n t of e x t i r p a t i o n . C . All the s a m e are the o n e w h o takes o u t a n d the o n e w h o brings in, the o n e w h o stretches s o m e t h i n g out a n d the o n e w h o t h r o w s [something] i n — i n all such cases h e is liable. By observing S a b b a t h p r o h i b i t i o n s p r i o r to sunset, o n e takes p r e c a u t i o n s to avoid i n a d v e r t e n t e r r o r . D . O n e is liable for constructive, b u t n o t destructive acts of l a b o r , a n d for acts of l a b o r t h a t p r o d u c e a lasting c o n s e q u e n c e b u t n o t e p h e m e r a l ones.

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

E.

F. G.

H.

123

O n e is liable for p e r f o r m i n g o n the S a b b a t h classifications of l a b o r the like of w h i c h was d o n e in the t a b e r n a c l e . T h e y sowed, so you are not to sow. T h e y h a r v e s t e d , so you are not to h a r vest. T h e y lifted u p the b o a r d s f r o m the g r o u n d to the w a g o n , so you are not to lift t h e m in f r o m public to private d o m a i n . T h e y lowered b o a r d s f r o m the w a g o n to the g r o u n d , so y o u must not c a r r y a n y t h i n g f r o m private to public d o m a i n . T h e y t r a n s p o r t e d b o a r d s f r o m w a g o n to w a g o n , so y o u m u s t not c a r r y f r o m o n e private d o m a i n to a n o t h e r . But m o v i n g the o b j e c t m u s t be in the n o r m a l m a n n e r , not 111 a n e x c e p t i o n a l way, if culpability is to b e i n c u r r e d . A n entire act of l a b o r must involve a m i n i m u m v o l u m e , a n d it m u s t yield a n e n d u r i n g result. A11 act of destruction is n o t culpable. T h u s , as we recall, he w h o tears [his clothing] b e c a u s e of his a n g e r or 011 a c c o u n t of his b e r e a v e m e n t , a n d all those w h o effect destruction, a r e e x e m p t . H e a l i n g is classified as a n act of constructive labor, so it is f o r b i d d e n ; but saving life is invariably p e r m i t t e d , as is a n y o t h e r action of a sacred c h a r a c t e r t h a t c a n n o t be p o s t p o n e d , e.g., circumcision, saving sacred scrolls f r o m fire, saving f r o m fire food for i m m e d i a t e use, a n d t e n d i n g to the d e c e a s e d , a l o n g with certain o t h e r u r g e n t m a t t e r s r e q u i r i n g a sage's ruling. M . 1:1, 2, 3, 10-11, 2:7, 8, 1:2, M . 7:3-4, M . :1-6, 9:5-7, 10:1, 10:2-4, 10:5-6, 12:1-5, M . 13:2-7, 14:1-2, 15:1-3, 16:1-8, 18:3, 19:1-6, T . 15:1 Iff., M . 22:1, 22:6, 23:5, 24:5

T h i s systematic, extensive, a n d richly detailed a c c o u n t of the activity, labor, that is f o r b i d d e n 011 the S a b b a t h b u t required 011 weekdays i n t r o d u c e s these considerations, p r o p e r l y classified: A. Preconditions I. intentionality: the act m u s t c a r r y o u t the i n t e n t i o n of the actor, a n d the intention m u s t be to c a r r y o u t a n illicit act of l a b o r 2. a single actor: culpability is i n c u r r e d for a n act started, c a r r i e d t h r o u g h , a n d c o m p l e t e d by a single a c t o r , not by a n act t h a t is started by o n e p a r t y a n d c o m p l e t e d by a n o t h e r 3. analogy: a n act that o n the S a b b a t h m a y be c a r r i e d o u t in the building a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of the t a b e r n a c l e (Temple) m a y n o t be p e r f o r m e d in the h o u s e h o l d , a n d o n t h a t a n a l o g y the classification of f o r b i d d e n acts of l a b o r is w o r k e d o u t B. C o n s i d e r a t i o n s 1. r o u t i n e c h a r a c t e r : the act m u s t be d o n e in the m a n n e r 111 w h i c h it is ordinarily d o n e 2. constructive result: the act m u s t build a n d not destroy, p u t tog e t h e r a n d not dismantle; a n act of d e s t r u c t i o n if not c u l p a b l e

124

C H A P T E R ONE

C. Consequences 1. c o m p l e t e n e s s : the act m u s t be c o m p l e t e l y d o n e , in all its e l e m e n t s and components 2. p e r m a n e n t result: the act m u s t p r o d u c e a lasting result, n o t a n ephemeral one 3. c o n s e q u e n c e : to i m p a r t culpability, a f o r b i d d e n act of l a b o r m u s t involve a m a t t e r of c o n s e q u e n c e , e.g., t r a n s p o r t of a v o l u m e of materials t h a t p e o p l e d e e m w o r t h s t o r i n g a n d t r a n s p o r t i n g , b u t n o t a negligible v o l u m e

W h a t is the u p s h o t of this r e m a r k a b l e repertoire of f u n d a m e n t a l considerations h a v i n g to d o with activity, in t h e h o u s e h o l d , o n the holy day? T h e H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t in the aggregate c o n c e r n s itself with f o r m u l a t i n g a s t a t e m e n t of h o w the a d v e n t of t h e S a b b a t h defines the kind of activity t h a t m a y be d o n e by specifying w h a t m a y n o t be d o n e . T h a t is the m e a n i n g of repose, t h e cessation of activity, n o t t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t of activity of a different o r d e r . T o c a r r y o u t t h e S a b b a t h , o n e does n o t h i n g , n o t s o m e t h i n g . A n d w h a t is that " n o t h i n g " t h a t o n e realizes t h r o u g h inactivity? O n e m a y n o t carry o u t a n act a n a l o g o u s to o n e t h a t sustains creation. A n act o r activity for w h i c h o n e b e a r s responsibility, a n d o n e t h a t sustains creation, is [1] a n act a n a l o g o u s to o n e r e q u i r e d in the building a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of the t a b e r n a c l e , [2] t h a t is intentionally carried o u t [3] in its entirety, [4] by a single actor, [5] in the o r d i n a r y m a n n e r , [6] with a constructive a n d [7] consequential r e s u l t — o n e w o r t h y of considération by a c c e p t e d n o r m s . T h e s e a r e the seven conditions t h a t p e r t a i n , a n d t h a t , in o n e w a y or a n o t h e r , t o g e t h e r with c o u n t e r p a r t considerations in c o n n e c t i o n with the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of space a n d time, g e n e r a t e m o s t of the H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t . S c r i p t u r e c o n t r i b u t e s the topic of the S a b b a t h , b u t t h e H a l a k h a h goes its o w n w a y in d e f i n i n g t h a t topic t h r o u g h n o r m a t i v e laws. Scripture declares that Israel o n t h e S a b b a t h in the L a n d like G o d o n the S a b b a t h of E d e n rests f r o m the l a b o r of creation. T h a t m e a n s , n o acts of work -and the H a l a k h a h c o m m e n c e s w h e r e S c r i p t u r e coneludes, a n a r c h e t y p a l case of i n d e p e n d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of a received subject. T h a t brings us to the question, W h a t a b o u t t h a t o t h e r principle of the S a b b a t h , the o n e set forth by the H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t ? T h e richly detailed H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t defines the m a t t e r in a prolix, yet simple way. It is that o n the S a b b a t h it is p r o h i b i t e d deliberately to carry o u t in a n o r m a l w a y a c o m p l e t e d act of c o n structive labor, o n e that p r o d u c e s e n d u r i n g results, o n e that carries o u t o n e ' s entire i n t e n t i o n : the w h o l e of w h a t o n e p l a n n e d , o n e has

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

125

a c c o m p l i s h e d , in exactly the p r o p e r m a n n e r . T h a t definition takes into a c c o u n t the shank of the H a l a k h a h of S h a b b a t as set forth in the M i s h n a h - t r a c t a t e , a n d the amplification a n d extension of m a t t e r s in the T o s e f t a a n d the two T a l m u d s in 110 w a y revises the basic principies. H e r e there is a curious, if obvious, fact: it is n o t a n act of l a b o r that itself is p r o h i b i t e d (as the f e n C o m m a n d m e n t s in E x o d u s a n d D e u t e r o n o m y would have it), b u t a n act of l a b o r of a very particular definition. T h e details of the H a l a k h a h t h e n e m e r g e out of a process in which two distinct sources c o n t r i b u t e . O n e is the m o d e l of the tabernacle. W h a t m a n m a y d o for G o d ' s house he m a y n o t d o for his o w n — G o d is always G o d , the Israelite aspires only to be "like G o d , " to imitate G o d , a n d that is a different thing. T h e o t h e r is the m o d e l of the creation of the world a n d of E d e n . H e n c e to act like G o d 011 the S a b b a t h , the Israelite rests; h e does not d o w h a t G o d did in creation. T h e f o r m e r source supplies generative m e t a p h o r s , t h e like of which m a y n o t be d o n e ; thus acts like sowing, like harvesting, like lifting b o a r d s f r o m public to private d o m a i n , a n d the like, are f o r b i d d e n . T h e latter source supplies the generative principles, the abstract definitions involving the qualities of perfection a n d causation: intentionality, c o m p l e t i o n , the n o r m a l i t y of the c o n d u c t of the action, a n d the like. T h e m o d e of analogical thinking governs, but, as we see, a d o u b l e m e t a p h o r pertains, the m e t a p h o r of G o d ' s activity in création, the m e t a p h o r of the priests' a n d Levites' activity in the t a b e r nacle. C r e a t i o n yields those large principles that we have identified: the traits of a n act of l a b o r for G o d in creation define the p r o h i b i t e d conditions of a n act of l a b o r o n the S a b b a t h . By a p p e a l to those two m e t a p h o r s , we can a c c o u n t for every detail of the H a l a k h a h .

X I X . Old Dog, New

Tricks

H a v i n g taken u p the a s y m m e t r y of the O r a l T o r a h ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n of categories defined in detail by the W r i t t e n T o r a h , with the descriptive task c o m p l e t e , we focus u p o n the results seen whole: the analytical a n d interpretive stages. H o w does the O r a l T o r a h r e n e w received category-formations? T o a n s w e r that question, we e n d e a v o r to see m a t t e r s whole a n d c o m p l e t e , a n d so ask: D o the tractates b e f o r e us fall into c o h e r e n t categories? I see three t a x o n o m i c possibilities. First c o m e s g r o u p i n g the topical c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s by large,

126

C H A P T E R ONE

general t h e m e s , with the following result: [1] the particularization of time: Besah, E r u b i n , S h a b b a t , M o e d Q a t a n ; [2] the i n t e r p l a y of u n c l e a n n e s s a n d sanctification: M a k h s h i r i n , O h a l o t , P a r a h ; [3] n o u r ishing Israel's life as G o d is m a i n t a i n e d in the time: H a l l a h , Hullin, M a a s e r o t ; [4] the family: Gittin. I discern n o p a t t e r n here. W h e n we identify as o u r indicative trait topical concerns, the result is u n illuminating. But, second, w h a t if we ask the s a m e question of all categories? T h e n we find a s o m e w h a t m o r e useful point of differentiation. In light of the foregoing description, the analytical criterion of classification obviously derives f r o m intentionality. H e r e are the categoryf o r m a t i o n s in w h i c h w h e r e intentionality m a k e s a difference: M a a s e rot, M a k h s h i r i n , P a r a h , Besah, S h a b b a t - E r u b i n , Gittin (the wife's responsibility within the transaction), M o e d Q a t a n , H a l l a h . W i t h i n the s a m e f r a m e w o r k , correlatively, c o m e s the o n e in w h i c h intentionality m a k e s n o difference, O h a l o t . T h a t c o n t r a r y e n t r y is readily p r e d i c t e d , for intentionality is null in the face of a source of u n c l e a n ness, even as intentionality f o r m s the operative criterion of differend a t i o n w h e n the w o r k i n g of u n c l e a n n e s s is at issue. T h e only cate g o r y - f o r m a t i o n I c a n discern w h e r e intentionality plays n o role t h e n is Hullin, w h i c h asks a r a n g e of questions o n sanctification of Israel to w h i c h , curiously, intentionality m a k e s n o c o n t r i b u t i o n . It follows that w h e r e the O r a l T o r a h identifies for sustained i n q u i r y a categoryf o r m a t i o n d e f i n e d by the W r i t t e n T o r a h , that c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n will provide a n o p p o r t u n i t y for d e e p reflection u p o n the role of m a n ' s will, with special a t t e n t i o n to the interplay b e t w e e n m a n ' s will a n d t h e material world. T h a t result serves, b u t only 111 general terms. It is too abstract to illuminate the details o r to lead us f r o m analysis to a n interpretive t h e o r y of the whole. T h a t is because I c a n n o t identify a bridge f r o m the H a l a k h a h in its particularity to the system in its fullness: A g g a d a h a n d H a l a k h a h all together. A i d that g o a l — t o s h o w h o w the principal native categories, H a l a k h a h a n d A g g a d a h , j o i n t o g e t h e r into a single, whole s t a t e m e n t , p e r m e a t i n g t h e culture of the s y s t e m — d e f i n e s the criterion of analytical success: m a k i n g sense of the whole, b u t in detail a n d with entire r e g a r d for particularity. So intentionality is necessary b u t n o t sufficient as a n o r g a n i z i n g h e r m e n e u t i c s for the O r a l T o r a h ' s distinctive c o n t r i b u t i o n , seen in detail. T h e n , third, a f u r t h e r analytical initiative, o n e n e i t h e r too c o n c r e t e n o r too abstract, c o m e s u n d e r consideration. Specifically, I identify

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

127

t h r e e f u n d a m e n t a l issues t h a t e n c o m p a s s the O r a l T o r a h ' s reworking of t h e W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s : [1| creation a n d the S a b b a t h , [2] intentionality, a n d [3] u n c l e a n n e s s a n d sanctification. W i t h i n those rubrics the O r a l T o r a h f r a m e s its s t a t e m e n t o n the received topics of S c r i p t u r e - a n d , as we shall see, we c a n identify a n a r r a t i v e that, in Aggadic terms, infuses the H a l a k h a h a n d m a k e s of it a single, c o h e r e n t construction. N o w I shall m a k e those twin-claims stick. Creation, the Sabbath, Domains and Acts of Labor S h a b b a t - E r u b i n systematically defines private d o m a i n as against public d o m a i n , a n d the act of l a b o r p r o h i b i t e d on the S a b b a t h . Both topics r e s p o n d to the n a r r a t i v e of G e n . 1:1-2:3, that is, the p r e s e n t a tion of creation. E r u b i n recasts p r o p r i e t o r s h i p , f o r m i n g of private d o m a i n s a c o m m i n g l e d d o m a i n . S h a b b a t defines the kind of action t h a t o n e m a y n o t c a r r y out, a n d it is not generic acts of labor, b u t those acts of l a b o r that p r o d u c e e n d u r i n g results, that are carried o u t by a single p e r s o n , b e a r i n g responsibility for the whole; they are c o m p l e t e d acts of constructive labor, p r o d u c i n g lasting effects. T h e interplay of space, time, a n d activity is sorted o u t as well. O t h e r restrictions o n o r d i n a r y l a b o r d e m a n d attention. People m a y w o r k on the i n t e r m e d i a t e days of the festivals, but within severe restrictions. T h e work m a y n o t be o n e r o u s ; n o t d o i n g the work m u s t b r i n g a b o u t heavy loss; the work c a n n o t have b e e n set aside for p e r f o r m a n c e o n the festival season. Issues of intentionality C e r t a i n l y the O r a l T o r a h ' s m o s t original s t a t e m e n t c o m e s in M a a s e rot, w h e r e the H a l a k h a h unfolds within the principle t h a t G o d res p o n d s to the attitude of the Israelite h o u s e h o l d e r . W h e n the househ o l d values the c r o p a n d wishes to take possession of it, t h e n G o d values the c r o p a n d w a n t s his share. N o t the condition of the p r o d u c e b u t the attitude of the f a r m e r governs, as we n o t e d above. So G o d ' s a n d m a n ' s feelings, attitudes, a n d e m o t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d ; they are consubstantial. M a k h s h i r i n f o r m s a second exercise in the m a t t e r , n o w i n t r o d u c i n g the consideration of the interplay of actuality a n d i n t e n tionality. If w a t e r is intentionally p u t o n p r o d u c e , t h e n the p r o d u c e b e c o m e s susceptible to uncleanness. But if the p r o d u c e is wet d o w n o n its o w n , n o t with the o w n e r ' s intentionality, the w a t e r is null. T h e n the question arises, d o we assess intentionality in terms of out-

128

C H A P T E R ONE

c o m e : h o w things w o r k e d o u t is h o w the f a r m e r w a n t e d t h e m to w o r k out? As we saw, s o m e o p i n i o n d e e m s intention w i t h o u t action null; s o m e d e e m action retrospectively to dictate the c h a r a c t e r of intention. 111 the h a n d s of the O r a l T o r a h , Scripture's rule that o n e m a y cook o n the festival day, yields Besah, w h i c h asks questions of the actual as against the potential e m b o d i e d in the designation of f o o d in a d v a n c e of the festival for use o n the festival, thus the interplay of intentionality a n d the actualities of the material world; t h e n the c o m p a r i s o n a n d contrast of the festival d a y a n d the o r d i n a r y day; the extent to w h i c h it is p e r m i t t e d to c o n d u c t l a b o r at all. Désignation in a d v a n c e of the S a b b a t h of w h a t is to be used o n the S a b b a t h also plays a role. O n e m u s t p r e p a r e in a d v a n c e for the S a b b a t h , a n d t h e n the activity, e m b o d y i n g o n e ' s p r o p e r intentionality, is p e r m i t t e d . S h a b b a t pursues the issue of intentionality in a different way, in the principle that the classification of a n action is g o v e r n e d by the i n t e n tion by w h i c h it is carried out, a l o n g with the c o n s e q u e n c e of the same. A11 act is neutral, it m a y o r m a y not violate the law, d e p e n d i n g u p o n the intent of the actor. T h e issue of a n individual's idiosyncratic intentionality g e n e r a t e s its o w n issues; w h a t p e o p l e generally d o n o t value a p a r t i c u l a r person m a y d e e m useful, a n d the rest follows. At Gittin the issue of intentionality is f r a m e d in t e r m s of active engagem e n t . T h e w o m a n c a n n o t initiate the divorce-process, b u t she bears full responsibility for the correct c o n d u c t of h e r p a r t of the transaction a n d bears h e a v y c o n s e q u e n c e s of that p a r t is i m p r o p e r l y carried out. Uncleanness unto Death and Purification for Sanctification for life (eternal, beyond Death!) I n the O r a l T o r a h , the opposite of the holy is the u n c l e a n . C o r p s e uncleanness, the m o s t virulent source of uncleanness, e m b o d i e s the soul as it leaves the body; that fluid a n d the b o d y f r o m w h i c h it h a s e x u d e d i m p a r t severe uncleanness. A n d that h a s n o relationship to attitude o r intentionality; u n c l e a n n e s s is effective eo ipse a n d u n c o n ditionally; a source of u n c l e a n n e s s e m b o d i e s uncleanness, n o m a t t e r the attitude of the person t h a t e m b o d i e s t h a t source, e.g., the Z a b a n d Z a b a h of Lev. 15, the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n of the s a m e c h a p t e r , as m u c h as the corpse. W h a t r e m o v e s c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s — t h e mixture of the w a t e r a n d the ashes of the red cow is p r e p a r e d with the highest possible level of attentiveness. P a r a h stipulates t h a t the persons e n g a g e d in collecting the w a t e r a n d t r a n s p o r t i n g it to the ashes

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

129

a n d mixing the w a t e r a n d the ashes c o n t r a c t uncleanness if they merely sit d o w n ; they disqualify the w a t e r if they otherwise e n g a g e in a n act of l a b o r not involved in the process itself. So if, as we shall see, d e a t h c o m e s a b o u t willy-nilly, the removal of the effects of d e a t h d e m a n d s the opposite: a n e x t r e m e of intentionality. A n d the u p s h o t for the system as a whole is n o t to be missed. If uncleanness stands for d e a t h , t h e n cleanness leading to sanctification stands for life. A n d , within the n a r r a t i v e of E d e n , life was m e a n t to be forever. D e a t h c a m e a b o u t by reason of the w o r k i n g o u t of i m p r o p e r intentionality. Sanctification a n d uncleanness intersect at H a l l a h , w h i c h f o r m s a small exercise in a large principle. It is, u n c l e a n n e s s e m b o d i e s d e a t h , sanctification, life. D e a t h t h r e a t e n s life. W h e n the d o u g h c o m e s alive, with the m i x i n g of flour, yeast, a n d water, the w a t e r r e n d e r i n g the mass susceptible to uncleanness, t h e n the h o u s e h o l d e r goes o n the alert. At that point, G o d is o w e d his d u e for the life t h a t creation has b r o u g h t a b o u t . Sanctification f o r m s the issue in a n o t h e r context altogether, o n e in which intentionality does n o t figure, a n d to which uncleanness does not, by definition, f o r m a consideration. Hullin i n t r o d u c e s into the f o r m a t i o n of the law adventitious circumstances: the fact that the T e m p l e is destroyed a n d Israelites are located in u n c l e a n territory. T h e message is, taking life for m a n ' s sustenance accords with the rules of the T e m p l e , even w h e n the T e m p l e life in ruins a n d Israelites reside a b r o a d . T h e rules of the T o r a h govern lifesustaining activities; " t h e blood is the life" a n d similar principles t r a n s c e n d the locative a n d t e m p o r a l limits of t h e T e m p l e a n d its cult. T h a t is because Israel r e m a i n s holy w h e r e v e r it is located, even outside of the holy L a n d , even 111 the a b s e n c e of the cult. T h e conditions that sustain its life c o n t i n u e to apply. Life persists within the people, w i t h o u t r e g a r d to c i r c u m s t a n c e o r context. If these cogent c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s provide a n e n c o m p a s s i n g a n d p r o p o r t i o n a t e structure for the O r a l T o r a h ' s o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n , the question arises, w h a t t u r n s the structure into a system? W h e n at the e n d of C h a p t e r Seven we follow as a single, c o n t i n u o u s story the three c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s I have i m p u t e d in the inductive analysis of the O r a l T o r a h ' s laws as I describe t h e m , h o w d o they set forth a c o h e r e n t , compelling n a r r a t i v e a n d to w h a t narrative in the W r i t t e n T o r a h d o the O r a l T o r a h ' s laws c o r r e s p o n d ? 111 the Preface I alleged that the O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h translates the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s n a r ratives into e x e m p l a r y cases, the cases into rules, a n d the rules into governing, abstract principles. So I claim the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s story

130

C H A P T E R ONE

a b o u t the creation of the world a n d the f o r m a t i o n of Israel, a n d its laws for the construction of Israel's " k i n g d o m of priests a n d holy p e o p l e " c o m e to realization in the rules a n d principles e m b o d i e d in the O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h . T h e f o r m u l a t i o n as abstractions of principles out of rules, a n d rules o u t of cases t u r n s the entire H a l a k h i c c o r p u s of the P e n t a t e u c h f r o m a set of composites of inert i n f o r m a tion into a p r o p o r t i o n a t e a n d c o h e r e n t structure a n d a w o r k i n g syst e m . It is nearly time f o r m e to keep t h e p r o m i s e I m a d e in the Preface. But first c o m e s o n e final c o r p u s of c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s , w h e r e i n I test the t a x o n o m y p r o p o s e d just n o w .

X X . When the Oral Torah Finds Fresh Issues in Received Information W e c o m e to the most subtle p r o b l e m , the identification, within received categories a n d their laws, of fresh h e r m e n e u t i c a l principles. W h e n the O r a l T o r a h takes over a c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n of the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d amplifies the received H a l a k h i c p r o g r a m therein, it sometimes p r o d u c e s s o m e t h i n g distinctive to itself, n o t a m e r e extension b u t a quite original variation o n a t h e m e . T h a t is because in amplifying the received c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n a n d its rules, the O r a l T o r a h ' s f o r m u l a t i o n of the s a m e c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n a n d derivative rules identifies a n d r e p r o p o r t i o n s propositions that the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n a n d its rules e n c o m p a s s , if w i t h o u t e m p h a s i s o r amplification. 111 g o i n g over familiar topics in established ways, t h r o u g h details deftly devised, the O r a l T o r a h redirects matters. So w o r k i n g with the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s H a l a k h i c premises a n d facts, the O r a l T o r a h creates variations o n a t h e m e , i n d e e d , m a n a g i n g to m a k e quite n e w music altogether. I n these i n d e p e n d e n t reconfigurations of the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s facts following the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s categoryf o r m a t i o n s , we discern the O r a l T o r a h ' s r e m a r k a b l e capacity to deliver its message t h r o u g h a received l a n g u a g e a b o u t a r e a d y - m a d e topic. H e r e the O r a l T o r a h accomplishes its task 111 a deft a n d subtle m a n n e r , with results as striking as those we f o u n d 111 C h a p t e r Six.

a. Kilayim T h e H a l a k h a h of Kilayim elaborates u p o n Lev. 19:19 a n d D e u t e r o n o m y 22:9-11. T h e H a l a k h a h in its o w n t e r m s derivatively amplifies the simple rules just n o w cited, spelling out w h a t seems to m e implicit

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

131

in t h e m . At the s a m e time, as we e x a m i n e the Halakhic propositions, we find, time a n d again, propositions that vastly transcend the limits of the d a t a of Scripture. T h e H a l a k h a h thus raises issues of clarification that Scripture clearly invites, b u t it also f r a m e s the topic in terms that Scripture scarcely requires. O n that basis, I have classified the category-formation as I have: i n d e p e n d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of a topic Scripture has defined. T h e following outline shows the topical p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h a h as laid out in the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i : I.

Raising T o g e t h e r Diverse Species of Plants A. Plants T h a t Are or Are N o t Classified as Diverse K i n d s B. G r a f t i n g C . S o w i n g T o g e t h e r or in A d j a c e n t Spaces Diverse Species of Crops D. S o w i n g C r o p s in a V i n e y a r d II. M a t i n g A n i m a l s of D i f f e r e n t Species A. Prohibition of H y b r i d i z a t i o n B. Prohibition of Y o k i n g Diverse Species of Beasts III. M i n g l i n g W o o l a n d L i n e n Fibers A. T h e Prohibition B. Application of the P r o h i b i t i o n

At n o point does the H a l a k h a h i n t r o d u c e a topic not invited by Scripture's own formulation of matters. But the way in which the topic is developed is cjuite i n d e p e n d e n t of Scripture's provision of inert i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e m a i n point that the H a l a k h a h investigates has to d o with the priority of a p p e a r a n c e over actuality a case of r e p r o p o r t i o n i n g the category-formation a n d its received law, not inventing a fresh p r o b lematic for a n existing category-formation. W h a t looks like a c o n f u sion of diverse kinds constitutes a violation of Scripture's law. W h a t does n o t give such an a p p e a r a n c e 111 n o way violates that law. So the issue of the tractate is, w h a t a p p e a r s to constitute mixed species, a n d h o w is that a p p e a r a n c e to be r e m o v e d ? M i x i n g classes or species‫־‬ plants, animals, fibers, thus, w h e t h e r plants, crops in a vineyard, kinds of animals, o r diverse sources of fabrics, linen f r o m the earth a n d wool f r o m animals- violates the principles of o r d e r established in creation, w h e n each species was set forth in its own category ("according to its n a m e " ) . But w h a t defines a class? T h e H a l a k h a h takes the view that m a n does. M a n has the p o w e r to d o in the L a n d of Israel w h a t G o d did in creating the world at E d e n , that is, establish o r d e r , o v e r c o m e chaos, perfect the world for the occasion of sanctifi-

132

CHAPTER ONE

cation. T h e H a l a k h a h that elaborates the c o m m a n d m e n t s o n the present topic set forth in Scripture makes m a n G o d ' s p a r t n e r in o v e r c o m i n g chaos a n d establishing order. It is m a n ' s perspective that governs, m a n ' s d i s c e r n m e n t that identifies chaos or affirms order. W h e n the H a l a k h a h leaves m a t t e r s relative to a p p e a r a n c e to m a n , the actualities of mixed seeds n o longer m a t t e r , o r m a t t e r so m u c h as a p p e a r a n c e s . A n d that requires a second reason as well. F o r if G o d cares that "you shall n o t sow y o u r field with two kinds of seed a n d that you shall n o t sow y o u r vineyard with a second kind of seed," surely the actuality, n o t the a p p e a r a n c e , o u g h t to prevail—unless a n o t h e r consideration registers. T h a t consideration c o m e s into play w h e n we ask, how, t h r o u g h the shared e n g a g e m e n t with the L a n d , d o G o d a n d Israel collaborate, a n d to w h a t e n d ? T h e a n s w e r to that question exposes the second, a n d I think, principal, explanation for the e m p h a s i s of the H a l a k h a h u p o n h o w m a n sees things, Israelite m a n being the subject t h r o u g h o u t . Israel is in charge of the L a n d . Israel not only bears responsibility for w h a t h a p p e n s in the land, but also bears the b l a m e a n d the penalty w h e n m a t t e r s are not right. Israel relates to G o d t h r o u g h Israel's trusteeship of the L a n d . T h e tractates that deal with the e n l a n d i s e m e n t of the relationship of Israel to G o d , Kilayim a n d the others, present Israel as the trustee of the L a n d a n d , as we see in the present tractate, assign to Israel the task of cultivating the L a n d in a m a n n e r a p p r o p r i ate to the perfection of creation at the outset. N o w o n d e r , then, that Israel's view of m a t t e r s m u s t prevail, for Israel bears full responsibility on the spot for h o w things will a p p e a r to H e a v e n . T o treat the L a n d as holy m e a n s to f a r m it in such a w a y that o r d e r prevails, that confusion, e m b o d y i n g chaos, is o v e r c o m e . So the L a n d must look like the e m b o d i m e n t of the perfection of C r e a t i o n , all things in place a n d in order, everything in its correct category or species, n o two species confused.

b. Orlah T r a c t a t e O r l a h elaborates the T o r a h ' s c o m m a n d m e n t , at Lev. 19:2325. T h e p r o d u c e of the f o u r t h y e a r after p l a n t i n g is treated as equivalent to second tithe, that is, it is b r o u g h t to J e r u s a l e m ("for jubilation before the Lord") a n d eaten there. T h e tractate deals only with the prohibition of the fruit for the first three years. T h e topical p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h a h gives the misleading a p p e a r a n c e of a systematic, low-level exposition, as the following outline indicates:

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

133

I.

Definition of T e r m s A. W h a t is a F r u i t - T r e e ? B. R e c k o n i n g the three Years f r o m the m o m e n t of Planting II. M i x t u r e s of F o r b i d d e n a n d P e r m i t t e d P r o d u c e A. W h a t H a p p e n s W h e n F o r b i d d e n a n d p e r m i t t e d P r o d u c e is m i x e d together, without p a r t i c u l a r reference to 'orlah-fruit B. N e u t r a l i z i n g F o r b i d d e n P r o d u c e m i x e d with P e r m i t t e d Produce C . M i x t u r e s of F o r b i d d e n a n d P e r m i t t e d Leaven in D o u g h , Seasonings, O i l D. Complex Mixtures (Three Components) III. T h e Prohibition against the Use o f ' O r l a h - F r u i t A. F o r b i d d e n D y e a n d W e a v i n g B. Fire M a d e f r o m Coals f r o m ' O r l a h - F r u i t C . Mixtures of Items m a d e f r o m ' O r l a h - F r u i t

In fact, as with Kilayim a n d for m u c h the s a m e reason, we c a n n o t characterize the Halakhic category at h a n d as a merely derivative amplification. W h e n we e x a m i n e the details of the law as p o r t r a y e d in the O r a l T o r a h (here e n c o m p a s s i n g Sifra's points of stress), we discern a systematic reconstruction thereof, for details of the law point to p r o f o u n d reconsideration of the topic. T h a t comes a b o u t because the category-formation spins out its logic by asking a question Scripture does not raise but nonetheless provokes. It c o n c e n t s the role of m a n in precipitating the effect of the prohibition takes priority. Scripture's laconic statement assigns to h u m a n intention n o position in the application of the law. M a n has a role in bringing a b o u t the prohibition of the law, but m a n c a n n o t by his intentionality c h a n g e the facts of the case. It is m a n ' s assessment of the use of the tree that classifies the tree as a fruit-tree o r as a tree of some o t h e r category, e.g., o n e m e a n t for l u m b e r . But m a n c a n n o t declare as a fruit-tree, so subjecting the p r o d u c e to the prohibition for three years f r o m planting, o n e that does not b e a r fruit at all. M a n ' s actions reveal his original intentionality for the tree, e.g., how the tree is p l a n t e d . Intentionality dictates w h e t h e r or n o t a tree that can b e a r fruit actually is covered by the prohibition. T r e e s not used for fruit are not affected by the prohibition, so the f a r m e r m a y use the l u m b e r even in the first three years f r o m planting; a n d parts of trees not intended for fruit are not subject to it either, so m a y be p r u n e d off a n d used for fuel. But intention c a n n o t classify w h a t n a t u r e has already designated for o n e or a n o t h e r category. F u r t h e r points explored by the O r a l T o r a h ' s reading of the category include the principle that the law takes effect only f r o m the

134

CHAPTER ONE

point at which Israel enters the land. T h a t trees p r o d u c e fruit m a t t e r s only f r o m Israel's entry o n w a r d . S e c o n d , Israelite intentionality is required to subject a tree to the 'orlah-rule. If an Israelite does not plant the tree with the plan of p r o d u c i n g fruit, then the tree is not subject to the rule. If the tree grows u p on its o w n , not by the act a n d precipitating intentionality of the Israelite, the orlah-rule does n o t apply. It is Israel's own intentionality not G o d ' s — t h a t imposes u p o n every fruit-bearing t r e e ‫ ־‬-and not only the o n e of E d e n — t h e prohibition of three years. So o n c e Israel wants the fruit, it must show that it can restrain its desire a n d wait for three years. T o find the context in which these rules m a k e their statement, we consider details, then the m a i n point. First, w h y three years in particular? Fruit trees were created 011 the third d a y of creation. T h e n , w h e n Israel by intention a n d action designates a t r e e — a n y t r e e — a s fruit-bearing, Israel m u s t wait for three years, as creation waited for three years. T h e n the planting of every tree imposes u p o n Israel the occasion to m e e t o n c e m o r e the t e m p t a t i o n that the first A d a m could not overc o m e . Israel n o w recapitulates the t e m p t a t i o n of A d a m then, b u t Israel, the N e w A d a m , possesses, a n d is possessed by, the T o r a h . By its own action a n d intention in p l a n t i n g fruit trees, Israel finds itself in a veritable o r c h a r d of trees like the tree of knowledge of good a n d evil. T h e difference between A d a m a n d I s r a e l — p e r m i t t e d to eat all fruit but one, A d a m ate the f o r b i d d e n fruit, while Israel refrains for a specified span of time f r o m fruit f r o m all t r e e s — m a r k s w h a t has taken place, which is the regeneration of h u m a n i t y . So w h e n Israel enters the L a n d , in exactly the right detail Israel recapitulates the d r a m a of A d a m 111 E d e n , b u t with this f o r m i d a b l e difference. T h e o u t c o m e is n o t the same. By its o w n act of will Israel addresses the t e m p t a t i o n of A d a m a n d o v e r c o m e s the same t e m p t a tion, n o t o n c e b u t every d a y t h r o u g h time b e y o n d m e a s u r e . A d a m could not wait out the week, but Israel waits for three y e a r s — a s long as G o d waited in creating fruit trees. A d a m picked a n d ate. But here too there is a detail not to be missed, even after three years, Israel m a y not eat the fruit w h e r e v e r it chooses. R a t h e r , in the f o u r t h year f r o m planting, Israel will still show restraint, bringing the fruit only "for jubilation before the L o r d " in J e r u s a l e m . T h a t signals that the o n c e - f o r b i d d e n fruit is n o w eaten in public, n o t in secret, before the L o r d , as a m o m e n t of celebration. In the fifth year Israel m a y eat o n its o w n , the time of a n y restraint f r o m enjoying the gifts of the L a n d h a v i n g e n d e d . T h a t sequence provides fruit for the second S a b b a t h

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

135

of creation, a n d so t h r o u g h time. H o w so? Placing A d a m ' s sin on the first d a y after the first S a b b a t h , thus S u n d a y , then calculating the three f o r b i d d e n years as M o n d a y , T u e s d a y , a n d W e d n e s d a y of the second week of creation, reckoning on the jubilation of T h u r s d a y , we c o m e to the Friday, eve of the second S a b b a t h of creation. So n o w , a year representing a day of the Sabbatical week, just as Leviticus says so m a n y times in connection with the Sabbatical year, the three prohibited years allow Israel to show its true character, fully regenerate, wholly a n d h u m b l y accepting G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t , the o n e A d a m broke. By its own act of restraint, the N e w A d a m , Israel, in detailed action displays its r e p e n t a n c e in respect to the very sin that the O l d A d a m c o m m i t t e d , the sin of disobedience a n d rebellion. Facing the same o p p o r t u n i t y to sin, Israel again a n d again over time refrains f r o m the very sin that cost A d a m E d e n . So by its m a n n e r of cultivation of the L a n d a n d its o r c h a r d s , Israel manifests w h a t in the very condition of h u m a n i t y has c h a n g e d by the giving of the T o r a h : the advent of h u m a n i t y ' s second c h a n c e , t h r o u g h Israel. O n l y in the L a n d that succeeds E d e n can Israel, succeeding A d a m , c a n y out the acts of regeneration that the T o r a h makes possible. T h i s message is p r o d u c e d wholly by the H a l a k h a h , 011 its own a n d w h e n e x p o u n d e d in Sifra, a n d while I think it is implicit in the Written T o r a h , it emerges only in the O r a l T o r a h ' s reconfiguration of the Written T o r a h ' s laws.

c. Tebul Tom H e r e is yet a n o t h e r case 111 which, while Scripture introduces the topic, the H a l a k h a h f r a m e s its own p r o g r a m of inquiry. T h e T e b u l Y o m is a person o r object that has been i m m e r s e d but awaits sunset for the realization of the restoration of the natural condition of cleanness. Living or flowing w a t e r by itself purifies the o n e w h o has h a d a discharge. W h e n the W r i t t e n T o r a h refers to washing, bathing, a n d l a u n d e r i n g in the context of attaining cleanness f r o m uncleanness in particular, by contrast, it specifies that the object r e m a i n s u n c l e a n until sunset. So o r d i n a r y w a t e r is distinguished f r o m spring or living (flowing) w a t e r a n d is not u n d e r s t o o d as a substance that purifies s o m e t h i n g f r o m uncleanness. W h a t accomplishes the purification is sunset. Pertinent verses of Scripture include Lev. 11:31-2, Lev. 15:13, Lev. 11:32, Lev. 1 1:40, Lev. 14:8, Lev. 15:5, Lev. 15:16, Lev. 15:21, Lev. 15:27, Lev. 16:28, Lev. 17:15, Lev. 22:6-7, N u m . 10:7, N u m .

136

CHAPTER ONE

17:17, a n d Dt. 23:11:1. Along these s a m e lines, the status of T e b u l Y o m — o n e w h o has i m m e r s e d on the selfsame day a n d awaits sunset for the completion of the rite of purification—is assigned by the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h to a person o r object i m m e r s e d in forty seahs of still w a t e r of an i m m e r s i o n pool for the r e m a i n d e r of the d a y o n which the i m m e r s i o n takes place. T h a t status e n d s at sunset, at w h i c h point the person or object is clean. T h e status of that person or object in Scripture is u n a m b i g u o u s ; Scripture is explicit: that person o r object is unclean until sunset, then he or she or it is clean. But sages take the view that the i m m e r s i o n has affected the uncleanness, r e m o v e d s o m e of its virulence, even while not wholly effecting cleanness. T h e H a l a k h a h of T e b u l Y o m asks, in w h a t w a y is the T e b u l Y o m clean a n d in w h a t w a y is he unclean? Is he essentially clean, but unclean in some m i n o r aspect, or is he essentially u n c l e a n , b u t in a lesser status of uncleanness t h a n before immersion? T h e d e e p e r question, the p o w e r of sunset, is not addressed in the H a l a k h a h , only taken for g r a n t e d . But it is there that the H a l a k h a h finds its a n i m a t ing convictions, a n d only there that we g r a s p the source f r o m which e m a n a t e s the intangibles of relationship a n d circumstance, which is, the t u r n i n g of the light. Scripture leaves n o d o u b t that w h a t has b e e n w a s h e d in w a t e r is u n c l e a n until the evening, t h e n w h e n the sun has set, it is clean. T h e H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h f u r t h e r registers t h a t the T e b u l Y o m is in the second r e m o v e of uncleanness, i m p a r t i n g unfitness to heave offering. T h e logical next question is, does that m e a n w h a t has been i m m e r s e d is really unclean until evening, therefore falling into the s a m e status as all o t h e r sources of uncleanness? O r is w h a t has been i m m e r s e d really clean, therefore i m p a r t i n g unfitness to heave offering in a c c o r d with the distinction between w h a t is p r i m a r y a n d w h a t is secondary? T h e issue of classification is addressed at the point of acute interstitiality, which is c o n n e c t i o n . T h e r e we w a n t to know w h e t h e r the object affects the status of w h a t is a t t a c h e d to it, w h e t h e r the a t t a c h m e n t (the stem to the fruit) is d e e m e d d e t a c h e d t h e r e f r o m . So we shift the analysis of the i n t e r m e d i a t e status of the T e b u l Y o m to the status of w h a t is i n t e r m e d i a t e in the object of uncleanness. A n d there we f u r t h e r ask yet a n o t h e r relativizing question: w h a t is prim a r y a n d w h a t is s u b o r d i n a t e in a mixture, w h a t is essential a n d w h a t is peripheral in a composite. A n d , we note at the very outset, for the first a n d only time in considering the sources of cultic u n cleanness that c o n t a m i n a t e the Israelite household, we even intro-

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

137

d u c e the variable of intentionality. F o r a n original, f r e e - s t a n d i n g essay o n interstitiality a n d m i x t u r e , the H a l a k h a h of T e b u l Y o m p r o vides a n ideal setting. C o n c e r n i n g the c h a r a c t e r of cultic u n c l e a n n e s s in the h o u s e h o l d , the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h could not h a v e m a d e a m o r e vivid s t a t e m e n t t h a n it does here. W h a t it stresses is the negative, that uncleanness is n o t intrinsic b u t i m p u t e d , a n d the positive, that the attitudes a n d a r r a n g e m e n t s of the h o u s e h o l d e r vis à vis sources of u n c l e a n n e s s directly affects the effects of those sources, w h i c h is to say, the p o w e r of a source of u n c l e a n n e s s to c o n t a m i n a t e is m e d i a t e d by, even vitiated within, the c i r c u m s t a n c e s that govern. T h e person has i m m e r s e d b u t the sun has n o t set, so n o w , b u t n o t before, the p e r s o n ' s intentionality plays a role, o n the o n e side, a n d issues of c o n n e c t i o n resolved in terms of p r i m a r y a n d subsidiary utilization of parts of a c o m p o s i t e require resolution, 011 the other. T h e n w h a t difference does sunset m a k e ? T h e H a l a k h a h of the status, n o t condition, of the T e b u l Y o m alerts the h o u s e h o l d e r that if he wishes to k n o w the condition of his p r o p e r t y a n d possessions, h e m u s t p a y attention to sunset. T h a t is in two aspects. Until sunset he n o t only is n o t to use for p u r p o s e s of p r e p a r a t i o n of f o o d in conditions of cleanness w h a t has just b e e n i m m e r s e d , he has also to notice the relationships b e t w e e n w h a t has just b e e n i m m e r s e d a n d w h a t not. T h e m a t ter of c o n n e c t i o n brings a b o u t the s a m e h e i g h t e n e d consciousness as the m a t t e r of removal f r o m u n c l e a n n e s s o n the i n n e r side of i m m e r sion, b e f o r e the rinsing. J u s t as r e m o v e s f r o m the source of u n c l e a n ness require us to k n o w n o t only the condition of a n u n c l e a n object b u t also the s u b s e q u e n t history, f r o m the m o m e n t of c o n t a m i n a t i o n , o f t h a t s a m e object, so c o n n e c t i o n in the differentiation by reason of i m m e r s i o n imposes alertness n o t only as to the p r i m a r y b u t also the s e c o n d a r y a n d p e r i p h e r a l c o n t a c t s of the object that has b e e n immersed. Sunset m a r k s the creation of t h e n e w day, h e n c e the c o m m e n c e m e n t of a n e w span of time that tells t h e story of the struggle of Israel, naturally clean, to r e m a i n clean f r o m the sources of u n c l e a n n e s s r o u n d a b o u t . U n c l e a n n e s s does not a c c u m u l a t e , but, w h e n the h o u s e h o l d e r d e t e r m i n e s by the act of i m m e r s i o n to bring u n c l e a n n e s s to closure, t e r m i n a t e s at sunset, the e n d of the old day. W h a t e v e r the condition of persons o r objects as to uncleanness, o n c e the process of cleanness h a s properly c o m m e n c e d with the act of i m m e r s i o n , the result is inexorable: Israel b e c o m e s clean as surely, as reliably, as the

138

C H A P T E R ONE

sun sets. N o w o n d e r , a r c h a e o l o g y n o w shows, people w a n t e d i m m e r sion-pools in their houses, signaling as they d o the a u t h e n t i c condition of Israel.

d. Temurah Building u p o n Scripture, the H a l a k h a h of T e m u r a h u n d e r s c o r e s the limitations that G o d sets u p o n Israel's c o m m a n d of t a x o n o m i c , t r a n s f o r m a t i v e language. Specifically, o n c e the Israelite has m a d e a s t a t e m e n t , h e c a n n o t nullify it. N o r c a n h e c h a n g e his m i n d , declaring p r o f a n e a beast designated as holy aitd replacing t h a t beast with s o m e other. Scripture (at Lev. 27:10) is explicit t h a t the beast design a t e d as a substitute b e c o m e s holy a n d the beast that was a l r e a d y c o n s e c r a t e d r e m a i n s holy. T h a t fact in h a n d , the sages of the O r a l T o r a h register a n u m b e r of i m p o r t a n t convictions, wholly c o h e r e n t with the established p r o g r a m of the H a l a k h a h g o v e r n i n g the altar a n d the e n c o u n t e r that takes place there. T h e H a l a k h a h of T e m u r a h m a k e s the p o i n t that the status of sanctification is n o t only indelible b u t i m m u t a b l e . T h e l a n g u a g e that effects the act of sanctification p r o d u c e s that c h a n g e in classification that t u r n s the c o m m o n into the holy, a n d o n c e spoken, w o r d s work. But precisely h o w the c a n d i d a t e for substitution b e c o m e s holy, w h a t it m e a n s for the c a n d i d a t e to e n t e r into the status of, b e c o m e like, the already-holy b e a s t — t h e s e define p r o b l e m s that require m u c h t h o u g h t . T h e law of substitution e n c o m p a s s e s a n a n o m a l y : a n act c o n t r a r y to the T o r a h p r o d u c e s effects of w h i c h t h e T o r a h takes a c c o u n t . O n e is n o t p e r m i t t e d to substitute o n e beast f o r a n o t h e r . If o n e does so, h o w e v e r , c o n s e q u e n c e s follow. T h e issue is, w h a t is the law g o v e r n ing the c o n s e q u e n c e of p e r f o r m i n g a n action that, 011 its o w n , is illegal a n d null? D o e s a person b e a r t h e sanctions for a n action that p r o d u c e s n o legal effects? T h e basic issue of the H a l a k h a h of T e m u r a h is w h e t h e r o r n o t the status, as to sanctification, of t h a t which is sanctified is subject to revision. A n d the position of the law is that o n c e s o m e t h i n g h a s b e e n sanctified, n o t only is the sanctification indelible (except t h r o u g h the H a l a k h a h ' s o w n m e d i a of secularization) b u t it is p e r m a n e n t in its c h a r a c t e r . T h e O r a l T o r a h c o n t r i b u t e s to the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s category a s e c o n d a r y layer of logical d e v e l o p m e n t . I find two considerable points t h a t the O r a l T o r a h sets forth in its amplification of the logic of the H a l a k h a h of the W r i t t e n T o r a h , b o t h of t h e m consistent with the O r a l T o r a h ' s

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

139

H a l a k h a h elsewhere b u t not here. T h e first proposition is, l a n g u a g e is not magical. T h e f o r m u l a that t r a n s f o r m s a secular beast into a sacred o n e accomplishes its act of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n only w h e n the prior condition is m e t that the o n e w h o uses the l a n g u a g e has the right to use it. T h e language, o n its o w n , b e a r s 110 coercive quality, is not a f o r m u l a that works w i t h o u t regard to c i r c u m s t a n c e . T h e O r a l T o r a h , second, insists that the actualities of the originally-consecrated offering play n o role whatsoever. The beast declared a substitute n e e d n o t b e l o n g to the s a m e category as the beast that has already been sanetified; the analogy - " t h i s in place o f t h a t " — f o c u s e s u p o n the "this," n o t the " t h a t . " T h e trait of t h e initially-sanctified beast that registers is only its classification as holy, not the particularity of that for which it h a s b e e n sanctified. A n d that violates the rule that o n e m a y not c h a n g e the status, as to sanctification, of a designated beast. If it h a s b e e n declared Most Holy T h i n g s , it c a n n o t be reclassified as Lesser H o l y T h i n g s , a n d so t h r o u g h o u t . W h e n it c o m e s to the t r a n s f o r m a tion of the substitute, by contrast, we ignore considerations of classification—specificities a n d particularities a n d invoke only a single criterion: the classification of sanctification per se. G o d responds to the l a n g u a g e a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e b u t n e e d n o t take a c c o u n t of irrelevant details in the t r a n s a c t i o n at h a n d . So o n e m a y substitute an a n i m a l for others different f r o m it an a m a z i n g p o i n t that fits entirely within the p r e s e n t rationality. T h e u p s h o t is, the entire system of m a t c h i n g intentionality to actuality, the will of the sacrifier to the d e e d of the priest a n d the intentionality as to the offering expressed by the priest, h e r e is s u s p e n d e d .

e. Terumot A m o n g the various agricultural tithes a n d offerings, the single most i m p o r t a n t is called " h e a v e - o f f e r i n g , " that which, as a m a t t e r of c h a n c e a n d n o t deliberate selection, is raised, or h e a v e d - u p , out of the crop. T h e p e r t i n e n t verses of Scripture are at N u m . 18:8-13. T h e questions that the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h takes for its o w n are, first, h o w a q u a n t i t y of p r o d u c e b e c o m e s sanctified, a n d , second, w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n such p r o d u c e is m i x e d with c o m m o n food, m o r e broadly, w h a t to d o w h e n p r o d u c e designated as heave offering is used as if it were secular food a n d so is eaten by a non-priest? T h e outline of t h e H a l a k h a h as set forth in the M i s l m a h - T o s e f t a Y e r u s h a l m i is as follows:

140

C H A P T E R ONE

I.

H o w H e a v e - O f f e r i n g Is D e s i g n a t e d a n d S e p a r a t e d A. I m p r o p e r W a y s of S e p a r a t i n g H e a v e - O f f e r i n g , W h i c h Yield H e a v e - o f f e r i n g t h a t is N o t V a l i d B. I m p r o p e r W a y s of S e p a r a t i n g H e a v e - O f f e r i n g T h a t n o n e t h e less Yield V a l i d H e a v e - O f f e r i n g C . H e a v e - O f f e r i n g S e p a r a t e d f r o m O n e K i n d of P r o d u c e to Fulfill the O b l i g a t i o n of P r o d u c e of a D i f f e r e n t K i n d D . C a s e s of D o u b t o n W h e t h e r o r N o t H e a v e - O f f e r i n g H a s Been Validly S e p a r a t e d II. T h e R i t e of S e p a r a t i n g H e a v e - O f f e r i n g A. T h e O r a l D e s i g n a t i o n B. T h e P e r c e n t a g e of a Batch of P r o d u c e t h a t Is to Be D e s i g n a t e d a n d S e p a r a t e d as H e a v e - O f f e r i n g C . W h e n the R i t e of S e p a r a t i n g H e a v e - O f f e r i n g T a k e s Place III. T h e P r o p e r H a n d l i n g of H e a v e - O f f e r i n g T h a t H a s Been S e p a r a t e d b u t N o t Yet G i v e n to the priest A. H e a v e - O f f e r i n g t h a t Is M i x e d with U n c o n s e c r a t e d P r o d u c e a n d H o w it is N e u t r a l i z e d B. Rules R e g a r d i n g the B a t c h in W h i c h H e a v e - O f f e r i n g W a s N e u t r a l i z e d a n d the P r o d u c e T a k e n to R e p l a c e the H e a v e Offering C . H e a v e - O f f e r i n g t h a t Is E a t e n by a N o n - P r i e s t : U n i n t e n t i o n a l C o n s u m p t i o n ; P a y m e n t of the P r i n c i p a l a n d A d d e d Fifth D . H e a v e - O f f e r i n g t h a t Is E a t e n by a N o n - P r i e s t : I n t e n t i o n a l C o n s u m p t i o n . P a y m e n t of the Principal but N o t the A d d e d Fifth E. C a s e s of D o u b t C o n c e r n i n g t h e N o n - P r i e s t ' s Liability f o r E a t ing Heave-Offering F. T h e Cultic C o n t a m i n a t i o n of H e a v e - O f f e r i n g G . H e a v e - O f f e r i n g T h a t Is P l a n t e d as S e e d H . H e a v e - O f f e r i n g T h a t Is C o o k e d o r O t h e r w i s e P r e p a r e d with Unconsecrated Produce iv. T h e P r e p a r a t i o n a n d U s e of H e a v e - O f f e r i n g by the Priest A. P r o p e r P r e p a r a t i o n of P r o d u c e in the Status of H e a v e - O f f e r ing. B. R e f u s e f r o m P r o d u c e in the Status of H e a v e - O f f e r i n g C . H e a v e - O f f e r i n g t h a t is not Fit as H u m a n F o o d but has S o m e O t h e r Use Scripture's

presentation

of

the

topic

does

not

suggest

what

the

H a l a k h a h will d e e m o f c r i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e in t h a t t o p i c , e v e n t h o u g h the O r a l T o r a h ' s exposition of matters coheres in detail with that of t h e W r i t t e n T o r a h ; I c l a i m t h a t t h a t e x p o s i t i o n is i m p l i c i t h e r e a n d e x p l i c i t in o t h e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h a l l a w , s o w h a t t h e O r a l T o r a h c o n t r i b u t e s o n c e m o r e is a r e p r o p o r t i o n i n g a n d a l i a r m o nization of details into a single, w h o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n . A s t a t e m e n t of

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

141

the generative p r e m i s e of the H a l a k h a h suffices to show that fact: the H a l a k h a h of T e r u m o t constitutes a vast exegesis of a single religious principle: the Israelite has the p o w e r by a n act of will c o n f i r m e d (where required) by a c o n c r e t e d e e d to sanctify w h a t is c o m m o n . T h e Israelite t h e n is a c c o r d e d by G o d t h e r e m a r k a b l e p o w e r to designate as holy, by reason of the Israelite's o w n u n c o e r c e d will, w h a t is otherwise o r d i n a r y a n d not sacred. N o t the only category of the H a l a k h a h to e m b o d y in c o n c r e t e actions that considerable proposition, the H a l a k h a h of T e r u m o t nonetheless f o r m s a r e m a r k a b l y apt m e d i u m f o r delivering that message. T h a t is because of the stress in the H a l a k h a h at h a n d o n considerations of particularity: the h o u s e h o l d e r ' s act of sanctification pertains to a very specific b a t c h of p r o d u c e , the c o n s e q u e n c e of sanctification invokes a very particular teleology i n h e r e n t in the type of p r o d u c e that h a s b e e n sanctified. T h e Israelite h o u s e h o l d e r h a s the p o w e r to initiate the entire process of sanctification, to t r a n s f o r m the classification of p r o d u c e a n d to subject that p r o d u c e to the logic that inheres in its very c h a r a c t e r : its o w n teleology. T h e h o u s e h o l d e r t h e n restores to G o d his share in the c r o p a n d imposes u p o n G o d ' s share the discipline r e q u i r e d by the logical c h a r a c t e r of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r crop. A p r o d u c t i v e corollary insists that the intentionality of the Israelite p e r t a i n to a very specific, differentiated c o r p u s of p r o d u c e . W h i l e holiness does n o t i n h e r e in a given b a t c h , so that the heaveoffering of o n e b a t c h m a y serve for several, nonetheless b a t c h e s m u s t be f o r m e d of like p r o d u c e . T h a t m e a n s t h a t o n e ' s intentionality pertains to the species, n o t to the genus: olive oil, n o t olives in general, a n d so t h r o u g h o u t . T h e particularity of the focus of intentionality c a n n o t be overstated; the H a l a k h a h stresses the m a t t e r in a wide r a n g e of cases, e.g., they m a y n o t s e p a r a t e oil as heave-offering for olives w h i c h have b e e n c r u s h e d , n o r wine as heave-offering for g r a p e s w h i c h have been t r a m p l e d b u t the processing of which has n o t yet b e e n c o m p l e t e d . M a n ' s intent for a given object accordingly bears the p o w e r to classify as sacred that p a r t i c u l a r object. G o d ' s intent in m a k i n g that s a m e object controls the legitimate use of the object that is sanctified. So the plan or attitude or p r o g r a m of e a c h p a r t y to the transaction— t h e h o u s e h o l d e r ' s , G o d ' s — g o v e r n s . But that takes place for e a c h p a r t y in his o w n way. M a n ' s intentionality dictates the classification of the object as G o d ' s (that is, as sanctified) a n d t h e n , G o d ' s , the disposition, of the object n o w subjected to his ownership. T h a t is

142

C H A P T E R ONE

w h e r e the teleology of things enters in. W e m a y t h e n say, o n c e m a n has assigned o w n e r s h i p to G o d (through G o d , s surrogates), G o d ' s plan in m a k i n g a n object, the teleology that inheres in that object, takes over. N o w o n d e r , t h e n , t h a t the H a l a k h a h so e m p h a s i z e s the specificity of the transaction: this p a r t i c u l a r object (batch of produce), serving the n a t u r a l p u r p o s e that inheres in this p a r t i c u l a r object, f o r m i n g the transaction at w h i c h m a n a n d G o d intersect. In assigning to the status of sanctification a p o r t i o n of the c r o p , the househ o l d e r gives u p his possession of, thus his right to subject to his own will, a b a t c h of p r o d u c e a n d assigns t h a t w h i c h he gives u p to G o d ' s d o m a i n , t h e r e f o r e m a k e s the p r o d u c e subject to G o d ' s will. G o d ' s will t h e n extends to Israel in its way, to n a t u r e in its context. Stated in this way, the t r a n s a c t i o n in heave-offering represents a n act of submission by m a n ' s to G o d ' s will that is very specific a n d concrete. T h e i m p o r t a n c e of the specificity of intentionality, o n the o n e side, a n d the particularity of t h e teleology t h a t governs the use of heaveoffering, on the o t h e r h a n d , n o w merges. Israel a n d n a t u r e relate to G o d in a c c o r d with the s a m e rules, in the s a m e way, b u t in quite different dimensions.

f. Tadayim T h e topic derives f r o m Scripture, w h i c h is explicit t h a t priests in the t a b e r n a c l e "sanctify" (=wash) their h a n d s a n d feet b e f o r e p e r f o r m i n g priestly f u n c t i o n s at the altar (Ex. 30:19-21, 40:12, 31-32): " C o m m a n d the priests that they shall w a s h their h a n d s a n d feet lest they d i e " (Ex. 30:21). H a n d - w a s h i n g s p u n c t u a t e the high priest's c o n d u c t of the rite o n the D a y of A t o n e m e n t (Lev. 16). Perceiving w h a t is implicit in the P e n t a t e u c h a l provisions, the H a l a k h a h d e e m s the h a n d s ( " h a n d s a n d f e e t " — b u t n o t the rest of the body) to f o r m a distinct entity for p u r p o s e s of cleanness a n d uncleanness. So the isolation of the h a n d s as a distinct r e a l m of uncleanness, with their o w n rite of purification, c a n a p p e a l to Scripture. T h e n the O r a l T o r a h f u r t h e r discerns in Scripture's fact w h a t is implicit: if the h a n d s f o r m a distinct realm for purification, t h e n they o u g h t also to h a v e their o w n distinct m e d i u m of purification, a n d , given the i n n e r d y n a m i c s of the system, to the h a n d s also will be i m p u t e d a status, as to u n cleanness, t h a t also is p a r t i c u l a r to t h e m in context. T h a t is w h a t I think the O r a l T o r a h h a s intuited, a n d I should claim, it is only w h a t is c o n t a i n e d within the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s f o r m u l a t i o n of m a t t e r s .

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

143

T h e n , o n c e w e realize the difference b e t w e e n i m m e r s i o n for persons a n d objects that have c o n t r a c t e d u n c l e a n n e s s f r o m a F a t h e r of u n cleanness a n d h a n d - w a s h i n g for h a n d s that are simply a s s u m e d to h a v e c o n t r a c t e d u n c l e a n n e s s even f r o m a n O f f s p r i n g of uncleanness, we find ourselves in the realm of the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h alone. T o begin with, by the H a l a k h a h , the h a n d s are d e e m e d p e r p e t u ally u n c l e a n , a realm of uncleanness- ‫״‬fingertips to wrist—distinct f r o m the rest of the b o d y , which t h e n m a y be u n c o n t a m i n a t e d b y the condition of the h a n d s a n d vice versa. But the H a l a k h a h also regards the h a n d s as a distinct source of u n c l e a n n e s s a m o n g the a n i m a t e sources. A n d the h a n d s also are subject to their o w n rite of purification, the a r e a f r o m the wrists to the fingertips f o r m i n g a s e p a r a t e a r e a n o t only for c o n t r a c t i n g u n c l e a n n e s s b u t also for r e m o v i n g it. All of this is not suggested by Scripture's t r e a t m e n t of the subject. T h e h a n d s are d e e m e d constantly active, w h e t h e r or n o t the person pays attention, a n d so are assigned a position in the second r e m o v e of uncleanness. T h a t is to say, even t h o u g h the person m a y k n o w w h a t h e o r she m a y or m a y n o t have t o u c h e d , the person c a n n o t k n o w with w h a t the things the h a n d s h a v e t o u c h e d themselves h a v e h a d c o n t a c t — t h u s leaving the h a n d s perpetually 111 the second r e m o v e of uncleanness. Accordingly, as I explained, (lowing f r o m the fact dietated by the P e n t a t e u c h a l f o r m u l a t i o n , it follows that the h a n d s f o r m a distinct realm of uncleanness a n d require their o w n rite of purification. T h e entire context scarcely requires a t t e n t i o n , b e i n g the given of b o t h the P e n t a t e u c h a n d the O r a l T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h . Purifying the h a n d s has 110 b e a r i n g 011 w h e t h e r o r n o t they are actually free of dirt. W h a t is r e q u i r e d is a cultically-prescribed action to r e s p o n d to a cultically-designated source of uncleanness. Accordingly, the r e q u i r e d h a n d - w a s h i n g in the H a l a k h a h h a s 110 b e a r i n g o n hygienic cleanliness. It is p e r f o r m e d in a c c o r d with cultic rules, an act of cultic purification of a d e m a r c a t e d p a r t of the body. T h e h a n d s , u p to the wrist, are restored to cleanness n o t t h r o u g h i m m e r s i o n in a n i m m e r sion-pool b u t t h r o u g h rinsing. T h e w a t e r that hits the h a n d s affects b u t is affected by t h e m , a n d that w a t e r too requires a rinsing—hence, as we shall see, a cultic purification t h r o u g h a r e p e a t e d act of rinsing. F u r t h e r , h o w the w a t e r is collected a n d a d m i n i s t e r e d defines a rite of purification for a c o m p o n e n t of the p e r s o n that bears its o w n traits of cultic uncleanness. T h e h u m a n being's h a n d s t h e n constitute a n ani-

144

C H A P T E R ONE

m a t e source of uncleanness. T h e H a l a k h a h as set forth in M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a takes u p the following matters:

the

I. II.

W a s h i n g H a n d s . A R e p e r t o i r e of R u l e s W a s h i n g H a n d s . T h e S t a t u s a n d C o n d i t i o n of the W a t e r . First a n d S e c o n d P o u r i n g s of W a t e r III. T h e Status of U n c l e a n n e s s I m p u t e d to H a n d s IV. T h e U n c l e a n n e s s of S a c r e d S c r i p t u r e s

N o w a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t registers. W h a t serves to p u r i f y t h e b o d y does n o t serve to p u r i f y the h a n d s a n d vice versa. H o w is the purification of the h a n d s different f r o m o t h e r m o d e s of purification? T o wash h a n d s o n e m u s t m a k e use of a utensil, just as for the purification-rite o n e d r a w s w a t e r with a utensil. F o r i m m e r s i o n pools o n e does n o t m a k e use of w a t e r d r a w n in a utensil. So f o r h a n d - w a s h i n g h u m a n intervention, with a high degree of alertness, is r e q u i r e d in t h e collection a n d disposition of the water. T o w a s h h a n d s , o n e m u s t m a k e use of w a t e r t h a t h a s n e v e r b e e n used before. F u r t h e r , art act of l a b o r e x t r a n e o u s to the rite itself spoils t h e w a t e r used f o r w a s h i n g h a n d s . T h e s a m e rule applies to t h e w a t e r for use in p r e p a r i n g purification water. A n act of l a b o r e x t r a n e o u s to the rite spoils t h a t w a t e r t h a t is to be m i x e d with the ashes of the red cow in the m a k i n g of purification water. But the w a t e r of a n i m m e r s i o n pool m a y be used again a n d again, a n d that is n o t so f o r the w a t e r used for w a s h i n g hands. T h u s the rules of w a s h i n g h a n d s clearly d e p e n d o n the a n a l o g y d r a w n to rules of w a t e r used for purification water. T h e rite of the red c o w d e p e n d s u p o n cleanness established a n d a t t a i n e d outside of the T e m p l e , a n d the rite of w a s h i n g h a n d s leads to cleanness for e a t i n g f o o d outside of the cult, so in b o t h cases, h u m a n agency, g u i d e d by a n alert h u m a n being, is r e q u i r e d , b y contrast to rainwater, w h i c h is collected naturally u p o n the g r o u n d a n d w o u l d be spoiled f o r a n i m m e r s i o n pool if h u m a n action intrudes. T h e difference b e t w e e n the u n c l e a n n e s s of the h a n d s a n d of the rest of the b o d y a n d r e m o v i n g t h a t u n c l e a n n e s s t h r o u g h a process g u i d e d b y its o w n distinctive rules derives f r o m the W r i t t e n T o r a h , w h i c h identifies t h e h a n d s (and feet) as a r e a l m of u n c l e a n n e s s u n t o themselves a n d specifies a process of r e m o v i n g t h a t u n c l e a n n e s s distinct f r o m the process t h a t pertains to the rest of the body. A n d it uses its own l a n g u a g e for t h e o n e a n d for the o t h e r . T h e key-language derives f r o m Scripture, using the w o r d "sanctify" to refer to the cultic rinsing of h a n d s a n d feet. T a k e , for instance, the very v o c a b u l a r y at h a n d .

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

145

T h e w o r d for w a s h for p u i p o s e s of cultic cleanness used in the H a l a k h a h of Y a d a y i m is "sanctify, ‫ י י‬as at T . 1:7: Priests sanctify [ = w a s h h a n d s a n d feet] in the s a n c t u a r y only with a utensil. T h e a n a l o g o u s actions t h e n involve t h e purification rite, sprinkling purification-water, p o u r i n g w a t e r for h a n d - w a s h i n g . T h e u n c l e a n n e s s of h a n d s a n d the purification thereof carry us d e e p into the H a l a k h i c t h e o r y of the i n t e r p é n é t r a t i o n of h o u s e h o l d a n d sanctuary. H e r e the m o d e l of the cult, for b o t h u n c l e a n n e s s a n d cleanness in the h o m e , is m o s t explicit. T h e l a n g u a g e of Scripture for rinsing persons a n d objects f r o m uncleanness for p u r p o s e of restoring cleanness is " r i n s e " o r " w a s h " (rhs), a n d Scripture is always explicit t h a t after such d u n k i n g in a n i m m e r s i o n - p o o l , the object r e m a i n s u n c l e a n until sunset. So m a t t e r s could n o t h a v e b e e n m a d e m o r e explicit. A n d t h a t difference b e t w e e n "sanctifying" h a n d s a n d " r i n s i n g / w a s h i n g " persons o r g a r m e n t s leads to the question, W h a t a b o u t the contrast b e t w e e n uncleanness a n d sanctification? T h a t too is d r a w n explicitly. T h e H a l a k h a h expresses t h e contrast b e t w e e n d e a t h a n d sanctification, b u t it makes its s t a t e m e n t of the m a t c h of opposites in its o w n way. T h a t is in a variety of details, b u t the m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o n c e r n the c h a r a c t e r of the utensil used in c o n n e c t i o n with w a t e r f o r sanctifying h a n d s as against w a t e r for rinsing, a n d the p r e p a r a t i o n of the w a t e r used for sanctification as against t h a t used for r e m o v i n g uncleanness. As to the utensil, h e r e is h o w : a utensil t h a t c a n n o t be used for d r a w i n g w a t e r for h a n d - w a s h i n g does n o t require a tightlysealed cover to serve to interpose against uncleanness, a n d o n e t h a t does also requires a tightly sealed cover in the T e n t of a corpse. So the areas of H a l a k h a h are d e e m e d c o r r e s p o n d i n g a n d opposite. T h e contrastive force of d e a t h a n d sanctification renews itself in the present m a t t e r . But t h e r e is a still m o r e b l a t a n t expression of the s a m e contrast. T h e g a t h e r i n g of the w a t e r used f o r sanctifying the h a n d s c o n f o r m s in the definition of the r e q u i r e d attitudes a n d actions to the requirem e n t s for collecting the w a t e r used for m i x i n g with the ashes of the red cow ( N u m . 19:Iff.) in p r e p a r i n g p u r i f i c a t i o n - w a t e r for the rem o v a l of corpse-uncleanness. T h e collection of the w a t e r for c o m b i n ing with the ashes, n o t only t h e a p p r o p r i a t e utensil for use in that c o n n e c t i o n , involve strict a n d rigid rules. T h e s e s a m e rules govern h e r e as well, so far as sages c a n a p p l y t h e m . T h e act m u s t be purposive, the w a t e r g a t h e r e d deliberately, by h u m a n action, in a valid utensil. W a t e r for t h e i m m e r s i o n pool m u s t collect naturally,

146

C H A P T E R ONE

u n a f f e c t e d by h u m a n action, a n d m a y n o t b e collected 111 a utensil. T h e s a m e rules govern w a t e r f o r m i x i n g with ashes to m a k e purificat i o n - w a t e r for the r e m o v a l of c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s a n d w a t e r for use in sanctifying the h a n d s . It follows t h a t u n c l e a n n e s s of h a n d s is r e m o v e d by w a t e r , a n d p r e p a r a t i o n of the w a t e r a c c o r d s with the rules pertin e n t to p u r i f i c a t i o n - w a t e r utilized for m i x i n g with the ashes of the r e d cow, N u m . 19:14ff. T h a t g o v e r n i n g a n a l o g y is m a d e explicit, e.g., t h e y d r a w , a n d they m i x w a t e r with the ash of the r e d cow, a n d they sprinkle purification water, a n d they p o u r w a t e r for h a n d s only with a utensil. T h e analogy of the i m m e r s i o n pool a n d its w a t e r is rejected. D e l i b e r a t e h u m a n action effected t h r o u g h a whole, useful utensil is required. W h a t s t a t e m e n t e m e r g e s f r o m t h e facts n o w a d d u c e d , [1] that the h a n d s are d e e m e d always just o n e r e m o v e a w a y f r o m corpse-cont a m i n a t i o n , a n d [2] it is t h r o u g h w a t e r a n a l o g o u s to t h a t used for p r e p a r i n g p u r i f i c a t i o n - w a t e r for the r e m o v a l of c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s t h a t the h a n d s are sanctified (not m e r e l y cleansed of uncleanness, with sunset r e q u i r e d to c o m p l e t e the process of purification) even for eating f o o d in t h e status of priestly rations? W h a t I h e a r f r o m the H a l a k h a h is the s t a t e m e n t , d e a t h is ever-present, if n o t 111 w h a t is t o u c h e d , t h e n in w h a t h a s t o u c h e d w h a t is t o u c h e d o r in w h a t h a s t o u c h e d that. So the h a n d s are always in the second r e m o v e of u n cleanness, m e a n i n g , d e a t h is always j u s t a few steps a w a y f r o m contact with w h a t is m e a n t to be kept holy, clear of d e a t h . A n d t h a t is— 111 the context of the h a n d s a n d w h e n they are s a n c t i f i e d — f o o d for t h e n o u r i s h m e n t of Israel. But d e a t h a n d all t h a t d e a t h overspreads c a n b e kept b e y o n d the b o u n d a r y of the h o u s e h o l d table b y deliberate action d e f i n e d by p e r p e t u a l c o n c e r n : the right intention, esped a i l y for the meal. So with t h a t first bite of b r e a d at the meal, the stakes are very high i n d e e d . I n e e d h a r d l y note, to Scripture, these c o n c e p t i o n s are simply b e y o n d all imagining. Yet it is Scripture t h a t has d e f i n e d the category a n d p r o v i d e d the facts t h a t t h e O r a l T o r a h h a s r e c o n f i g u r e d into o n e of its m o s t p r o f o u n d s t a t e m e n t s t h a t the d y n a m i c s of sanctification e m b o d y the struggle of life a n d d e a t h , p u r p o s e a n d creation, aimlessness a n d chaos. A simple conclusion follows f r o m the law of Y a d a y i m . N a t u r e is c r e a t e d for a p u r p o s e , w h i c h is life, a n d w h e n n a t u r e d o e s n o t c a r r y o u t its p u r p o s e , d e a t h results; the condition of sanctification d e n o t e s life, uncleanness, d e a t h . T h e n , w e m a y say, uncleanness, a n ontological condition, c o m e s a b o u t in c o n s e q u e n c e of u n r e a l i z e d teleology. A n d that brings

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

147

us to the climactic a c h i e v e m e n t of reconfiguration on the p a r t of the O r a l T o r a h in its dialogue with the W r i t t e n T o r a h , Z a b i m a n d N i d d a h , to which we n o w t u r n .

g. Zjibnn and Niddah Like the corpse, the Z a b a n d Z a b a h a n d the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n disseminate c o n t a m i n a t i o n in b o t h the familiar w a y — t h r o u g h touching or b e i n g t o u c h e d — a n d otherwise, e.g., intangible dissemination t h r o u g h positioning or o v e r s h a d o w i n g . T h e Z a b o r Z a b a h transmits u n c l e a n n e s s to that o n which they sit o r lie, even t h o u g h they d o n o t t o u c h the c h a i r or bed. T h e H a l a k h i c givens derive m a i n l y f r o m first, Lev. 12:1-8, for the w o m a n a f t e r childbirth, t h e n Lev. 15:1-33, enc o m p a s s i n g in a single s t a t e m e n t b o t h the llux (zob) of the Z a b a n d the Z a b a h , a n d semen a n d m e n s t r u a l blood, t h a t is, excretions of the sexual o r g a n s that d o not, a n d that do, p e r t a i n to the cycle of p r o creation, the f o r m e r breaking, the latter establishing, that cycle. Scripture's point of e m p h a s i s t h r o u g h o u t is o n three matters, [1] the c h a r a c t e r of the discharge that signifies ilux-uncleanness, [2] the effects of the status of uncleanness: objects that are subject to u n c l e a n ness, a n d [3] h o w the uncleanness is t r a n s m i t t e d ; a n d the m o d e of purification a n d a t t e n d a n t cultic rite signifying the regaining of the n o r m a l status of cleanness. T h e contribution of the O r a l T o r a h in the articulation of these facts proves not only f o r m i d a b l e b u t intellectually fructifying, as sages explore the considerations of teleology e m b e d d e d in Scripture's o w n s t a t e m e n t of the m a t t e r . W h e t h e r sages h a v e p e n e t r a t e d into the logic i n h e r e n t in the W r i t t e n T o r a h ' s H a l a k h a h , or w h e t h e r they h a v e b r o u g h t to b e a r a set of considerations all their o w n in ref r a m i n g the inherited T o r a h into the dense a n d subtle f o r m a t i o n that they set forth, r e m a i n s to be seen. 111 the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h we deal with s e m e n o r vaginal blood that c a n n o t carry o u t the p u r pose that b y n a t u r e the o n e o r the o t h e r realizes, w h i c h is participation in the process of p r o c r e a t i n g life. S u c h n o n - p r o d u c t i v e s e m e n , such vaginal flow outside of the n o r m a l cycle of p r o c r e a t i o n — t h e s e violate their own i n n a t e teleology. T h e y d o so o n their o w n , n o t by m a n ' s or w o m a n ' s intervention. O f such violations of the n a t u r a l law a n d the purposive definition of the m e d i a of p r o c r e a t i o n , the Israelite h o u s e h o l d e r has to take heed. If he wishes to preserve the cleanness of the h o u s e h o l d , its f o o d , a n d (in the present case) its beds a n d

148

C H A P T E R ONE

chairs, h e will n o t i n t r o d u c e into his h o u s e h o l d either gentiles as a rule o r Israelites as a n exception. So we shall w o n d e r w h a t is special a b o u t the b e d a n d c o m p a r a b l e objects t h a t subjects those objects to a p a r t i c u l a r kind of uncleanness, t r a n s m i t t i n g in a quite distinctive way: using those objects for the p u r p o s e for w h i c h they are m a n u f a c t u r e d . T h a t classification of uncleanness, called midras- o r pressure-uncleanness, pertains only to objects t h a t o r d i n a r y a r e used to b e a r weight o r pressure, t h a t is, b e d s a n d chairs a n d things a n a l o g o u s to t h e m . T h e H a l a k h a h of K e l i m rules that objects n o t used for sitting o r lying, e.g., pots a n d p a n s , are n o t susceptible to the midras- o r p r e s s u r e - u n c l e a n n e s s t r a n s m i t t e d b y a Z a b o r a Z a b a h , so the question is a real o n e . A n d m i d r a s is a severe uncleanness, c o m p a r a b l e to the c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s that affects receptacles a n d persons, r e q u i r i n g a p e r i o d of seven days in w h i c h the source of u n c l e a n n e s s does n o t r e n e w itself, o n the o n e side, a n d a rite of purification in the T e m p l e , o n the other. Accordingly, in Z a b i m we deal with the a n i m a t e f o r m of u n c l e a n n e s s t h a t falls into the classification of the c o u n t e r p a r t i n a n i m a t e f o r m , t h a t is, zob (flux) c o m p a r e s with c o r p s e - m a t t e r , the Z a b o r the Z a b a h with the corpse. A n d , the logic of the H a l a k h a h requires, t h e m e d i a of dissemination will p r o v e c o m p a r a b l e as well. At issue in the distinction b e t w e e n m e n s t r u a l o r n i d d a h - b l o o d a n d z i b a h - b l o o d is the c h a r a c t e r of a w o m a n ' s vaginal secretions o r blood: w h e n does it a p p e a r , h o w is it classified? T h e distinction between m e n s t r u a l o r N i d d a h - b l o o d a n d Z i b a h - b l o o d , the f o r m e r p a r t of the procreative cycle, the latter not, yields very little difference in actuality, except at the p o i n t of purification. T h e o n e is vaginal blood t h a t flows d u r i n g the w o m a n ' s established m e n s t r u a l cycle. T h e o t h e r is vaginal blood that flows d u r i n g the eleven clean days b e t w e e n o n e cycle a n d a n o t h e r ; these are called Z i b a h - d a y s , in t h a t blood that flows d u r i n g the eleven days b e t w e e n m e n s t r u a l cycles is d e e m e d as we h a v e a l r e a d y established in the H a l a k h a h of Z a b i m . I n s o m e w a y s — t h o s e that h a v e to d o with actualities—the two types of vaginal flow are c o m p a r a b l e , in others, they contrast. T h e m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n a n d the Z a b a h convey u n c l e a n n e s s t h r o u g h t o u c h , a n d b o t h serve as F a t h e r s of uncleanness, setting into the first r e m o v e of u n cleanness w h a t e v e r they t o u c h . O n e w h o t o u c h e s w h a t they have lain u p o n or sat u p o n immerses, awaits sunset, a n d is t h e n clean. As to sexual relations, the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n i m p a r t s h e r o w n status to the o n e with w h o m she h a s sexual relations, a n d h e i m p a r t s pressureu n c l e a n n e s s by sitting a n d lying as well. As to the Z a b a h , t o u c h i n g

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

149

p r o d u c e s the s a m e result; n o provision is m a d e for sexual relations. A cultic purification-rite is p r o v i d e d for her, b u t n o t for the m e n s t r u a t ing w o m a n , w h o , at the e n d of h e r period, simply i m m e r s e s a n d waits f o r sunset. S h e is t h e n in the first r e m o v e , h e r p e r i o d h a v i n g coneluded. So while the concrete effects of the respective sources of vaginal u n c l e a n n e s s coincide, the purification-rite contrasts sharply. T h e Z a b a h purifies herself in a blood-rite at t h e t a b e r n a c l e . T h e purification-rite, n o t r e q u i r e d for the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n , m a r k s the w o m a n as suitable to r e e n t e r the procreative cycle; the flux h a s rem o v e d h e r f r o m that cycle, the cessation signifies h e r suitability o n c e m o r e . W e have, therefore, to distinguish N i d d a h - f r o m Z i b a h - b l o o d T h e facts at h a n d suffice to show that Z i b a h - b l o o d signifies a n a b e r r a t i o n in the procreative cycle, N i d d a h - b l o o d proves integral to that cycle. T h e o n e is irregular a n d disrupts n o r m a l sexual relations, m a r k i n g the w o m a n as o n e w h o , at t h a t point, m a y n o t r e p r o d u c e life (any m o r e t h a n , f r o m sages' view, the s e m e n e m i t t e d by a flaccid penis can r e p r o d u c e life). T h e o t h e r is regular, integral to the n o r m a l sexual cycle, a n d m a r k s the w o m a n as o n e wholly integrated to the cycle of r e p r o d u c t i o n . T h e n the entire s e q u e n c e — e l e v e n Z i b a h - d a y s , seven N i d d a h - d a y s — f o r m s a n a c c o u n t of the w o m a n ' s relationship to the procreative cycle, w h i c h involves three possibilities: she wholly participates, h a v i n g sexual relations, receiving s e m e n a n d n o t emitting blood; she is wholly excluded, n o t h a v i n g sexual relations at all, a n d she is t e m p o r a r i l y excluded b u t r e m a i n s sexually accessible, which is w h y the T o r a h m a k e s provision for the status of o n e w h o , in h e r period, does have sexual relations with her. T h e c h a r a c t e r of £ob a n d of its flow guides us to the center of the religious world-view at h a n d . It is genital discharge that by its n a t u r e c a n n o t accomplish t h a t for which it is created, its p u r p o s e o r teleology. 111 a w o r d , the physical world p o r t r a y e d here finds its definitive traits in the teleology of things, w h i c h yields the meetings a n d the m a t c h i n g s that p r o d u c e the H a l a k h a h of Z a b i m . T h e uncleanness g e n e r a t e d by sexual fluids t h a t d o n o t realize their teleology passes via pressure, a n a l o g o u s to that of the sexual relation, to objects that serve for sexuality. W h e n the teleological physics of sexual fluids accomplish their goal, they b r i n g a b o u t life. T h e n , consequently, a m i n o r u n c l e a n n e s s is b r o u g h t a b o u t by s e m e n properly ejaculated, a n d so too with vaginal blood of a n episodic c h a r a c t e r outside the regular period. W h e n the teleology—the p r o c r e a t i o n of life—of the

150

C H A P T E R ONE

sexual parts, e n c o m p a s s i n g f u r t h e r the objects used for sexual intercourse, a n d e x t e n d i n g even to t h e activities a n d exertions c h a r a c t e r istic thereof, including t h e exertion of weight or pressure in coitus— w h e n t h a t teleology is n o t realized, t h e n severe u n c l e a n n e s s results, c o m p a r a b l e to the u n c l e a n n e s s of seven days that the corpse exudes. T h a t u n c l e a n n e s s t h e n o v e r s p r e a d s each of the c o m p o n e n t s of p r o creation t h a t h a s n o t realized its p u r p o s e : [ 11 t h e fluid itself, n o w source of u n c l e a n n e s s a n a l o g o u s to corpseuncleanness; [2] the activity, exerting pressure, n o w m e d i u m for disseminating n o t life b u t uncleanness, a n d [3] the b e d a n d a n a l o g o u s objects, n o w the focus of n o t p r o c r é a tive activity b u t c o n t a m i n a t i o n . N o w , n o t realizing their tasks within the i d e o l o g i c a l physics at hand: [1] the fluid is u n c l e a n , [2] the b e d a n d a n a l o g o u s objects b e c o m e the u n i q u e foci of the u n c l e a n n e s s of said fluid, a n d [3] the activity—pressure—serves as the m e d i u m n o t of life b u t of anti-life, such as, we n o w realize, cultic u n c l e a n n e s s disseminated t h r o u g h m i d r a s - u n c l e a n n e s s in p a r t i c u l a r represents. H o w are we to c o m p a r e a n d contrast the u n c l e a n n e s s of the soul, the seven-day u n c l e a n n e s s of the corpse a n d c o r p s e - m a t t e r , with the u n c l e a n n e s s of £ob? W h e n we e x a m i n e , the u n c l e a n n e s s e x u d i n g f r o m the Z a b or Z a b a h , e n c o m p a s s i n g n o t only the flux itself, w h e t h e r s e m e n o r blood, b u t the body-fluids, e.g., the spit, the urine, of a person so afflicted, we find a n interesting fact. Z o b does n o t constitute a F a t h e r of F a t h e r s of U n c l e a n n e s s as the corpse does. T h e Z a b a h o r Z a b is a F a t h e r of uncleanness, c o n t a m i n a t i n g the garm e n t s a n d utensils of s o m e o n e w h o touches h e r o r h i m , also those things t h a t b e a r h e r o r his weight. T h e s e a r e m a d e u n c l e a n in the first r e m o v e . So the virulence of the escaping soul vastly exceeds t h a t of the genital excretions t h a t d o n o t realize their p u r p o s e . N o w h o w a r e we to differentiate t h e gaseous corpse-uncleanness, which does n o t r e s p o n d to pressure, f r o m c o m p a r a b l e £o£-uncleanness, w h i c h does? A difference in (imagined) viscosity o u g h t to explain matters. C o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s flows within a g u i d i n g f r a m e w o r k ( u n d e r prèssure, spurts u p w a r d a n d d o w n w a r d , we recall). But it does n o t p e r m e ate a n d pass t h r o u g h i n t e r v e n i n g fabric ("tent") o r o t h e r materials. ^0Â-unc1eanness u n d e r pressure is n o t g u i d e d a l o n g the lines of t h a t

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

151

w h i c h conveys the p r e s s u r e — t h e tent for e x a m p l e — b u t flows right into, a n d t h r o u g h , the fabric or o t h e r material that contains it. H e n c e seen in physical terms, the f o r m e r is dense, glutinous a n d semifluid, the latter a t t e n u a t e d , spare a n d light. But those physical traits o n their o w n d o n o t suffice to explain the difference as to the m o d e s of m o v e m e n t b e t w e e n the uncleanness e x u d i n g f r o m the corpse a n d that e m i t t e d by the sexual organs, m a l e or female. Specifically, w h y should the latter classification of u n c l e a n ness flow so as to pass t h r o u g h the stone o n which the Z a b exerts pressure t h r o u g h direct c o n t a c t , as well as weight, to the b e d ben e a t h , o n which the Z a b exerts pressure n o t t h r o u g h c o n t a c t b u t only t h r o u g h weight? W h y should a receptacle c o n t a i n corpse-uncleanness b u t n o t the uncleanness of £ob, t h a t is, w h y should a receptacle be u n a f f e c t e d by midras- o r pressure u n c l e a n n e s s of a Z a b o r Z a b a h ? Asked in that way, the question bears its o w n answer. W e deal in £'ob with a kind of u n c l e a n n e s s that m a t c h e s , that responds to, its o w n origin, assignment, a n d c h a r a c t e r : origin in sexual organs, assignm e n t , p r o c r e a t i o n , a n d c h a r a c t e r d e f i n e d by a dysfunction in those organs. Sexually-generated fluid t h a t , by (sages') definition c a n n o t accomplish the p u r p o s e that, by n a t u r e , sexually-generated fluid is supposed to a c h i e v e — p r o c r e a t i o n of life—affects, as we n o t e d 111 a n o t h e r context, those sorts of objects that serve sexually, ones used for lying a n d the like, b u t not those sorts of objects that u n d e r n o r m a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s d o n o t serve sexually, receptacles, for e x a m p l e . T h a t brings us to the p a r a d o x i c a l fact of the H a l a k h a h that overs h a d o w i n g serves c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s a n d ^06-uncleanness, b u t with p o w e r f u l distinctions, a n d each in its o w n way. W h a t o v e r s h a d o w s a corpse c o n t r a c t s corpse-uncleanness, a n d w h a t a corpse o v e r s h a d o w s is c o n t a m i n a t e d by corpse-uncleanness. T h a t is w i t h o u t r e g a r d to the c h a r a c t e r of the objects. W e d o not, f u r t h e r m o r e , differentiate between the two locations of the corpse relative to the object in relationship thereto. So locative relationship a n d substantive c h a r a c t e r play n o role in the transmission of c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s t h r o u g h overs h a d o w i n g . T h e corpse that o v e r s h a d o w s o r is o v e r s h a d o w e d p r o duces its effects w i t h o u t r e g a r d to w h a t is affected. But that is n o t h o w m a t t e r s are with ^o^-uncleanness. H e r e w e d o differentiate, in the situation of o v e r s h a d o w i n g , between the c h a r a c t e r of classes of objects. A n d , c o n c o m i t a n t l y , we also differentiate locatively, b e t w e e n the two locations that said classes of objects take u p : above, below the Z a b . So we have two variables as to the c h a r a c t e r of objects, a n d two

152

C H A P T E R ONE

variables as to their location, a n d , f u r t h e r , these variables p r o d u c e opposite results, the locative for the substantive, as t h e case requires. H e r e again, a teleological logic c o m e s into play t h r o u g h analogical-contrastive dialectics, t h e n , with the things t h a t e n j o y their n a t u ral relationship to the Z a b subject to his effect, those not, not; a n d t h e n the opposite c o m e s into force: w h a t the Z a b c a n n o t use f o r lying t h a t is located w h e r e the Z a b c a n n o t lie d o w n is affected by the Z a b ! So considerations of fulfilling the physical p u r p o s e for w h i c h the t h i n g is s h a p e d take over, even here. T o state m a t t e r s simply: teleological physics dictates the course of c o n t a m i n a t i o n by £ob a n d the results, for things affected by t h a t c o n t a m i n a t i o n , as well. A n d it is a simple teleology, w h i c h we identified at the very outset: w h a t serves for p r o c r e a t i o n is distinguished, in respect to , ^ - u n c l e a n n e s s , f r o m w h a t does not. A n d the rest follows. W h a t w e c o n f r o n t , therefore, is a physics p e r m e a t e d by teleology: t h e flow of fluids in response to the condition o r p u r p o s e of t h a t to w h i c h , or f r o m w h i c h , they flow, a n d n o t in response only to their o w n c h a r a c t e r , e.g., to the density of the a t o m s t h a t c o m p r i s e the fluid a n d define its viscosity. T h a t w h i c h m a t c h e s the c h a r a c t e r of a n object o r its p u r p o s e flows to t h a t object o r its p u r p o s e , a n d the invisible flow itself c o n f o r m s to t h e c h a r a c t e r of the activity cond u c t e d with said object. T h e b e d , used for lying o r sitting, t h e n is affected by pressure, carried o n in acts of lying o r sitting; the particular u n c l e a n n e s s at h a n d , sexual excretions in a n o n - p r o c r e a t i v e f r a m e w o r k , affects those objects that by their n a t u r e serve, t h r o u g h those actions that by their n a t u r e p r o d u c e , p r o c r e a t i o n . W h e n sexual activity b e a r i n g the potential of p r o c r e a t i o n takes place, a transient u n c l e a n n e s s results—that of h e a l t h y s e m e n , w h i c h passes u p o n i m m e r s i o n a n d sunset, as Scripture says. W h e n sexual excretions lacking that potential take place, a virulent u n c l e a n n e s s takes over, life replaced by anti-life, by a f o r m of d e a t h nearly as virulent as the d e a t h t h a t takes over the life of a m a n a n d causes the excretion of the soul. T h e soul of the fully-realized m a n or w o m a n is thick, the unrealized, proto-soul of £ob, thin. But the f o r m e r c a n be c o n t a i n e d i n physical limits, as it was in the b o d y , while the latter flows teleologically, its c h a r a c t e r a n d t h e r e f o r e its p u r p o s e overriding the substantive, physical traits, or physical traits r e s p o n d i n g to teleological m a t c h e s (whichever f o r m u l a t i o n b e t t e r serves). Intentionality plays n o role in the capacity to t r a n s m i t u n c l e a n n e s s i m p u t e d to the a n i m a t e beings; the corpse transmits u n c l e a n n e s s ex

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

153

opere operato, f r o m the m o m e n t of d e a t h , a b o u t which the deceased was n o t consulted, a n d so too the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n , m a n afflicted with flux or the Z a b , a n d the w o m a n o r the Z a b a h afflicted with flux outside of h e r regular p e r i o d , effect u n c l e a n n e s s willy-nilly. T h e w o m a n ' s p e r i o d does n o t d e p e n d u p o n h e r intentionality. A n d equally probatively, the O r a l T o r a h lays great stress t h a t the flux of the Z a b a n d t h e Z a b a h t h a t bears the p o w e r to c o n t a m i n a t e — s e m e n f r o m the one, blood f r o m t h e o t h e r — m a k e its a p p e a r a n c e o n its o w n . T h e blood or s e m e n m u s t c o m e a b o u t w i t h o u t the c o n n i v a n c e of the afflicted party. T h e teleological principle that p e r m e a t e s the whole u n d e r s c o r e s the exclusion of m a n ' s or w o m a n ' s will. As to w h a t contracts uncleanness, m a n disposes, b u t as to w h a t i m p a r t s uncleanness, n a t u r e imposes. 111 the H a l a k h a h of t h e O r a l T o r a h we deal with s e m e n o r vaginal blood that c a n n o t carry o u t the p u r p o s e t h a t by n a t u r e the o n e o r the o t h e r realizes, w h i c h is participation in the process of p r o c r e a t i n g life. S u c h n o n - p r o d u c t i v e s e m e n , such vaginal flow outside of the n o r m a l cycle of p r o c r e a t i o n — t h e s e violate their o w n i n n a t e teleology. T h e y d o so o n their o w n , n o t by m a n ' s o r w o m a n ' s intervention. O f such violations of the n a t u r a l law a n d the purposive definition of the m e d i a of p r o c r e a t i o n , the Israelite househ o l d e r h a s to take h e e d . If h e wishes to preserve the cleanness of the h o u s e h o l d , its f o o d , a n d (in the present case) its beds a n d chairs, he will n o t i n t r o d u c e into his h o u s e h o l d either gentiles as a rule o r Israelites as a n exception. W h a t is special a b o u t the b e d a n d c o m p a r a b l e objects t h a t subjects those objects to a particular kind of uncleanness, t r a n s m i t t i n g in a quite distinctive way? It is using those objects for the p u r p o s e for w h i c h they are m a n u f a c t u r e d . T h a t classification of uncleanness, called m i d r a s - o r pressure-uncleanness, pertains only to objects t h a t o r d i n a r y a r e used to b e a r weight o r pressure, that is, beds a n d chairs a n d things a n a l o g o u s to t h e m . T h e H a l a k h a h of K e l i m rules t h a t objects n o t used f o r sitting o r lying, e.g., pots a n d p a n s , are not susceptible to the m i d r a s - o r pressure-uncleanness t r a n s m i t t e d by a Z a b o r a Z a b a h , so the question is a real one. A n d m i d r a s is a severe uncleanness, c o m p a r a b l e to the c o r p s e - u n c l e a n n e s s t h a t affects receptacles a n d persons, r e q u i r i n g a p e r i o d of seven days in w h i c h the source of uncleanness does n o t r e n e w itself, o n the o n e side, a n d a rite of purification 111 the T e m p l e , o n the other. Accordingly, in Z a b i m we deal with the a n i m a t e f o r m of u n c l e a n n e s s t h a t falls into the classification of the c o u n t e r p a r t i n a n i m a t e f o r m , that is, zob (flux)

154

C H A P T E R ONE

c o m p a r e s with c o r p s e - m a t t e r , the Z a b o r t h e Z a b a h with the corpse. A n d , the logic of the H a l a k h a h requires, the m e d i a of dissemination will p r o v e c o m p a r a b l e as well. All of this represents a r e m a r k a b l y i n d e p e n d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of Scripture's topic.

X X I . Original Variations on Borrowed Themes N o w c o m e s a m e t a p h o r f r o m music. G r e a t c o m p o s e r s find pleasure in taking over t h e m e s of predecessors a n d t h r o u g h d a r i n g a n d imagin a t i o n entirely r e n e w i n g t h e m , B e n j a m i n Britten's variations o n a t h e m e by Purcell b e i n g a c o m m o n l y - f a m i l i a r case. V a r i a t i o n s o n t h e m e s supply a n a p t a n a l o g y for the O r a l T o r a h ' s reconfigurations in the r a t h e r subtle exercises in the cases b e f o r e us. In t h e m w e identify w h a t is p a r t i c u l a r to the O r a l T o r a h even in its re-presentation of the available categories a n d laws. W i t h o u t f u r t h e r a d o , I a d o p t the classification-system a l r e a d y set forth, w h i c h e n c o m p a s s e s all of the cases b e f o r e us in o n e of three category-formations. Restoring Eden Israel d e m o n s t r a t e s it h a s l e a r n e d the lessons of E d e n , restoring o n its o w n in the L a n d t h e world lost t h r o u g h rebellion. Israel o r d e r s the L a n d , all things in their correct classification, as G o d o r d e r e d E d e n . At O r l a h , m a n works o u t t h e s e q u e n c e of creation, r e e n a c t i n g the d r a m a over the fruit tree, n o w with a different o u t c o m e . At T e b u l Y o m the p a t t e r n of the e n d of o n e d a y a n d b e g i n n i n g of the next, at sunset, takes over, with t h e message t h a t the n e w d a y restores t h e n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n , the condition of cleanness, to w h a t h a s b e e n m a d e unclean. Man's Attitude T h e Israelite has the p o w e r by a n act of will to sanctify w h a t is susceptible of sanctification, as m u c h as h e h a s t h e p o w e r by a n act of will to r e n d e r susceptible to u n c l e a n n e s s w h a t falls within t h e r e a l m of cleanness o r uncleanness. T e r u m o t works o u t the t h e m e that a n act of will c o n f i r m e d by a c o n c r e t e d e e d sanctifies w h a t is secular. G o d ' s intentionality governs the disposition of w h a t is sanctified. H e r e o n c e m o r e we follow m a n ' s s u b o r d i n a t i o n of his will to G o d ' s will. W h e n , at Kilayim, t h e O r a l T o r a h amplifies a n d clarifies t h e

THF. MISHNAH AND SCRIPTURE

155

facts of Scripture within the f r a m e w o r k d e f i n e d by Scripture, it lays d o w n t h e j u d g m e n t t h a t a p p e a r a n c e takes priority over actuality, m e a n i n g , m a n ' s perspective o n m a t t e r s d e t e r m i n e s h o w things are j u d g e d . T h e issue is correct classification, the p r o p e r o r d e r i n g of the L a n d , a n d the p r o b l e m a t i c , h o w to resolve cases that d e p e n d u p o n m a n ' s attitude. M a n ' s intentionality supplies the key to the classification of fruit-trees in O r l a h . W h e n it c o m e s to uncleanness, a m a t t e r t h a t is i m p u t e d a n d not intrinsic, m a n ' s intentionality plays a role, so we see at T e b u l Y o m . Specifically, h e stays alert a n d pays close attention to the time of day, b e f o r e or a f t e r sunset in particular. C a n a n act expressing a n intent c o n t r a r y to the T o r a h b e a r c o n s e q u e n c e ? N o t at all, T e m u r a h u n d e r s c o r e s , for o n c e o n e h a s declared the i n t e n t to sanctify s o m e t h i n g , the T o r a h does n o t p e r m i t reneging, a n d m a n ' s intent to the c o n t r a r y is null. N o t only so, b u t the T o r a h allows m a n to classify s o m e t h i n g as sacred b u t not to d e t e r m i n e the category, a m o n g the taxa of sanctification, that pertains. Sanctification and Uncleanness H u m a n intentionality plays n o role in m a t t e r s of uncleanness, ind e e d , it is rigidly excluded. But G o d ' s intentionality t h e n governs, a n d w h e n G o d ' s p u r p o s e is n o t carried out, u n c l e a n n e s s c o m e s in c o n s e q u e n c e . At Z a b i m a n d N i d d a h the O r a l T o r a h f r a m e s the cate g o r y - f o r m a t i o n a n d its law into a massive s t a t e m e n t t h a t u n c l e a n ness m a r k s that w h i c h does n o t realize its teleology—blood, s e m e n , the life-force of m a n ' s vitality i n t h a t w h i c h exudes f r o m the b o d y u p o n d e a t h a b o v e all. U n c l e a n n e s s t h e n weighs in the b a l a n c e against sanctification, w h i c h characterizes t h a t w h i c h fully realizes its teleology—Israel is m e a n t to be holy, a n d its cleanness m a r k s its n a t u r a l condition. I n a c c o r d with G o d ' s will, the world of creation a n d Israel within it are m e a n t to be s a n c t i f i e d — a n d the rest follows. H o w does Israel's will t h e n p r o d u c e sanctification a n d c a n Israel's will reverse itself? N o , o n c e Israel by a n act of will sanctifies, t h a t status is irreversible. G o d ' s will takes over. O n c e Israel declares somet h i n g sanctified, it r e m a i n s so; at T e m u r a h , it is m a d e clear, the p o w e r of m a n to classify, a n d so t r a n s f o r m the status of, things of value c o m e s to its o u t e r limit. Israel c a n n o t use l a n g u a g e to reverse t h e result of already-used, t r a n s f o r m a t i v e language. T h e h a n d s are always busy, so b e f o r e o n e touches w h a t is m e a n t to be kept cultically clean, o n e has to "sanctify" the h a n d s , so Y a d a y i m , a n d that m e a n s a n act of deliberation, carried o u t with full intentionality, c o m p a r a b l e

156

C H A P T E R ONE

to the act of collecting w a t e r a n d m i x i n g w a t e r with the ash of the r e d heifer to p r o d u c e purification-water. W h a t is r e q u i r e d to o v e r c o m e u n c l e a n n e s s is a high d e g r e e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n , the use of a utensil, the collection of w a t e r for this p u r p o s e by a n act of will, a n d t h a t is w h a t p r o d u c e s cleanness, in this case, "sanctification of h a n d s . "

CHAPTER TWO T H E M I S H N A H A N D ITS TIMES: T H E T H R E E STAGES IN H A L A K H I C C A T E G O R Y - F O R M A T I O N

I. 771e. Starting Point: Second Temple

Times

T h e H a l a k h i c c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s c o m m e n c e t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t in S e c o n d T e m p l e T i m e s . By " S e c o n d T e m p l e t i m e s , " w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of t h e history of religious ideas, I m e a n , t h e p e r i o d bet w e e n t h e closure of t h e P e n t a t e u c h a n d t h e initial p h a s e s of t h e H a l a k h i c s t r u c t u r e a n d system c u l m i n a t i n g in t h e M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a Yerushalmi-Bavli. T h e year 450 B.C.E. stands for the former, some t i m e b e f o r e a n d s o o n a f t e r 70 C . E . , t h e latter. By " t h e H a l a k h a h , " I m e a n t h e n o r m a t i v e laws of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m . By " R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m " I m e a n t h a t J u d a i s m , a m o n g t h e several Israels a n d t h e i r T o r a h s a n d distinctive t r a d i t i o n s t h a t flourished in late a n t i q u i t y , t h e J u d a i s m t h a t sets f o r t h t h e m y t h of t h e d u a l T o r a h , w r i t t e n a n d oral, r e v e a l e d in w r i t i n g a n d in m e m o r y t h r o u g h f o r m u l a t i o n a n d t r a n s mission f r o m m a s t e r to disciple, by G o d to M o s e s " o u r r a b b i . " T h a t is t h e J u d a i s m t h a t identifies, a m o n g t h e vast c o r p u s of writings p r o d u c e d by v a r i o u s J u d a i s m s of t h e age, as its c a n o n o n l y S c r i p t u r e , t h e M i s h n a h , T a l m u d s , Midrash-compilations, a n d related d o c u m e n t s , all of t h e m m a r k e d by sayings a t t r i b u t e d to specific r a b b i s a n d , w i t h i n t h e system, d e e m e d p a r t of t h e o n e w h o l e T o r a h of o u r r a b b i M o s e s . A m o n g all J u d a i c , a n d e v e n J e w i s h - e t l m i c , writings of a n t i q uity, o n l y R a b b i n i c o n e s cite r a b b i s , a n d t h e y a r e , t h e r e f o r e , t h e o n l y o n e s t h a t tell us w h a t is p a r t i c u l a r to t h a t J u d a i s m . 1 W h a t premises a n d principles that a n i m a t e the M i s h n a h , a n d the H a l a k h a h m o r e generally, o r i g i n a t e d 111 t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n 4 5 0 B . C . E . a n d 70 C . E . , a n d w h a t a r e we a b l e to say a b o u t t h e f o r m a t i v e history of t h e H a l a k h a h t h e r e a f t e r ? T h e s e p r e m i s e s a n d principles s h a p e d i n t o c o g e n t c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s I i d e n t i f y o u t of t h e p a r t i c u 1

One may wish even to claim, it is in particular that Judaism that privileged the Pentateuch among the writings of Scripture, but for the present purpose such a claim need not be entered, though I think it can be defended.

158

CHAPTER

ONE

lar cases a n d e x a m p l e s of the H a l a k h a h t h a t c a n be s h o w n t h r o u g h the correlation of attributions a n d logical progression to b e l o n g to the p e r i o d b e f o r e 70, or, in s o m e cases, to f o r m the f o u n d a t i o n s of cases a n d e x a m p l e s in the earliest phases of the H a l a k h a h b e y o n d 70. W h e n we w o r k systematically f o r w a r d f r o m the P e n t a t e u c h a n d b a c k w a r d f r o m the earliest phases of the M i s h n a h ' s H a l a k h a h , w e designate t e m p o r a l limits of the history of ideas, fore a n d aft. T h u s the closure of the P e n t a t e u c h serves as the starting p o i n t o r t e r m i n u s a quo, a n d the b e g i n n i n g of the articulation of the H a l a k h a h at its logically-primitive base of the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a (here t r e a t e d for the present p u r p o s e as correlative) as the e n d - p o i n t o r terminus ante quem, that is to say, the final d e c a d e s of S e c o n d T e m p l e times. W h y ca. 70? F o r most, t h o u g h not all, the categorical structures of the H a l a k h a h , points of disputed law rest o n u n d i s p u t e d premises that originate a m o n g authorities at the b e g i n n i n g of the H a l a k h i c process in late S e c o n d T e m p l e times. T h e s e u n d i s p u t e d premises f o r m the f o u n d a t i o n s for the structure of law c u l m i n a t i n g in the M i s h n a h , T o s e f t a , b a r a i t a - c o r p u s , Y e r u s h a l m i , a n d Bavli. History of ideas in a n y familiar sense, establishing a s e q u e n c e in w h i c h ideas took s h a p e in succession a n d identifying a given idea with a d e t e r m i n a t e time, place, a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e , does n o t e m e r g e for S e c o n d T e m p l e times, w h i c h I treat as a n u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d span of time. W h i l e the ideas I identify certainly h a d to h a v e taken shape, in the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n in which we n o w k n o w t h e m , b e t w e e n ca. 4 5 0 B.C.E. a n d ca. 70 C . E . , I h a v e n o n o t i o n of w h e n , in t h a t halfm i l l e n n i u m , a given c o n c e p t i o n g e r m i n a t e d a n d s p r o u t e d n o r , in p a r t i c u l a r context, why. 1 d o n o t even k n o w w h e r e . N o r d o I claim t h a t these ideas are p a r t i c u l a r to the circles the successors of w h i c h p r o d u c e d the writings of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m , only that, in those writings, these ideas f o r m critical c o m p o n e n t s of the R a b b i n i c system. F o r t h a t long p e r i o d we h a v e n o plausible evidence of n a m e d a u thorities, t o g e t h e r with issues they c o n f r o n t e d o r ideas they held. But w h a t I d o p r o m i s e is to describe the m a i n points a n d identify w h e r e in the H a l a k h a h they surface. It follows that I a m w o r k i n g with two b o u n d a r i e s , t h e n , the p o i n t from (or after) which a n idea can have e m e r g e d , a n d a point before which it m u s t h a v e r e a c h e d articulation (if n o t in w o r d s we n o w have). Sages c a n n o t h a v e b e g u n their work prior to the P e n t a t e u c h , a n d sages h a d to h a v e c o m p l e t e d the processes of thinking outlined h e r e by 70: t h a t is w h a t I allege.

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

159

T h e f o r m e r hardly requires amplification. T h e P e n t a t e u c h viewed as a c o h e r e n t system m a r k s for the H a l a k h a h of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m (also seen as a system) the sole possible starting point, the a quo. T o be sure, n o o n e would claim that the generally-prevailing date for the P e n t a t e u c h of the late sixth t h r o u g h the mid-fifth centuries B.C.E. also tells us w h e n everything within the P e n t a t e u c h originated as well. But it does tell us w h e n the system seen whole initially m a d e its a p p e a r a n c e . N o r would a n y o n e allege that facts, conceptions, or o t h e r d a t a e n c o m p a s s e d within the H a l a k h a h of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m originate solely in Scripture; the opposite has been shown m a n y times over. Cultural artifacts f r o m diverse times a n d places f o r m e d a c o m m o n heritage of culture in the N e a r a n d M i d d l e East. But in the context of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m , these c o m m o n p l a c e s of civilized transactions take o n c o n s e q u e n c e for the study of that system only within the f r a m e w o r k of that s y s t e m — a truism, a n established p o i n t hardly d e m a n d i n g amplification. W h a t is at issue therefore is not w h e r e a n d w h e n episodic facts originate, b u t h o w a n d w h y facts are taken over a n d p u t together into that r e m a r k a b l y cogent structure a n d system of t h o u g h t that is e m b o d i e d by the H a l a k h a h of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m thus the a quo of the P e n t a t e u c h , which, privileged by R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m , at the starting point dictated the structure a n d system of that J u d a i s m in their principal lines of structure a n d order. W h a t a b o u t the point before which, or by which, a given principle h a d to have attained authoritative status within the circles of sages, that is, the ad. quem? It is indicated n o t by the a p p e a r a n c e of the M i s h n a h , in ca. 200 C.E., b u t by the very initial m a r k s of the beginnings of t h o u g h t that ultimately yielded the H a l a k h a h (whether expressed in the M i s h n a h or set forth only in subsequent compilations). 2 Given the verifiable aspects of the attributions of sayings to a u t h o r i ties—I shall explain presently h o w we can show a correlation between the order, by generations, of sages a n d the sequence, in logic, of w h a t is a t t r i b u t e d — t h e beginnings of the M i s h n a i c law also m a r k s the e n d - p o i n t of the g e n e r a l l y - u n d o c u m e n t e d age. T h e n — i n general by 7 0 — i m p o r t a n t categorical issues were settled a n d the generative p r o b l e m a t i c of a variety of subjects identified. O n that basis, o n the 2 My The Halakhah. An Encyclopaedia of the Law of Judaism (Leiden, 1999: Brill) treats the Halakhah, not only the Halakhah of the Mishnah, hence the formulation given here. But nearly the whole of the Halakhah of formative Rabbinic Judaism occurs in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, only a small portion of the entire complex first surfacing in categorical terms in die two Talmuds, and that fact has long been known among historians of the Halakhah.

160

CHAPTER

ONE

f o u n d a t i o n s of ideas set forth here, the work that p r o d u c e d the H a l a k h a h as we should k n o w it got u n d e r w a y in the age before a n d a f t e r 70. W i t h w h a t d o I deal in particular? It is with the processes of t h o u g h t , the period of f e r m e n t a t i o n , of ideas f o u n d e d o n the Pentateuch b u t n o t articulated therein, or not f o u n d e d o n the P e n t a t e u c h at all, a n d those taken as givens. So for S e c o n d T e m p l e time I p o r tray the premises of the H a l a k h a h a n d the bases for its articulation a n d d e v e l o p m e n t as d o c u m e n t e d in the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a a n d baraita-corpus. T h e results of those processes can be reconstructed. H o w , exactly, d o I conceive that interim-period in the f o r m a t i o n of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m , between the P e n t a t e u c h a n d the f o u n d a t i o n s of the M i s h n a h (and the Tosefta)? M y c o n c e p t i o n of m a t t e r s is best expressed in the very t e r m s of the H a l a k h a h on which I h a v e b e e n working for thirty years. H e n c e , n o t surprisingly, a H a l a k h i c concept supplies a m e t a p h o r in helping m e to explain the c o n c e p t i o n at work here, the conception of the critical interval between the periods t h a t the successive d o c u m e n t s d e m a r c a t e . M y illustrative m e t a p h o r derives f r o m the H a l a k h a h of the dough-offering, H a l l a h , a n d m a y be stated very simply as e m b o d y i n g the difference between may a n d must a n d explaining it. Specifically, there is a point in the m a k i n g of a loaf of b r e a d at which d o u g h offering m a y be separated (thus: a quo), a n d there is a point at which it m u s t be separated (thus ad quern), a n d w h e n we identify the characteristics of that interval, a time of ferm e n t , between the b e g i n n i n g a n d the e n d of a process, we can u n d e r stand full well precisely the c o n c e p t i o n of this work. So let m e i n t r o d u c e s o m e H a l a k h i c facts. At w h a t p o i n t is it perm i t t e d to designate a p o r t i o n of d o u g h as dough-offering, a n d at w h a t p o i n t is it required to d o so? 3 D o u g h - o f f e r i n g may not be separated, e.g., f r o m d r y flour, b e f o r e the flour h a s been wet d o w n a n d so m a d e into d o u g h . If o n e does so, it is n o t dough-offering. D o u g h offering may be s e p a r a t e d o n c e the flour has b e e n wet d o w n with the yeast a n d the f e r m e n t a t i o n process c o m m e n c e s . W h e n the d o u g h f o r m s a crust in the oven, however, then the d o u g h must yield its dough-offering. I c a n n o t think of a m o r e vivid w a y of linking the obligation to separate d o u g h - o f f e r i n g to the fermentation-process. S u c h a process m u s t be possible—hence the five species b u t n o oth3

T h e same principle takes effect for all manner of tithes, and its counterpart pertains to the inauguration of susceptibility to uncleanness, but that is another story.

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

161

ers—and it must be underway. T h e n the consideration of G o d ' s share in the d o u g h registers. T h e r e are then two b o u n d a r i e s , o n e fore, the o t h e r aft: the point at which liability descends, the m o m e n t at which the liability m u s t be met. A n d w h a t d o the b o u n d a r i e s signify? T h e a n s w e r is, the c o m m e n c e m e n t a n d the conclusion of a process of f e r m e n t a t i o n . T h e f o r m e r comes w h e n the flour is b r o u g h t to life by w a t e r a n d yeast; then the life of the loaf c o m m e n c e s , so G o d ' s claim on the b r e a d registers. T h e d o u g h , w h e n alive a n d e x p a n d i n g , encompasses a share belonging to G o d . By sharing the o u t c o m e of the f e r m e n t a t i o n with G o d , the h o u s e h o l d e r acknowledges life e m b o d i e d in the living processes by w h i c h the b r e a d c o m e s into being, a n d resulting in the presence, within the d o u g h , of a portion subject to sanctification: d o n a t i o n to the priest in the present instance. So that is w h e n the d o u g h offering m a y be separated for the priest. W h a t a b o u t the e n d point? T h e f o r m a t i o n of the crust m a r k s the d e a t h of the yeast. So w h e n the process of f e r m e n t a t i o n has c o m e to a n e n d , with the f o r m a t i o n of the crust a n d the d e a t h of the yeast, then the obligation to give d o u g h - o f f e r i n g m u s t be met. G o d ' s claim c a n n o t be postp o n e d , if m a n wishes to derive benefit f r o m the f e r m e n t a t i o n process, n o w c o n c l u d e d , by eating the b r e a d . N o w briefly to apply the m e t a p h o r to o u r p r o b l e m : [1] the closure of the P e n t a t e u c h marks the starting point of a process of f e r m e n t a tion; [2] the c o m m e n c e m e n t of the d o c u m e n t e d , H a l a k h i c process c u l m i n a t i n g in the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a marks the end. Like that period of f e r m e n t a t i o n f r o m the m i x t u r e of flour, yeast, a n d w a t e r to the f o r m a t i o n of the crust, the period between the Pentateuch a n d the initial f o r m a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h m a r k s a time of r e m a r k a b l e activity, the life of the m i n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the life of the growing n o u r i s h m e n t : b r e a d f r o m the earth m a t c h i n g T o r a h from heaven.

II. Methodological Foundations: Conelating Sequences of Sages with Sequences of Rulings W h a t logic sustains the theoretical a c c o u n t of ideas f r a m e d posterior to the P e n t a t e u c h b u t prior to the earliest identifiable conceptions of the H a l a k h a h that c o m e s to f o r m u l a t i o n in the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a Yerushalmi-Bavli? F r o m the beginning, 111 1972, of m y work o n the

162

CHAPTER

ONE

history of the H a l a k h a h , starting with the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a , I have carried f o r w a r d the a p p r o a c h of the greatest p r a c t i t i o n e r of T a l m u d i c history ever to work in the field, Y. I. Halevy, in his m a g n u m opus, Dorot Rishonim (Vienna a n d Berlin, 1923, in five parts). Addressing the p r o b l e m of the history of the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i in his history of " t h e O r a l T o rah,' ‫ י‬Halevy asked, W h a t is taken for g r a n t e d but n o t subjected to dispute? A n d w h a t is taken for g r a n t e d in such everywhere-taken-forg r a n t e d principles? T h e r e i n he identified the premises of the law, which, in m y o p i n i o n persuasively, he m a i n t a i n e d p r o v i d e d us guida n c e into the state of affairs b e y o n d the limits of the W r i t t e n T o r a h (Pentateuch), looking f o r w a r d but before the M i s h n a h a n d c o g n a t e compilations, looking b a c k w a r d . 1 T o m y knowledge, a m o n g accounts of the history of the H a l a k h a h , H a l e v y was the first to point o u t that the H a l a k h a h as it is articulated by n a m e d sages rests 011 premises that are n o t spelled o u t or subjected to analysis b u t simply taken for g r a n t e d as fact. T h e s e , h e proposes, attest to the state of the H a l a k h a h that is f o r m u l a t e d a n d t r a n s m i t t e d in m e m o r y , by oral tradition. U p o n t h a t solid f o u n dation laid d o w n by Halevy, I constructed m y a c c o u n t of the history of the M i s h n a i c law in the d e c a d e f r o m the 1970s into the earliest 1980s, a n d , then, two d e c a d e s later, m y picture of Scripture a n d the premises of the H a l a k h a h , n o w c o n c l u d e d . I have t h o u g h t a b o u t the m a t t e r for almost a q u a r t e r of a c e n t u r y a n d still find Halevy's app r o a c h compelling. Clearly, a r a t h e r elaborate a n d intellectually dense process has yielded the detailed results systematized here. P e r h a p s a n easier w a y would have o p e n e d u p to the s a m e goal, h a d I a d o p t e d a prevailing rule u p o n which at t h a t time people insisted. It was stated simply: w h a t is a n o n y m o u s is "very early" a n d "goes w a y b a c k . " W i t h that iron rule in h a n d , o n e could describe t h e f o u n d a t i o n s of the H a l a 4

It is noteworthy that he was framing this speculative, hypothetical conceptualization of matters at the very time the great Harry A. Wolfson was forming his counterpart approach to philosophy! But I doubt that either knew about the other. Halevi focused his powerful critique upon the work of the German Wissenschaft des Judenthums, the work of those whom he called, "Hokhmé Ashkenaz," which work he condemned point by point for hundreds of pages. Wolfson framed his logicalhypothetical method in another context entirely. Outside of the circles of Orthodox Judaism whose viewpoint Halevi advocated, Halevi received no hearing; the scholars of Wissenschaft des Judenthums whom he criticized responded by publishing lists of "errors" they found in his writing, but they did not engage with his basic theses, and I do not think they understood enough of the Halakhic texts to understand them.

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

163

kliah out of the a n o n y m o u s statements of the earliest f o r m u l a t i o n s thereof. W h y limit m y a c c o u n t to the uncertainty of the results of logic: this conception must be prior to that, for that question c a n n o t be raised unless this o n e has been settled? or why allege only that that principle presupposes this fact a n d is therefore logically prior to it? W h y not accept the frequently-asserted but rarely-justified principle, w h a t is a n o n y m o u s — d i s p u t e d or not, w h e t h e r in the logical position of a premise o r in the logical position of a p r o p o s i t i o n — b y definition m u s t be "old"? Halevy identified u n d i s p u t e d propositions that f o u n d a position as the premise of all discourse o n a given topic, a n d I followed h i m in m y two m a j o r exercises. But the position that a n o n y m i t y on its own g u a r a n t e e s antiquity represents a different position f r o m Halevy's a n d m i n e . A n d it is not without f o u n d a t i o n s in the sources t h e m selves. T h e d o c u m e n t s ' own a c c o u n t — e . g . , at the c o m m e n c e m e n t of T o s e f t a - t r a c t a t e E d u y y o t — o f the origin of disputes attributes the use of attributions, signaling m o o t e d points, to insufficient learning o n the p a r t of the latter-day sages. So the notion that u n d i s p u t e d sayings a n t e d a t e disputed ones is hardly without its august sponsorship. But I explicitly reject the a p p r o a c h to the same question that identifies as "very o l d " all unassigned sayings of the M i s h n a h a n d subsequent d o c u m e n t s . T h a t a p p r o a c h , characteristic of the intellectually vulgar work of E p h r a i m Ε. U r b a c h (who, in the o n e m e e t i n g I h a d with him, which took place in J u n e , 1976, laid d o w n for m e the iron law of the antiquity of a n o n y m o u s sayings), b u t n o t his alone, insists that w h a t is a n o n y m o u s in the H a l a k h i c d o c u m e n t s must go "way b a c k " — w h e t h e r to Sinai or to Ezra is not t h e n specified. 5 T h r e e considerations, two of reason, the o t h e r of the very c h a r a c ter of the textual evidence, including m a n u s c r i p t variants, as distinct f r o m the allegations f o u n d therein, suggest otherwise. T h a t is, first, for a simple reason of interior logic, the governing convictions of the d o c u m e n t s ' own c h a r a c t e r a n d those of the n a m e d participants therein, c o n c e r n i n g the traditionality of established law. M o s t unassigned sayings in the M i s h n a h o c c u r 111 the context of disputes, in which a n attributed saying a n d an u n a t t r i b u t e d o n e app e a r side by side. W h e n unassigned a n d assigned sayings intersect

5 In that memorable hour, he also instructed me that we have to believe everything we find in the Rabbinic literature unless there is overwhelming reason not to believe. I did not then have the wit to ask him how we might know we were wrong.

164

CHAPTER

ONE

a n d conflict, the conflict attests to n o t the antiquity of o n e of the sayings but the c o n t e m p o r a n e i t y of b o t h sayings, not only the assigned one. T h a t is because, in a system that insists u p o n its own traditionality a n d imposes u p o n disciples the task of exactly m e m o r i z ing the opinions in the masters in their own wording, it is highly unlikely that a n a m e d m a s t e r would reject a received opinion. T h e system's own traditionality points to the opposite position, namely, that the n a m e d m a s t e r differs f r o m a c o n t e m p o r a r y u n n a m e d one. T h e entire c h a r a c t e r of the d o c u m e n t s tells us that innovation not o n the f o u n d a t i o n s of tradition elicited i m m e d i a t e objection, a n d n a m e d persons rarely are represented as s t a n d i n g against the weight of established views. N o t only so, but, second, w h e n we lay out sequences of ideas, p r i m a r y , t h e n secondary, simple a n d primitive, t h e n c o m p l e x a n d articulated, we very c o m m o n l y find an interesting correlation. Assigned sayings given to authorities a s s u m e d to have flourished earlier take the p r i m a r y , the simple, a n d the primitive position in the unfolding of the H a l a k h a h , while those given to authorities a s s u m e d to have flourished later on take the secondary, derivative, a n d c o m p l e x one. T h a t persistent trait again argues against the notion that a later authority would dispute an established view b u t favors the notion that issues settled in o n e generation, principles established then, rarely would be treated as subject to r e n e w e d dispute later on. O n c e a principle is accepted at the beginnings of a H a l a k h i c sequence, authorities w h o flourished later on in the sequence d o not dispute with the established rule, t h o u g h they c o m m o n l y dispute a b o u t its implications. T h e u p s h o t of b o t h facts is, w h e n we have a n a n o n y m o u s a n d a n assigned saying o n the s a m e p r o b l e m , they are likely to represent c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s positions. But there is a third a n d quite substantive, because textual, consideration as well. Sayings a n o n y m o u s in o n e d o c u m e n t are assigned in a n o t h e r to a n a m e d sage. T h a t is a routine process. T h e T o s e f t a will supply a n assigned statement of a H a l a k h i c position that is o p p o s e d to an a n o n y m o u s o n e in the M i s h n a h . O r the T o s e f t a will construct a dispute, the resolution of w h i c h is shown to be represented, o n its o w n , in the M i s h n a h ' s a n o n y m o u s formulation. T h e T a l m u d s , p a r ticularly the Bavli, routinely identify the u n n a m e d authority of a n a n o n y m o u s statement of the M i s h n a h o r the T o s e f t a , using the s t a n d a r d rhetoric, man tanna hadetani, a n d the like. So the governing premises, as distinct f r o m the m e r e allegations, of the R a b b i n i c cor-

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

165

pus itself argues against the t h e o r y that a n o n y m i t y on its o w n signifies antiquity. H e n c e a n y working hypothesis that " w h a t is a n o n y m o u s m u s t be very o l d " c a n n o t play a role in rigorous inquiry. So m u c h for w h a t I m e a n by " S e c o n d T e m p l e times" a n d h o w I claim to k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m at that time.

III. Rabbinic Judaism in Second Temple Times? But t h a t f o r m u l a t i o n begs the obvious question: W h a t can we possibly m e a n w h e n we speak of Rabbinic J u d a i s m before 7 0 — e v e n in the qualifying f o r m u l a t i o n , " p r e - R a b b i n i c " ? I certainly d o not claim that the fully-articulated R a b b i n i c c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n — s t r u c t u r e a n d syst e m — h a d manifested itself before 70. N o o n e has f o u n d evidence for the existence, before 70, of the e m b l e m a t i c m a r k s of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m , w h e t h e r institutional, political, or mythic. I d o n o t even i m a g i n e that that structure a n d system in its full realization could h a v e c o m e a b o u t before the crisis of the m i d - s e c o n d century. But w h a t I aim to show is, w h e n we c o m p a r e the system viewed whole a n d with the elements of the system that c a n have originated in S e c o n d T e m p l e times, we see m o r e t h a n bits a n d pieces b u t a n a d u m b r a t i o n of the whole. T h a t result, f r a m e d in o u r historicistic f r a m e w o r k , will n o t h a v e surprised the sages themselves, w h o could a n d did a c c o m m o d a t e , within the m y t h of the dual T o r a h , a variety of a c c o u n t s of w h a t , in fact, the O r a l T o r a h c o m p r i s e d a n d h o w it defines itself. But, as everyone knows, while taking over a n d m a k i n g its o w n a substantial c o r p u s of d a t a deriving f r o m r e m o t e antiquity o n w a r d a n d f r o m various sources, that J u d a i s m b e g a n to take s h a p e in the d e c a d e s just b e f o r e a n d just a f t e r 70. T h a t Judaism e m e r g e d f r o m the u n i o n of Pharisaism a n d scribism, the o n e a sectarian b o d y a n d doctrine, the o t h e r a profession. T h e initial H a l a k h i c s t a t e m e n t of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m c o m e s to us in the M i s h n a h , a n d its aggadic syst e m in fully-realized f o r m in the T a l m u d of the L a n d of Israel, ca. 4 0 0 C . E . If by R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m we m e a n a cogent system, with its symbolic structure a n d theological system set forth in H a l a k h a h , with its p a r a m o u n t symbol a n d m y t h e m b o d i e d by the a g g a d a h of the d u a l T o r a h , with its r a b b i as sage a n d saint, a n d with its Israel o c c u p i e d with sanctification in the here a n d n o w in the h o p e of salvation t h e n a n d t h e r e — i f that is w h a t we m e a n by R a b b i n i c

166

CHAPTER

ONE

J u d a i s m , then, with nearly the entire world of a c a d e m i c learning,6 I m u s t s a y , w e c a n n o t s p e a k o f Rabbinic J u d a i s m m u c h b e f o r e 7 0 . If t h e P h a r i s e e s f o r m e d a c o h e r e n t social g r o u p w i t h i n t h e politics of p r e - 7 0 I s r a e l , a n d t h e y d i d , a n d if t h e s c r i b e s a p r o f e s s i o n , a n d t h e y d i d , t h e n w h e r e w e find " r a b b i s " in p a r t i c u l a r — o t h e r t h a n those b e a r i n g

a

g e n e r i c title o f h o n o r — I d o n o t k n o w . N o r d o I c o n c e i v e t h a t a n y extant evidence w o u l d suggest otherwise. W h a t we do have are important conceptions that coalesced before the processes of sustained d e v e l o p m e n t

that yielded the

Halakhic

c o n s t r u c t i o n set f o r t h i n t h e M i s h n a h a n d t h e T o s e f t a g o t u n d e r w a y . W e a l s o h a v e i n h a n d c o m p o n e n t s o f t h a t s a m e s y s t e m t h a t is

richly

p o r t r a y e d i n t h e H a l a k h i c c o m p i l a t i o n s . C e r t a i n l y w e m a y find s o m e of the elements that later coalesced in that system a n d structure. T h e scribes c o n t r i b u t e d T o r a h - l e a m i n g a n d the H a l a k h i c m e d i u m .

The

P h a r i s e e s m a d e t h e i r o w n h u g e c o n t r i b u t i o n , t h e i r w a y o f life a n d w o r l d view focused o n sanctification of the h e r e a n d m o d e l of the T e m p l e . T h e practical piety6

scribes' T o r a h - l e a r n i n g ,

n o w in

the

the

Pharisees

these in detail, n o t only in general, f o r m e d principal

I do not take account of the opinions of the yeshiva-, rabbinical-seminary‫״‬, and Israeli-university world, which rest on premises incompatible with those of the academy, being uncritical and yielding paraphrase. Those opinions begin with the affirmation of nearly all attributions, so that if a saying is assigned to a named sage, whatever the date of closure of the document containing the attribution, the man really said it in the time, in the Second Temple period, in which he is supposed to have lived. Again, I do not conceive of a single Judaism, the one we now know in die Rabbinic Judaism, to which all sources, Rabbinic or otherwise, attest (except when they do not). Nor do I treat as a single coherent legal system all rules and laws assigned to Jewish-ethnic origin or provenience, whatever the character of the group in which they originate—a system with a linear history backward to the Torah and forward to the Talmud. None of these convictions has proven tenable, and all scholarship built upon them has to be set aside as, while learned, simply beside the point of critical learning. Until critical premises govern, the theory of a unitary, linear "Jewish law" covering all periods and encompassing all data has simply to be dismissed. T h e rule of thumb, if a rule is early, it cannot be Rabbinic, and if it is Rabbinic, it cannot be early, familiar among scholars of the library found at Qumran, is equally untenable. Laws can be early and can have entered into the circles that produced Rabbinic Judaism and been adopted by them, for their purpose and in the proportion dictated by them. Laws can surface in the later Rabbinic writings that can be shown, also, to have pertained five hundred years earlier, so they can be both Rabbinic and early. T h e issue is, at that early point, what would have marked them as Rabbinic, and within what system will they have found their position and made their point? T h a t is a different question from the one implicit in the cited rule of thumb. Finally, efforts at constructing a continuous and linear account of T h e Halakhah, including the claim to have found "the missing link" between this and that seem to me to evince more enthusiasm than critical judgment. By none of these ephemera are we going to be preoccupied in our inquiry, for reasons fully exposed.

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

167

parts of the earliest phases of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m a n d all the subseq u e n t ones. N o t only so, b u t m a n y , m a n y c o m p o n e n t s given place a n d p r o p o r t i o n in the R a b b i n i c system can be identified as ideas that circulated in Second T e m p l e times, if not 111 their place a n d p r o p o r tion in a system we m a y call R a b b i n i c in a n y terms. T h e s e include the M e s s i a h - t h e m e , b u t then o u t of p h a s e with sanctification, in the Gospels, for instance. A n d , it goes without saying, n u m e r o u s facts of the H a l a k h a h can be shown to have circulated in Second T e m p l e times, if not in a n y g r o u p that we can identify, a n d if not in a n y circumstance we can associate with the social c o m p o n e n t s of R a b binic J u d a i s m 111 pre- or even post-70 times. T h e Halakhic systems that we can locate in T e m p l e t i m e s — t h e ones d o c u m e n t e d 111 the Q u m r a n library, 111 Philo's writings, a n d in the Elephantine papyri, for the m a i n e x a m p l e s — s h a r e with the R a b b i n i c system of H a l a k h a h a vast c o r p u s of facts, beginning with but not limited to those of Scripture. But these do not form a single, coherent Halakhic system, put forth in the. governance of a cogent community, whether all Israel or part thereof, only diverse systems, each representative of its own community. So if, as is established fact, in S e c o n d T e m p l e times we c a n n o t identify a c o m m u n i t y of R a b b i n i c Judaism 111 the way in which we can identify a n d d o c u m e n t a c o m m u n i t y of Pharisaic J u d a i s m or a c o m m u n i t y of J u d a i s m at E l e p h a n t i n e or a c o m m u n i t y of J u d a i s m represented by the library at Q u m r a n or even that massive c o m m u nity of J e w s with a distinctive J u d a i s m attested by Philo's writings to Alexandria, w h a t can we m e a n by pre-Rabbinic J u d a i s m 111 Second T e m p l e times? W h a t we c a n n o t m e a n is, a social g r o u p e m b o d y i n g a religious structure a n d realizing a religious s y s t e m — t h a t R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m realized by the H a l a k h a h , e m b o d i e d by the circles of masters a n d disciples a n d the sector of Israel that accepted their authority, a n d conveyed in the myth of the dual T o r a h a n d the symbol of Moses as " o u r r a b b i . " T h a t we d o not find, a n d I d o not think the fullydeveloped system of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m existed outside of, a n d before, the category-formation that c o m e s to initial statement in the decades before a n d after 70. N o r , in a n y reasonable f r a m e w o r k , can we speak of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m before the social world constituted by the sages, the Patriarchate, the master-disciple-circles, a n d the entire p a n o p l y of H a l a k h a h a n d its f o r m u l a t i o n a n d systematization. W h a t we can m e a n , a n d w h a t I d o m e a n , is, a b o d y of ideas that, I shall show, not only circulated 111 a long age of f e r m e n t , b u t — m o r e

168

CHAPTER

ONE

to the point—coalesced into a coherent statement by the end of that period. By " p r e - R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m " in S e c o n d T e m p l e times, therefore, I m e a n , very simply, some of the basic principles a n d conceptions that we can d e m o n s t r a t e not only f o r m the f o u n d a t i o n s of the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a a n d of the T a l m u d s , b u t also constitute a single, c o h e r e n t construction, a structure a n d a system of ideas that in time w o u l d c o m e to full articulation a n d realization in R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m . I d o not k n o w w h e r e it all b e g a n , t h o u g h sages insist, it b e g a n at Sinai, in Scripture a n d in oral tradition, a n d that conviction serves as well as a n y to a c c o u n t for w h a t is there. N o w to clarify the critical points, the starting a n d e n d i n g limits of the work.

IV. The Phenomenological Reading: A q u o Everything d e p e n d s u p o n the p h e n o m e n o l o g y , the analysis of the whole that identifies the critical c o m p o n e n t s . T h e s e , then, we seek in the d a t a of the H a l a k h a h that surface in T e m p l e times. A n d to analyze the whole, the a n s w e r to a single question defines everything: W h a t does Scripture c o n t r i b u t e to the dual T o r a h ? F o r so far as the O r a l T o r a h particular to R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m carries o u t m o r e t h a n a recapitulation of the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s of the W r i t t e n T o r a h a n d the amplification of the d a t a of those formations, we find the particularity in the O r a l T o r a h ' s own category-formations a n d their d a t a , h o w these hold together a n d h o w the two wholes, Scripture a n d the H a l a k h a h , relate a n d correlate. So let m e n o w spell out the relationship(s) between Scripture a n d the H a l a k h a h at its earliest phases, even in its initial categorical f o r m a t i o n . W e must stress the categoryformations, for these are the e m b l e m a t i c traits of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m . H o w d o the H a l a k h i c c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s relate to Scripture to begin with? If a c o r p u s of H a l a k h a h builds u p o n a topic defined by the Pentateuch a n d provides a s e c o n d a r y clarification a n d r e f i n e m e n t of the rules implicit in that topic, t h e n we m a y say, that b o d y of H a l a k h a h begins in Scripture. Its d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m Scripture to the earliest phases of the M i s h n a h t h e n f o r m s the story of that category-formation in T e m p l e times. If a c o r p u s of H a l a k h a h defines a topic that the P e n t a t e u c h does not i n t r o d u c e a n d formulates H a l a k h a h for that topic, then we m a y say that that b o d y of H a l a k h a h does not begin 111 Scripture. As it reaches us, that b o d y of H a l a k h a h c o m m e n c e s after

169

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

S c r i p t u r e . If a c o r p u s o f H a l a k h a h t a k e s u p a t o p i c d e f i n e d b y S c r i p t u r e b u t f o r m u l a t e s t h e m a t t e r in t e r m s n o t d i c t a t e d b y

Scripture's

t r e a t m e n t of t h e s a m e m a t t e r , t h e n w e m a y say, that b o d y of H a l a k h a h b e g i n s in S c r i p t u r e b u t takes s h a p e a l t o g e t h e r o u t s i d e t h e limits of Scripture. T h e s e distinctions a r e m a d e explicit b y the sages t h e m selves: A. T h e a b s o l u t i o n of vows hovers in the air, for it has n o t h i n g [in the T o r a h ] u p o n w h i c h to d e p e n d . B. T h e laws of the S a b b a t h , festal offerings, a n d sacrilege—lo, they a r e like m o u n t a i n s h a n g i n g by a string, C . f o r they h a v e little S c r i p t u r e for m a n y laws. D . Laws c o n c e r n i n g ci\il litigation's, the sacrificial cult, things to be kept cultically clean, sources of cultic uncleanness, a n d p r o h i b i t e d c o n s a n g u i n e o u s m a r r i a g e s h a v e m u c h o n w h i c h to d e p e n d . E. A n d b o t h these a n d those [equally] a r e the essentials of the T o r a h . M i s h n a h - t r a c t a t e H a g i g a h 1:9 A. The absolution of vows hovers in the air, for it has nothing upon which to depend in the Torah [M. H a g . 1:8A], B. But a sage loosens a v o w in a c c o r d with his w i s d o m . C. The laws of the Sabbath, festal-offerings, and sacrilege are like mountains hanging by a string, for they have little Scripture for many laws [M. H a g . I :8B]. D . T h e y h a v e n o t h i n g u p o n w h i c h to d e p e n d . F. Laws concerning civil litigation, the sacrificial cult, things to be kept cultically clean, sources of cultic uncleanness, and prohibited consanguineous marriages [M. H a g . 1:8D], G . a n d a d d e d to t h e m are laws c o n c e r n i n g valuations, things d e c l a r e d herem, a n d things d e c l a r e d s a c r e d — H . for t h e m t h e r e is a b u n d a n t S c r i p t u r e , exegesis, a n d m a n y laws. I. They have much on which to depend [M. H a g . 1:8D]. J . A b b a Yosé b. H a n a n says, " T h e s e eight topics of the T o r a h constitute the essentials of the laws [thereof] [T. Er. 8 : 2 4 ] " [M. H a g . L 8 D - E ] . T o s e f t a H a g i g a h 1:9 111 t h i s c o n t e x t , w h e n w e e x a m i n e t h e H a l a k h a h f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t , t h e a quo, w e a d d r e s s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t w o c o g n a t e religious d o c u m e n t s , the P e n t a t e u c h a n d the c o r p u s of H a l a k h a h set f o r t h b y t h e M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i . contain

normative

rules or

Halakhah.

A s is a l r e a d y

Both

implicit,

" H a l a k h a h " I m e a n n o t r a n d o m rulings o n this o r t h a t ,

by

wherever

t h e y s u r f a c e . R a t h e r , I s p e a k o f t h e e n t i r e c o i p u s o f l a w l a i d o u t b y its n a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s a s d e f i n e d b y t h e H a l a k h a h set f o r t h i n t h e p a r t of the T o r a h a n d ultimately c o m m i t t e d to verbal

Oral

permanence

("writing") in t h e p r i m a r y legal d o c u m e n t s of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m .

We

170

CHAPTER

ONE

h a v e a l r e a d y reviewed a systematic analysis t h a t yields with great precision answers to these questions c o n c e r n i n g the H a l a k h a h of the Oral Torah: [1] W h a t H a l a k h a h set forth by Moses in Scripture, the W r i t t e n T o r a h , pertains to the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h ? 7 [2] W h a t are the m a i n points of the H a l a k h a h , the topics of syst e m a t i c exposition, the principal concerns, the p a r a m o u n t questions, systematically set forth in well-constructed c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s by the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i ? [3] W h a t does Scripture c o n t r i b u t e to the f o r m a t i o n of the H a l a kliah as finally defined by the definitive d o c u m e n t s , a n d w h a t m a i n points rest o n other-than-explicit s t a t e m e n t s of Moses in the Pentateuch? T h e question that governs is simply stated. 111 relationship to the premises that dictate the p r o b l e m a t i c s of Scripture's law, is the category-formation [1] d e p e n d e n t u p o n Scripture, m e r e l y developing points a l r e a d y set forth there; h e r e we deal with H a l a k h a h t h a t is symmetrical with Scripture's laws, going over the s a m e g r o u n d a n d saying pretty m u c h the s a m e thing; [2] a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture, g o i n g its o w n w a y to explore issues of its o w n invention, h e r e we a d d r e s s H a l a k h a h that is essentially a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture, w h i c h h a s n o t c o n t r i b u t e d the c a t e g o r y o r even a c o r p u s of rules o n the category; [3] i n - b e t w e e n but derivative, that is, H a l a k h a h deriving a topic a n d p e r h a p s a c o r p u s of facts f r o m S c r i p t u r e a n d fabricating a p r o g r a m of p r o b l e m s t h a t S c r i p t u r e h a s p r o v o k e d ? o r [4] i n - b e t w e e n b u t f u n d a m e n t a l l y original, t h a t is, deriving a topic a n d even s o m e facts f r o m S c r i p t u r e b u t f o r m u l a t i n g a p r o g r a m of p r o b l e m s that S c r i p t u r e h a s in n o w a y suggested, invoking c o n c e p tions Scripture h a s not p r o v i d e d ? T h e issue in the f o u r t h classification, t h e n , is, does S c r i p t u r e define the provocative issues of a given

7

Upon the study of Judaism and its history, the analytical pre-history of the Written Torah, set forth from the nineteenth century forward, has no bearing. That is because Judaism begins with the Pentateuch; all Judaic religious systems from the Pentateuch forward read the Pentateuch as a single, unitary statement set forth by Moses (designated by the sages of the Oral Torah, "our rabbi"). Hence I refer to Moses as author of die Written Torah, since, in the present context, that is the given of all discourse. T h e interplay of diverse "law codes," e.g., the Priesdy Code and the Deuteronomic code, is simply irrelevant to the study of Judaism.

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

171

topic, or d o those generative p r o b l e m s take s h a p e elsewhere t h a n in the written p a r t of the M o s a i c revelation? So I c o m p a r e a n d contrast two bodies of H a l a k h a h , Scripture's a n d the O r a l T o r a h ' s a n d ask h o w the latter relates to the former." I ask h o w the f o r m e r relates to the latter, t h a t is, b e g i n n i n g f r o m the M i s h n a h a n d w o r k i n g b a c k w a r d . T h a t yields the systematic a n d inf o r m e d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f o r m a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h of authorities w h o llourished (in t e m p o r a l , historical terms) 9 a f t e r the closure of the P e n t a t e u c h b u t before the c o m m e n c e 8

I hasten to clarify, at issue is not the exegetical process by which a given verse can have yielded a given Halakhic datum, let alone the systematic examination of the exegetical rules attributed to the sages and the results yielded by those rules. What requires characterization here are the substantive results, the comparison of one corpus of Halakhah, Scripture's, with another corpus, that of the Oral Torah. I make no judgments on how the former corpus can have yielded, and perhaps did yield, some or even all of the Halakhah of the other. I take for granted that at an indeterminate number of points I am dealing with the result of an exegetical process. But my focus is on the large-scale description of that result, or, rather, the starting-out and the outcome thereof. By "the Halakhah" I mean, the principal category-formations seen in large aggregates, inclusive of secondary and tertiary amplifications of details. This becomes clear when, in each of my categories, I describe precisely what I conceive those main traits of the Halakhah in question to have been, the law seen whole for a given category-formation. This "macro-approach" leaves ample space for a "micro-approach," and indeed the approach worked out in this project can be fully realized only when each and every detail of each and every category-formation has been absorbed within the articulated composition of the whole seen whole. 9 I do not regard temporal, historical terms as the sole possible way of framing the issue, let alone the best way. We could as well speak of characterizing the layer of thought that intervenes between the Pentateuch and the Mishnah and the Tosefta, without making a claim that we know exacdy when that layer of thought took shape. T h e Judaism of the dual Torah contains two theories of the status of the Oral Torah. In the one, it is free-standing and autonomous, a tradition wholly framed in its own terms; in the other, it is secondary and dependent upon the written Torah. The former formulation of matters sustains a different framing of the results of this study. O n e may argue, and in other contexts some have argued, that the Oral Torah is required to complete the Written One, the logic of the former is fulfilled in that of the latter. T h e latter framing of matters works best if we invoke temporal and historical categories, treating the autonomous premises of the Oral Torah, and the laws generated thereby, as essenriaUy a later formation of the Torah, one resting perhaps on exegesis, perhaps on a perception of the inner logic of the Written Torah, perhaps on yet other bases. Which of the two formulations works best within the context of the Rabbinic literature and the data it sets forth will be best decided when the characterizations of the dual Torah that are implicit (not only explicit) in the Rabbinic literature from the Mishnah to the Letter of Sherira Gaon have been fully examined; I plan to undertake that exercise in What, Exactly, Did Our Sages Mean by "the Oral Torah"? An Inductive Answer to the Question of Rabbinic Judaism. But for the work, The Four Stages in the Formation of Judaism. From Scripture to the Talmud (London, 1999: Routledge), I utilize a historical model of formulation, not an essentially mythic-philosophical one such as the complementary relationship of the two components of the Torah would require.

172

CHAPTER

ONE

m e n t of the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i . T h a t is to say, the results of this analysis will reveal the c h a r a c t e r of H a l a k h i c reflection t h a t took place b e t w e e n the two c o r p o r a of literary f o r m u l a t i o n of the law, t h e P e n t a t e u c h a n d the M i s h n a h a l o n g with the T o s e f t a . Sages raise t h e issue investigated in this project w h e n they identify t h r e e types of relationship b e t w e e n H a l a k h a h a n d the W r i t t e n T o rah. 111 the results t h a t are set forth a n d systematized I follow their t a x o n o m y of relationships b e t w e e n the W r i t t e n T o r a h or P e n t a t e u c h a l L a w a n d t h e O r a l T o r a h o r the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli. As we see, they f r a m e m a t t e r s in this way: [I] a b u n d a n t verses of S c r i p t u r e s u p p o r t i n g m a n y laws; [ΙΓ] m a n y laws, little Scripture; [III] laws b u t 110 Scripture. Yet all f o r m p a r t of the revealed T o r a h of Sinai. M y l a n g u a g e f o r m y categories is [Γ] native categories of the H a l a k h a h that p r o v e nearly wholly c o n c e n trie with those in the W r i t t e n T o r a h ; [II] native categories entirely a u t o n o m o u s of Scripture, e.g., principal topics n o t t r e a t e d in the P e n t a t e u c h at all a n d [ΙΙΓ] native categories t h a t o c c u r in Scripture a n d that are a c c o r d e d c o m p l e x s e c o n d a r y d e v e l o p m e n t by the H a l a k h a h , [IV] native categories t h a t o c c u r in Scripture b u t t h a t a r e developed in ways n o t p r e c i p i t a t e d by Scripture. W h e n we ask Scripture to tell us w h a t it h a s c o n t r i b u t e d , a n d w h a t derives f r o m s o m e o t h e r source, in the a n s w e r we m a y differentiate the c o m p o n e n t of the W r i t t e n T o r a h f r o m that deriving f r o m that o t h e r source. I n t h e f r a m e w o r k of the history of religion a n d its a p p r e c i a t i o n for m y t h , we m a y call t h a t o t h e r source, " t h e O r a l T o r a h " — b u t only in that f r a m e w o r k . But if we wish to k n o w w h a t the sages themselves can h a v e m e a n t by " t h e O r a l T o r a h , " that o t h e r source presents itself as a p r i m e c a n d i d a t e to supply the c o n t e n t s thereof.

V . The Historical Reading: A d q u e m W o r k i n g f r o m S c r i p t u r e f o r w a r d leads us to a n i n d e t e r m i n a t e e n d . T h e s t o p p i n g point e m e r g e s w h e n we e n c o u n t e r the nascent stages of the system a n d structure ultimately set forth in the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h a n d t h e T o s e f t a . O n w h a t basis d o I claim to k n o w H a l a kliic ideas t h a t were held in p a r t i c u l a r at, o r even before, 70? U p o n the a n s w e r to that question rests m y picture of the state at 70 C . E . of the H a l a k h a h ultimately set forth in the M i s h n a h a n d T o s e f t a . Stated

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

173

simply: attributions of sayings t e n d to correlate with the logical status of w h a t is said, so that a saying assigned to a n early authority m a y be shown to be prior in logic a n d c o n c e p t i o n to a saying assigned to a later authority; t h a t is ordinarily s e c o n d a r y to, a n d contingent u p o n , t h a t which is given in the n a m e of the earlier authority. O n that b a s i s — w h e t h e r we can correlate the status of the attribution with the logic of w h a t is a t t r i b u t e d — w e are able to falsify or verify the seq u e n c e of attributions, a n d that makes possible a historical r e a d i n g of the H a l a k h a h . Let m e spell o u t exactly h o w this works, since the historical r e a d i n g of the p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l results rests u p o n this m e t h o d , which h a s b e e n fully executed for the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a , the m a i n m e d i a of the H a l a k h a h . O n e conventional response to the historical question is, sayings are a t t r i b u t e d to authorities w h o lived in the first centuries B.C.E. a n d C.E., so that is h o w we identify ideas a n d facts at the f o u n d a t i o n s of the d e v e l o p m e n t of the M i s h n a h . Simply put: if a saying is attributed to Hillel or the H o u s e of Hillel, S h a m m a i or the H o u s e of S h a m m a i , a s s u m e d to have lived before 70, t h e n we k n o w the shape of H a l a khic opinion before 70. But n o w that most people in the a c a d e m i c world n o longer take as historical fact the attribution of a saying to a n a m e d authority, w e are left o n less certain grounds. W e c a n n o t d e m o n s t r a t e that a single saying in the entire R a b b i n i c literature actually was said by the person to w h o m it was attributed, a n d solid obstacles to such a d e m o n s t r a t i o n suffice to require a n e w a p p r o a c h to the history of ideas. W h a t we c a n n o t show we d o not know. T h e n h o w d o we k n o w a n y t h i n g at all a b o u t the sequence in the u n f o l d i n g of the H a l a k h a h that ultimately c o m e s to closure in the f o r m u l a t i o n of the M i s h n a h , ca. 2 0 0 C.E., a n d , specifically, w h a t allows us to describe the state of the H a l a k h a h at the e n d of S e c o n d T e m p l e times, s o m e w h a t before a n d after 70? Literary d a t a , like the attributions themselves, d o not settle a n y questions of a historical n a t u r e . T h a t is because the M i s h n a h ' s form u l a t i o n derives f r o m the work of redaction. So we c a n n o t show that sizable c o m p o n e n t s of the M i s h n a h were written d o w n , pretty m u c h as we have t h e m , long before the closure of the d o c u m e n t as a whole. O n f o r m a l a n d literary g r o u n d s , the opposite is the fact: most of the M i s h n a h c o n f o r m s to a single p r o g r a m of f o r m u l a t i o n within a few iron rules of rhetoric, a n d t h a t set of rules o n f o r m u l a t i o n derives f r o m e n c o m p a s s i n g decisions c o n c e r n i n g redaction. W e can, however, d e m o n s t r a t e that legal issues o r principles in the M i s h n a h , if not

174

CHAPTER

ONE

the original w o r d i n g of those ideas, did derive f r o m periods prior to the age of redaction a n d f o r m u l a t i o n . T h a t d e m o n s t r a t i o n rests o n two facts. T h e first is the c o r p u s of attributions themselves. T h e s e o n their own d o not suffice, b u t in relationship to o t h e r evidence they c a n be tested a n d utilized in a limited way. While we c a n n o t show that the sages to w h o m sayings are a t t r i b u t e d actually said w h a t is assigned to t h e m , a second fact makes possible a test of falsification a n d verification. It is based o n two facts, b o t h of t h e m readily established as facts. First, groups of n a m e s a p p e a r always with o n e a n o t h e r a n d never with n a m e s f o u n d in o t h e r distinct groups. Sages A, B, C , D , c o m m o n l y believed to have lived at o n e time, o c c u r in dispute with o n e a n o t h e r . But rarely, if ever, does sage A, B, C , or D , a p p e a r with sages W , X , Y, a n d Z. T h o s e latter sages likewise stay together a n d rarely intersect with o t h e r g r o u p s of n a m e s . It follows that T h e syst e m of attributions works itself o u t by groups, or generations. T o begin with we m a y collect sayings assigned to sages A, B, C , a n d D , a n d treat t h e m as distinct f r o m sayings assigned to W , X , Y, a n d Z. But w h a t difference does that distinction m a k e ? T h a t leads to a second fact. P r o b l e m s d e b a t e d in the M i s h n a h m a y be classified as p r i m a r y a n d derivative, simple a n d c o m p l e x . T h e f o r m e r h a v e to have b e e n settled before the latter can be a d dressed. If we d o n o t k n o w the answer to the f o r m e r , we c a n n o t begin to investigate the question raised by the latter. It follows that a logical relationship, o n e of priority of o n e issue, posteriority of a second, d e p e n d a n t a n d s e c o n d a r y one, c a n be d e m o n s t r a t e d between a n d a m o n g H a l a k h i c rulings. In the consideration of a p r o b l e m we m a y readily isolate the stages in the a r g u m e n t , identify the c o m p o n e n t s of a t h e m e . W e m a y f u r t h e r show, o n g r o u n d s of logic, that a given element of a p r o b l e m or c o m p o n e n t of a t h e m e takes prece d e n c e over s o m e o t h e r e l e m e n t or c o m p o n e n t . N o w these two facts, readily discerned in the M i s h n a h ' s a n d the T o s e f t a ' s sustained exposition of a n y of their native categories, intersect a n d m a k e possible the division of the H a l a k h i c c o r p u s into earlier a n d later stages—without relying u p o n attributions except as neutral a n d abstract d a t a , n o different f r o m symbols: A, B, C , instead of A q i b a , Eliezer, J o s h u a , for o n e g r o u p , Χ , Υ, Ζ for Meir, J u d a h , a n d S i m e o n , for a n o t h e r . T h e division of sages into g r o u p s of n a m e s , with clear evidence in the d o c u m e n t s themselves that o n e g r o u p of n a m e s is prior in time to

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

175

a n o t h e r , j o i n e d to the fact, that two or m o r e groups of sayings, each set d r a w n together on the basis of the a p p e a r a n c e of groups of n a m e s m a y intersect in the t r e a t m e n t of a c o m m o n t h e m e or even p r o b l e m , o p e n s the w a y to the testing of the o r d e r i n g of H a l a k h i c rulings a n d principles, p r i m a r y a n d prior, s e c o n d a r y a n d posterior. H o w so? 111 the two facts just n o w listed, we have two sequences, the o n e logical, the o t h e r temporal-personal. A given position is assigned to a given sage (or set of sages, two c o n t r a d i c t o r y positions on the s a m e issue being subject to dispute). W e c a n n o t show the sages said w h a t is assigned to t h e m . But we can show that the temporal sequence of attributions and. the logical sequence of what is attributed match—or we can find cases in w h i c h they d o not m a t c h . W h a t is a t t r i b u t e d to the earlier set of sages is prior in logic or even in topic, a n d w h a t is assigned to the later set of sages is posterior in logic, or addresses a s u b o r d i n a t e a n d secondary topic. T h a t exercise in m a t c h i n g o n e set of facts against the o t h e r permits us to o r d e r the u n f o l d i n g of the law in detail. H e n c e a test of verification or falsification is entirely feasible. T h u s , if we observe a sequence of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s between the o r d e r in w h i c h g r o u p s of sages engage in a discussion of a p r o b l e m a n d the logic by which the p r o b l e m itself unfolds, we have reason to assign the logically prior position to the time in which the logically prior g r o u p of sages nourished. T h e m a t t e r is a bit abstract, so let m e give a concrete case to show the simplicity of w h a t I allege. A case suffices, d r a w n f r o m the H a l a k h a h of Gittin, writs of divorce. [1] If we d o not k n o w that a w o m a n recjuires a writ of divorce, we shall not ask a b o u t h o w the writ is supposed to be written. Again, [2] if we d o not know that rules dictate the correct c o m p o sition of the writ of divorce, we are n o t likely to ask a b o u t the conseq u e n c e s of a scribal e r r o r in the writing of the d o c u m e n t . So we see sequential stages in the simple p r o b l e m before us: (1) we m u s t k n o w that if a h u s b a n d wishes to divorce a wife, he m u s t supply h e r with written evidence that the m a r r i a g e is severed, a n d then (2) we m u s t know that such written evidence c o n f o r m s to a given f o r m u l a , before we m a y ask (3) w h e t h e r , if the d o c u m e n t does not c o n f o r m , the w o m a n is d e e m e d properly divorced. Yet a f u r t h e r stage in the unfolding of the issue will bring us to the question, (4) h o w we dispose of the offspring of the w o m a n w h o , on the basis of a divorce accomplished t h r o u g h an i m p r o p e r d o c u m e n t , has remarried and become pregnant.

176

CHAPTER THREE

N o w recognizing the obvious stages in the u n f o l d i n g of a n issue, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e that these stages in logic c o r r e s p o n d to seq u e n c e s of d e t e r m i n a t e t e m p o r a l periods. W h y not? Because n o o n e would claim that the logical stages outlined just n o w m a r k off fiftyyear periods in the history of the law. I n a single m o r n i n g , s o m e o n e can have t h o u g h t the whole t h i n g t h r o u g h . F o r e x a m p l e , to revert to the case at h a n d , we c a n show that [1] sages A, B, C , a n d D a p p e a r in units of discourse, o r pericopes, c o n c e r n i n g stage (1) of the issue, [2] sages G , H , I, a n d J participate in units of discourse on the m a t t e r of stage (2), [3] M , N , O , a n d Ρ at stage (3), [4] a n d W , X , Y, a n d Ζ at stage (4). T h e n we m a y p r o p o s e the thesis that the issue u n f o l d e d in the sequence of historical periods in which the g r o u p s of sages lived. W h y so? Because the o r d e r of logical steps not only c o r r e s p o n d s to, but also correlates with, the o r d e r of the g r o u p s of sages to w h o m pertin e n t sayings are attributed. C a n that thesis u n d e r g o a test of falsification? O f course it can, because we m a y ask w h e t h e r to a later g r o u p of sages, e.g., M , N , O , a n d P, are a t t r i b u t e d sayings that c o n c e r n a n issue, principle, o r premise already supposedly settled a m o n g a n earlier g r o u p of sages, e.g., A, B, C , a n d D . N o w to state the point relevant to the present study of beginnings of H a l a k h i c discourse: the earliest-named authorities in the sequence of discussions in the H a l a k h a h of Gittin all k n o w as fact that, to severe a m a r r i a g e , a writ of divorce is required. N o o n e d o u b t s it, a n d everyone builds o n that fact. F r o m that point forward, the complexities of the m a t t e r c o m m e n c e , e.g., the f o r m u l a of the writ of divorce, the w a y in which it is delivered to h e r (Gamaliel, Eliezer), the conseq u e n c e s of i m p r o p e r l y writing o u t a writ of divorce (Meir a n d his generation), including the disposition of offspring of the marriage. T h e sequence of g r o u p s of sages m a t c h e s the logical o r d e r , prior, posterior, of w h a t is attributed. T o repeat: before we have established o n e fact, we c a n n o t take u p the second. If G a m a l i e l a n d Eliezer, of the first century, were to dispute a b o u t h o w we dispose of the offspring of a divorced w o m a n w h o r e m a r r i e d o n the strength of a faulty writ of divorce, a n d M e i r a n d J u d a h , of the second century, were to dispute a b o u t w h a t constitutes a disqualifying flaw in a writ of divorce a n d its delivery, then the sequence of attributions (by generation) w o u l d contradict the sequence of w h a t is attributed (by

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

177

logical o r d e r , s i m p l e / c o m p l e x , p r i m i t i v e / r e f i n e d , a n d die like). T h e test of verification contains within itself a test of falsification. But does it necessarily follow that w h a t is assigned to the g e n e r a tions just b e f o r e or just a f t e r 70, respectively, tells us a b o u t questions settled a m o n g those generations, thus b y 70? N o , it does n o t necessarily follow. First, the facts at h a n d d o n o t d e m a n d a historical e x p l a n a t i o n . O n e m a y a c c o u n t in o t h e r ways for the correlation of logical stages with sequences of groups, o r generations, of sages. Literary or scholastic c o n v e n t i o n s c a n h a v e intervened. T h e g r o u p i n g s n e e d n o t be held to represent distinct generations. S e c o n d , people c a n hold three consecutive, logical t h o u g h t s , o n e building o n the f o r m e r , in a single m o r n i n g . N o t h i n g in the m a t c h of earlier a u t h o r i ties to p r i m a r y principles, later to s e c o n d a r y , places us in the p e r i o d in w h i c h those authorities are a s s u m e d to h a v e lived. All I c l a i m — a n d all a n y o n e c a n claim—is t h a t the m e t h o d of correlating logical a n d g e n e r a t i o n a l sequences allows the p r o p o s e d historical results—the picture of t h e history of the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h ' s larger s y s t e m — t o u n d e r g o tests of falsification a n d verification. It does n o t rest o n total credulousness in a c c e p t i n g as fact all attributions. In identifying the starting point in the f o r m u l a t i o n of a n y given c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n with the period before a n d a f t e r 70, I stand o n a n infirm basis. I d o n o t h a v e m u c h evidence outside of the d o c u m e n t s t h e m s e l v e s — t h e first of t h e m , the M i s h n a h , r e a c h i n g closure m o r e t h a n a c e n t u r y a f t e r the starting p o i n t I allege to locate t h e r e i n — t h a t the earlier g r o u p of authorities flourished f r o m 70, the later f r o m a b o u t a half-century later. But a m o r e critical a p p r o a c h in time to c o m e will i m p r o v e u p o n the m e t h o d outlined here. So m y a c c o u n t of the starting p o i n t of H a l a k h i c d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m 70, with its c o n s e q u e n t implications for the c h a r a c t e r of H a l a k h i c t h o u g h t in the p e r i o d f r o m Scripture's closure to the M i s h n a h ' s a n d the H a l a k h a h ' s d o c u m e n t e d c o m m e n c e m e n t m u s t be d e e m e d provisional, if I h o p e , serviceable. In the a c c o u n t of the situation t h a t prevailed at the terminus ad quern, however, we start with systematic results, for I have applied this p r o c e d u r e in a study of the second t h r o u g h the sixth divisions of the M i s h n a h a n d the T o s e f t a , e a c h tractate a n d every unit of discourse of each tractate. Professor Avery-Peck has d o n e the s a m e for the first division. T h e results of this r a t h e r p r o t r a c t e d l a b o r p r o v e d n o t entirely u n i f o r m for two reasons. T h e first a n d the m o r e i m p o r t a n t , the

178

C H A P T E R THREE

c h a r a c t e r of the materials did n o t invariably p e r m i t the test of falsification at h a n d . S o m e issues arise for the first t i m e in the n a m e s of the final g r o u p of authorities, t h e o n e t h a t w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d , in m y e x a m p l e above, to W , X , Y, a n d Z. T h a t m e a n t I h a d n o basis o t h e r t h a n the a t t r i b u t i o n s o n w h i c h to assign to the p e r i o d of those sages t h e rules a t t r i b u t e d to t h e m . But since the sages at h a n d flourished o n e g e n e r a t i o n p r i o r to the closure of the M i s h n a h , it did n o t a p p e a r a n act of m e r e credulity in assigning w h a t was a t t r i b u t e d to t h a t last stage in t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e M i s h n a h ' s system of H a l a k h a h . T h e second, a n d less i m p o r t a n t m a t t e r w a s that, o n r a r e occasion, it did a p p e a r t h a t w h a t w a s a s s u m e d as settled fact in discourse a m o n g a n earlier g r o u p of sages, e.g., A, B, C , a n d D , in fact p r o d u c e d substantial dispute a m o n g a later g r o u p , e.g., W , X , Y, a n d Z. T h e s e few exceptions o f t e n c e n t e r e d 011 t h e figure of a critical figure in t h e attributions, n a m e l y , A q i b a , a n early second c e n t u r y a u t h o r i t y , w h o is believed to h a v e flourished p r i o r to t h e Bar K o k h b a W a r a n d to h a v e t r a i n e d the principal authorities of the p e r i o d a f t e r the W a r . I n a n y event w h e r e the test of falsification or verification could be m e t , a n item h a d to be set aside a n d n o t included in a n a c c o u n t of the history of the law. T o state the general u p s h o t of the p r o c e d u r e , o n t h e basis just n o w outlined w e m a y w o r k o u t the history of the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h t h r o u g h three principal periods: b e f o r e 70, f r o m 70 to 130, f r o m 140 to 170, t h a t is, b e f o r e the first w a r with R o m e , b e t w e e n the two wars, a n d after the Bar K o k h b a W a r . Obviously, we w a n t to k n o w h o w f a r before 70 the M i s h n a h ' s laws e x t e n d their roots. If w e rely o n the attributions at h a n d a n d m a k e use only of those units of discourse in which w e c a n verify o r falsify the attributions, the a n s w e r is simple. T h e earliest layers of the laws ultimately j o i n e d t o g e t h e r in the system of the M i s h n a h rest u p o n f o u n d a t i o n s laid forth s o m e w h a t b e f o r e o r at the b e g i n n i n g of the C o m m o n Era. N o unit of discourse in the entire M i s h n a h c a n be s h o w n to c o n t a i n ideas o r facts originating in the M i s h n a h ' s system p r i o r to the t u r n of the first c e n t u r y C . E . T o be sure n u m e r o u s facts a n d ideas e x t e n d back to Scripture; s o m e go back to S u m e r i a n o r A k k a d i a n times. But so f a r as facts o r ideas serve a p u r p o s e distinctive to the M i s h n a h ' s system a n d so m a y b e r e p r e s e n t e d as systematic a n d so called systemic, n o t merely episodic a n d routine, all facts a n d ideas begin at the designated period. T o state the m a t t e r simply: the system of t h e M i s h n a h ' s H a l a k h a h begins at the t u m of the first c e n t u r y C . E . , t h o u g h details, c o m m o n l y rou-

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

179

tine facts of a c o m m o n law, m a y originate as m u c h as two t h o u s a n d years earlier t h a n that.

VI. Constructing Categories for Comparison and Contrast: The Systemic Approach W h a t , exactly, defines t h e field of analysis, the smallest whole unit of description, analysis, a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ? It is n o t the isolated fact b u t the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n that defines the context, therefore, the m e a n ing, of t h a t fact a l o n g with others, d e e m e d cognate. H e r e we seek to see whole a n d c o m p l e t e the two correlative compilations, the W r i t t e n T o r a h , with special r e f e r e n c e to its p r e s e n t a t i o n of the law for Israel, a n d the O r a l T o r a h , which everyone agrees is the c o u n t e r p a r t . 111 b o t h cases we work 011 the c o h e r e n t legal s t a t e m e n t s of the p e r t i n e n t p a r t s of the T o r a h , a n d these, I hasten to insist, in the m a i n , t h o u g h n o t always, c o m e to us in sizable composites of rules that cohere. It is c o m m o n , in Scripture, to find a topic that holds together 111 a coliereut c o m p o s i t i o n a variety of c o g n a t e , p e r t i n e n t rules, all of t h e m clarifying, giving details t h a t realize, t h a t topic. It is u n c o m m o n in Scripture to c o m e across diverse sentences, e a c h a rule u n t o itself, n o n e of t h e m f o r m i n g with o t h e r s c o h e r e n t p a r a g r a p h s of topical exposition. A simple suivey of the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the law set forth in E x o d u s , Leviticus, N u m b e r s , a n d p o r t i o n s (though only portions!) of D e u t e r o n o m y m a k e s that p o i n t clear. A n d t h e O r a l T o r a h , as is selfevident, is o r g a n i z e d in large-scale, c o h e r e n t , systematic topical expositions, by subject-matter. T h e s e topical expositions, called 111 English tractates a n d in H e b r e w massekhtot, c o m m o n l y , t h o u g h n o t always, p u r s u e a single p r o g r a m of questions, e x p o u n d i n g a given topic in line with a c o h e r e n t p r o b l e m a t i c that dictates the i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t said topic t h a t the law proposes to reveal. N o w , if we work with the c o h e r e n t building blocks of fully-articulated c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s — f o r Scripture, exemplified by N u m b e r s 5 a n d 6, for the H a l a k h a h , exemplified by tractates Sotali a n d N a z i r — we deal with cogent statements, c o m p r i s e d by detailed rules that coalesce. T h e s e define o u r field of inquiry. I describe the categoryf o r m a t i o n s , analyze h o w they m a k e a cogent s t a t e m e n t a n d specify w h a t I think t h a t s t a t e m e n t is, a n d I i n t e r p r e t the c o m p o s i t e seen whole. T h e work of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n involves c o m p a r i s o n of c o u n t e r p a r t c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s of S c r i p t u r e a n d the H a l a k h a h c o m m e n c -

180

C H A P T E R THREE

ing with the M i s h n a h , t h e n the contrast of those s a m e categoryf o r m a t i o n s to highlight w h a t is distinctive to, characteristic of, the H a l a k h i c c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n set forth b y the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a Yerushalmi-Bavli. T r e a t i n g the details as a u t o n o m o u s units for inquiry, I h a v e n o w a y of establishing the context in w h i c h discrete s t a t e m e n t s find their place a n d b e a r m e a n i n g . T h e r e is n o c o m p a r i son a n d contrast out of context. T h e c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s establish t h a t context: the building blocks of w h i c h the two structures, the W r i t t e n a n d the O r a l T o r a h , a r e build. It follows that I try to s h o w t h e relationship of the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a tions of t h e H a l a k h a h with their c o u n t e r p a r t s in Scripture. I a m n o t c o n c e r n e d h e r e with h o w a given c o m p o n e n t of a c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n — a p a r t i c u l a r r u l e — o f t h e H a l a k h a h relates to, is g e n e r a t e d by, o r even contradicts, a c o u n t e r p a r t , p a r t i c u l a r rule of the P e n t a t e u c h . T h a t work has b e e n fully carried o u t in the T o s e f t a , Y e r u s h a l m i , Bavli, a n d T a n n a i t e M i d r a s h - c o m p i l a t i o n s , a n d I d o n o t think anyo n e is g o i n g to i m p r o v e u p o n that f o r m i d a b l e c o r p u s of learning. N o r w o u l d the results c o n t r i b u t e to the a t t a i n m e n t of o u r goal here. Since I wish to c h a r a c t e r i z e the O r a l T o r a h , its qualities of m i n d a n d its distinctive a p p r o a c h to c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n within the H a l a k h a h , I a m r e q u i r e d to focus u p o n the i n t e r m e d i a t e building-blocks of the two T o r a h s , written a n d oral, a n d to c o m p a r e a n d contrast those of the o n e with those of the o t h e r . O n a smaller scale, all I can find o u t is h o w a verse of S c r i p t u r e p r o v o k e d the f o r m u l a t i o n of a s t a t e m e n t of the O r a l T o r a h (in o u r case, its law), a n d t h a t will n o t yield systemic c o m p a r i s o n . O n a larger scale, all t h a t c a n be anticipated is generalizations of slight heuristic interest: the o n e c o m p l e m e n t s the o t h e r , for instance, a n d o t h e r unsurprising, even u n c o m p r e h e n d i n g , propositions.

V I I . The Formative History of the Halakhic

Category-Formations

W e c a n n o t s h o w the p r e s e n c e within the d o c u m e n t s of the O r a l T o r a h of a h u g e p r e - 7 0 s t r a t u m of H a l a k h a h , n o r c a n w e excavate a dense c o r p u s of e x a m p l e s of the t h r e e principal c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s p a r t i c u l a r to the O r a l T o r a h t h a t h a v e b e e n identified earlier. T h e m a i n result is, we can show h o w points critical to the H a l a k h a h as it is fully w o r k e d o u t a r e r e p r e s e n t e d in o n e detail o r a n o t h e r in p r e - 7 0 o p i n i o n . T h e s e t h e n I allege to a d u m b r a t e the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

181

that e n c o m p a s s t h e m in the fully-realized system particular to the O r a l T o r a h . So we work f r o m shards a n d r e m n a n t s to the s h a p e a n d p r o p o r t i o n s of the O r a l T o r a h ' s structure. T h e n the issue c a n n o t be, the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n of the H a l a k h a h b e f o r e 70. It can only be, can we identify p o w e r f u l t h e m e s of the H a l a k h a h that defined distinctive foci of the O r a l T o r a h b e f o r e 70, even t h o u g h the categoryf o r m a t i o n s that n o w f r a m e m a t t e r s did not, at that time, e m e r g e a n d e x t e n d a n d impose structure a n d o r d e r on the laws? I n d e e d we can, a n d let us n o w p r o c e e d to d o so. T h e H a l a k h a h of the Mislinah-Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli takes s h a p e in three stages t h r o u g h a twofold process. T h e first stage is T e m p l e times, the second, the p e r i o d f r o m 70 to 135, a n d the third, the m i d - s e c o n d c e n t u r y , f r o m 135 f o r w a r d . T h e process is in two parts, first, the identification of a c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n by the definitive logic in play, second a n d consequently, t h e e x p a n s i o n a n d full actualization in the details of law of said c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n . 111 t h e seco n d c e n t u r y f o r m u l a t i o n of the H a l a k h i c structure, at n u m e r o u s points, first c o m e s the choice of a c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n , t h e n , a n d only t h e n , the collection a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n of d a t a p e r t i n e n t to the cate g o r y - f o r m a t i o n , w h e t h e r o r n o t a generative p r o b l e m a t i c a n i m a t e s the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n o r a m e r e interest in collecting a n d a r r a n g i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a c c o u n t s for its c h a r a c t e r . T h u s o n c e a t h e m e is introd u c e d early 111 the history of law, it will be taken u p a n d refined later on. So in the second a n d third stages in the f o r m a t i o n of the H a l a kliah set forth in the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i , m a n y n e w t h e m e s with their p r o b l e m s will e m e r g e . T h e s e t h e n are w i t h o u t p r e c e d e n t in the a n t e c e d e n t t h e m a t i c heritage. H o w are we to u n d e r s t a n d the successive stages in the repertoire of the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s that would ultimately i m p a r t structure a n d o r d e r to the H a l a k h a h , a n d t h a t d o just that 111 the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a Yerushalmi-Bavli? T h e c o m m o n f o u n d a t i o n s for the whole are Scripture, whole o r in variable p r o p o r t i o n , m u c h to very little. T o envisage the c o m p l e t e d c o m p o s i t i o n I m a y present a simple architectural simile: a house o n a hill in S a n Francisco. T h e H a l a k h a h o r g a n i z e d in t h e c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s b e f o r e us is like a c o m p l e t e d construction of scaffolding, a construction built o n t h e side of a hill a n d creating a level p l a n e at t h e t o p by m e a n s of s u p p o r t s a n d buttresses d o w n the side of the hill. T h e f o u n d a t i o n is a single variable, d e s c e n d i n g surface, the Scriptures. T h e t o p p l a t f o r m is a single plane, the H a l a k h a h itself. But the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e by reason of the t o p o g r a p h y is different!-

182

C H A P T E R THREE

ated. So w h a t d o we see? U n d e r n e a t h o n e p a r t of the u p p e r p l a t f o r m will be several lower p l a t f o r m s , so t h a t the s u p p o r t i n g poles a n d pillars reach d o w n to i n t e r v e n i n g p l a t f o r m s ; only the b o t t o m platf o r m rests u p o n pillars set in the f o u n d a t i o n . Yet a n o t h e r p a r t of the u p p e r p l a t f o r m rests u p o n pillars a n d poles stretching straight d o w n to the f o u n d a t i o n , w i t h o u t i n t e r v e n i n g p l a t f o r m s at all. A n d h e r e a n d there j u t o u t little balconies, integral to the h o u s e b u t n o t resting o n t h e g r o u n d , directly o r t h r o u g h pillars, at all. So viewed f r o m above, the u p p e r m o s t p l a t f o r m of the scaffolding f o r m s a single, u n i f o r m , a n d even p l a n e . T h a t is the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n d e f i n e d by t h e Mishn a h a n d the T o s e f t a as we h a v e it, six Divisions, sixty-three tractates, five h u n d r e d thirty-one c h a p t e r s (for the M i s h n a h in particular). But viewed f r o m the side, t h a t is, f r o m the perspective of analysis, t h e r e is m u c h differentiation, so t h a t , f r o m o n e side, the u p p e r p l a t f o r m rises f r o m a second, i n t e r m e d i a t e o n e , a n d , in places, f r o m even a third, lowest o n e . A n d yet s o m e of the pillars reach directly d o w n to the b e d r o c k f o u n d a t i o n s . A n d , as I say, h e r e a n d t h e r e j u t o u t balconies a n d p o r c h e s , integral, to the whole b u t resting 011 110 m o r e t h a n the architect's calculations of stresses. But houses in S a n Francisco survive e a r t h q u a k e s , a n d so h a s the H a l a k h i c structure a n d system. T o reveal the result at the outset: the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s of the H a l a k h a h as we k n o w the H a l a k h a h took s h a p e only in the m i d second century. T h e n w h a t is n e w 111 the p e r i o d b e y o n d the wars is t h a t p a r t of the ultimate p l a n e — t h e H a l a k h i c c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n as a w h o l e — w h i c h 111 fact rests u p o n the f o u n d a t i o n s n o t of a n t e c e d e n t t h o u g h t b u t of S c r i p t u r e alone. W h a t is basic in the p e r i o d b e f o r e 70 C . E . is the f o r m a t i o n o f t h a t p a r t of the H a l a k h i c c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n t h a t sustains yet a second a n d even a third layer of p l a t f o r m construction. W h a t e m e r g e s b e t w e e n the two wars will b o t h f o r m a p l a n e with w h a t c o m e s before, that p l a t f o r m at the second level, a n d yet will also lay f o u n d a t i o n s for a level a b o v e itself. But this i n t e r m e d i a t e p l a t f o r m also will c o m e to a n e n d , yielding that space filled only by t h e pillars stretching f r o m Scripture o n u p w a r d to the ultimate p l a n e of the M i s h n a h ' s c o m p l e t e d a n d w h o l e system. Lowest d o w n the hill, resting o n t h e m o s t c o m p l e x scaffolding, are the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s a d u m b r a t e d by sayings of T e m p l e times; h i g h e r a r e those f o r m e d by sayings reliably assigned to the p e r i o d b e t w e e n the wars, a n d at the top, the m a i n c o r p u s of the structure, w h i c h defines the c h a r a c t e r of t h e w h o l e e n d o w s it with p r o p o r t i o n , is the c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n devised a f t e r the p e r i o d of w a r , 67-135, h a d c o n c l u d e d a n d the recoilstruction of t h e T o r a h b e g u n .

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

183

V I I I . Vie Halakhah before 70 V i e w e d f r o m the perspective of the large c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n s of w h i c h it is c o m p r i s e d , the M i s h n a h t h e r e f o r e t h e H a l a k h a h as a w h o l e — a s we k n o w it originated in its Division of Purities. 1 0 T h e r e we find the m o s t fully realized c a t e g o r y - f o r m a t i o n , t h o u g h f r o m the perspective of the H a l a k h a h , still a partial o n e . T h e striking fact is that the Sixth Division is the only o n e that yields a c o m p l e t e a n d whole s t a t e m e n t of a topic d a t i n g f r o m T e m p l e times, b e f o r e the wars. Its principal parts are (1) w h a t i m p a r t s uncleanness; (2) w h i c h kinds of objects a n d substances m a y be u n c l e a n ; a n d (3) h o w these objects o r substances m a y regain the status of cleanness. J o i n e d to episodic rulings elsewhere, the principal parts of the Sixth Division speak, in particular, of cleanness of meals, f o o d a n d drink, pots a n d p a n s . It t h e n would a p p e a r t h a t the ideas ultimately expressed in the M i s h n a h b e g a n a m o n g people w h o h a d a special interest in observing cultic cleanness, as dictated by the Priestly C o d e . T h e r e c a n be n o d o u b t , m o r e o v e r , t h a t the context for such cleanness is the h o m e , n o t solely the T e m p l e , a b o u t w h i c h Leviticus speaks. T h e issues of the law leave n o d o u b t o n t h a t score. Since priests ate h e a v e offering at h o m e , a n d did so in a state of cultic cleanness, it was a small step to apply the s a m e t a b o o s to f o o d w h i c h was n o t a consecrated gift to the priests. W h a t is said t h r o u g h the k e e p i n g of these laws is that the food e a t e n at h o m e , n o t deriving f r o m the altar a n d its provision for the p r i e s t h o o d of m e a t n o t b u r n e d u p 111 the fire, was as holy as the m e a l offerings, m e a t offerings, a n d drink offerings, consecrated by b e i n g set aside for the altar a n d t h e n , 111 d u e course, partly given to the priests a n d partly tossed o n the altar a n d b u r n e d u p . If food n o t 10

That qualification is critical: "from the perspective of the large category-formations." I do not think that episodic laws, even ad hoc rulings, commence only witli their entry into the Mishnah's corpus of the Halakhah. O n the contrary, we can demonstrate the antiquity, even to remote times, of much of what becomes the Halakhah set forth by the Mishnah-Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli. Nor do I maintain that the Halakhah we find in the Mishnah-corpus belongs uniquely to the sages who bear responsibility therefor. There too it is easy to demonstrate the opposite. I am asking only one question: at what stage do the category-formations of the MishnahTosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli and their principal components appear to have taken shape? T h e antiquity of some, even much, of the corpus of data, the Halakhic facts, that those category-formations utilize is not at issue. It is how the whole coalesces into a single closed system that I propose to work out along the historico-phenomenological lines spelled out here.

184

C H A P T E R THREE

c o n s e c r a t e d for the altar, n o t p r o t e c t e d in a state of cleanness (in the case of wheat), o r carefully inspected for blemishes (in the case of beasts), a n d n o t e a t e n by priests i n the T e m p l e , was d e e m e d subject to the s a m e purity-restrictions as f o o d c o n s e c r a t e d for the altar, this carries implications a b o u t the c h a r a c t e r of t h a t f o o d , those w h o were to eat it, a n d the conditions in w h i c h it was g r o w n a n d e a t e n . First, all f o o d , n o t only t h a t for the altar, was to be p r o t e c t e d in a state of levitical cleanness, t h u s holiness, t h a t is, separateness. S e c o n d , the place in the L a n d , in w h i c h the f o o d was g r o w n a n d kept was to be kept cultically clean, holy, just like the T e m p l e . T h i r d , the people, Israel, w h o w e r e to eat t h a t food w e r e holy, just like the priesthood, in r a n k b e h i n d the T e m p l e ' s chief caste. F o u r t h , the act of eating f o o d a n y w h e r e in the H o l y L a n d was a n a l o g o u s to the act of e a t i n g f o o d in t h e T e m p l e , by the altar. All of these obvious inferences point to a p r o f o u n d conviction a b o u t the L a n d , people, p r o d u c e , c o n d i t i o n , a n d context of n o u r i s h m e n t . T h e setting was holy. T h e actors w e r e holy. A n d w h a t , specifically, they did w h i c h h a d to be p r o t e c t e d in holiness was eating. F o r w h e n t h e y ate their food at h o m e , t h e y ate it t h e w a y priests did in the T e m p l e . A n d the w a y priests ate their f o o d in the T e m p l e , that is, the cultic rules a n d conditions observed in t h a t setting, was like the w a y G o d ate his f o o d in t h e T e m p l e . T h a t is to say, G o d ' s f o o d a n d locus of n o u r i s h m e n t were to b e p r o t e c t e d f r o m the s a m e sources of d a n g e r a n d c o n t a m i n a t i o n , preserved in the s a m e exalted condition of sanctification. So by acting, t h a t is, eating like G o d , Israel b e c a m e like G o d : a p u r e a n d perfect i n c a n t a t i o n , o n e a r t h in t h e L a n d w h i c h was holy, of t h e m o d e l of h e a v e n . E a t i n g f o o d was the critical act a n d occasion, just as the priestly a u t h o r s of Leviticus a n d N u m b e r s h a d m a i n t a i n e d w h e n they m a d e laws g o v e r n i n g slaughtering beasts a n d b u r n i n g u p their flesh, b a k i n g p a n c a k e s a n d cookies with a n d w i t h o u t olive oil a n d b u r n i n g t h e m o n the altar, pressing grapes a n d m a k i n g wine a n d p o u r i n g it o u t o n t o the altar. T h e n o u r i s h m e n t of the L a n d — m e a t , grain, oil, a n d w i n e — w a s set before G o d a n d b u r n e d ("offered u p " ) in conditions of perfect cultic antisepsis. I n context this antisepsis p r o v i d e d p r o t e c t i o n against things d e e m e d the opposite of n o u r i s h m e n t , the quintessence of d e a t h : corpse m a t t e r , p e o p l e w h o looked like corpses (Lev. 13), d e a d creeping things, blood w h e n n o t flowing in the veins of t h e living, such as m e n s t r u a l blood (Lev. 15), o t h e r sorts of flux (semen in m e n , n o n m e n s t r u a l blood in w o m e n ) w h i c h yield n o t life b u t t h e n its opposite,

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

185

so d e a t h . W h a t these excrescencies have in c o m m o n , of course, is that they are a m b i v a l e n t . W h y ? Because they m a y be o n e t h i n g or the other. Blood in the living is the soul; blood n o t in the living is the soul of c o n t a m i n a t i o n . T h e corpse was o n c e a living p e r s o n , like G o d ; the p e r s o n with skin like a corpse's a n d w h o looks d e a d was o n c e a person w h o looked alive; the flux of the z a b (Lev. 15) c o m e s f r o m the flaccid penis w h i c h u n d e r the right circumstances, that is, properly erect, p r o d u c e s s e m e n a n d m a k e s life. W h a t is at the m a r g i n b e t w e e n life a n d d e a t h a n d c a n go either w a y is w h a t is the source of uncleanness. But t h a t is insufficient. F o r the opposite, in the priestly code, of u n c l e a n is n o t only clean, b u t also holy. T h e a n t o n y m is n o t to be missed: d e a t h or life, u n c l e a n or holy. So the cult is the point of struggle b e t w e e n the forces of life a n d n o u r i s h m e n t a n d the forces of d e a t h a n d extinction: m e a t , grain, oil, a n d wine, against corpse m a t t e r , d e a d c r e e p i n g things, blood in the w r o n g setting, s e m e n in the w r o n g context, a n d the like. T h e n , o n the occasions w h e n m e a t w a s e a t e n , mainly, at the time of festivals o r o t h e r m o m e n t s at w h i c h sin offerings a n d p e a c e offerings were m a d e , people w h o wished to live ate their m e a t , a n d at all times ate the staples of wine, oil, a n d b r e a d , in a state of life a n d so g e n e r a t e d life. T h e y kept their f o o d a n d themselves a w a y f r o m the state of d e a t h as m u c h as possible. A n d this h e i g h t e n e d reality p e r t a i n e d at h o m e , as m u c h as in the T e m p l e , w h e r e m o s t rarely w e n t o n o r d i n a r y days. T h e T e m p l e was the font of life, the bulwark against d e a t h . " O n c e the meal b e c a m e a focus of a t t e n t i o n , the o t h e r two categories of the law w h i c h yield principles o r laws deriving f r o m the p e r i o d before the wars present precisely t h e s a m e sorts of rules. Laws o n g r o w i n g a n d p r e p a r i n g f o o d will attract a t t e n t i o n as soon as people wish to speak, to begin with, a b o u t h o w meals are to be e a t e n . T h a t a c c o u n t s for the obviously lively interest in the biblical t a b o o s of agriculture. 1 2 Since, f u r t h e r , meals are acts of society, they call tog e t h e r a g r o u p . O u t s i d e of the family, the n a t u r a l unit, such a g r o u p will be special a n d cultic. If a g r o u p is going to get together, it will be o n a S a b b a t h o r festival, n o t o n a w o r k d a y . So laws g o v e r n i n g the m a k i n g of meals o n those a p p o i n t e d times will inevitably receive attention. 1 3 N o r is it surprising t h a t , in so far as there are a n y rules p e r t i n e n t to the cult, they will involve those aspects of the cult w h i c h 11 12 13

Cf. my History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. Leiden, 1974-1977. I-XXII. Cf. Alan J . Avery-Peck, History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture. Chico, 1985. Cf. my History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Leiden, 1981-1983. I-V.

186

C H A P T E R THREE

apply also outside of the cult, t h a t is, h o w a beast is slaughtered, rules g o v e r n i n g the disposition of a n i m a l s of a special status (e.g., firstborn), a n d the like. 14 T h a t the rules for m e a l s p e r t a i n n o t to isolated families b u t to a larger g r o u p is strongly suggested by t h e o t h e r a r e a which evidently was subjected to sustained attention before the wars, laws g o v e r n i n g w h o m a y m a r r y w h o m . T h e context in w h i c h the sayings assigned to the authorities before the wars are s h a p e d is the life of a small g r o u p of people, d e f i n i n g its life a p a r t f r o m the larger Israelite society while m a i n t a i n i n g itself wholly within t h a t society. T h r e e points of o r d i n a r y life f o r m e d the focus for concrete, social differentiation: f o o d , sex, a n d m a r r i a g e . W h a t p e o p l e ate, h o w they c o n d u c t e d their sexual lives, a n d w h o m they m a r r i e d o r to w h o m they gave their children in m a r r i a g e w o u l d define the social p a r a m e t e r s of their g r o u p . T h e s e facts indicate w h o was kept within the b o u n d s , a n d w h o was exeluded a n d systematically m a i n t a i n e d at a distance. F o r these are the t h i n g s — t h e only t h i n g s — s u b j e c t to the i n d e p e n d e n t control of the small g r o u p . T h e people b e h i n d the laws, a f t e r all, could n o t tell o t h e r people t h a n their associates w h a t to eat o r w h o m to m a r r y . But they could m a k e their o w n decisions o n these i m p o r t a n t , b u t h u m b l e , m a t t e r s . By m a k i n g those decisions in o n e w a y a n d n o t in s o m e other, they m o r e o v e r could keep outsiders at a distance a n d those w h o to begin with a d h e r e d to the g r o u p within b o u n d s . W i t h o u t political control, they could not govern the t r a n s f e r of p r o p e r t y o r o t h e r m a t t e r s of public interest. But w i t h o u t political p o w e r , they could a n d did govern the transfer of their w o m e n . It was in t h a t i n t i m a t e aspect of life t h a t they firmly established the o u t e r b o u n d a r y of their collective existence. T h e very existence of the g r o u p a n d the c o n c r e t e expression of its life, therefore, c o m e s u n d e r discussion in the transfer of w o m e n . It t h e r e f o r e seems n o accident at all that those strata of M i s h n a i c law w h i c h a p p e a r to go b a c k to the p e r i o d b e f o r e the wars, well before 70, deal specifically with the special laws of m a r r i a g e (in Y e b a m o t ) , distinctive rule o n w h e n sexual relations m a y a n d m a y n o t take place (in N i d d a h ) , a n d the laws covering the definition of sources of u n c l e a n n e s s a n d the a t t a i n m e n t of cleanness, with specific reference to d o m e s t i c meals (in certain p a r t s of O h a l o t , Z a b i m , K e l i m , a n d Miqvaot). N o r is it surprising that for the c o n d u c t of the cult a n d the sacrificial system, a b o u t w h i c h the g r o u p m a y

14

Cf. my Histoiy of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things. Leiden, 1979. I-VI.

187

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

have h a d its own doctrines but over which it neither exercised control n o r even aspired to, there appears to be no systemic content or development whatsoever. O n c e the g r o u p take shape a r o u n d some distinctive, public issue or doctrine, as in o d d taboos a b o u t eating, it also must take u p the m o d e s of social differentiation which will ensure the group's continued existence. For the group, once it comes into being, has to aspire to define a n d shape the ordinary lives of its adherents a n d to form a c o m m u n i t y expressive of its larger world view. T h e foundations of an e n d u r i n g c o m m u n i t y will then be laid d o w n through rules governing what food m a y be eaten, u n d e r what circumstances, a n d with what sort of people; w h o m one m a y m a r r y a n d what families m a y be j o i n e d in marriage; a n d how sexual relationships are timed. Indeed, to the measure that these rules not only differ f r o m those observed by others but in some aspect or other r e n d e r the people w h o keep them unacceptable to those w h o do not, as m u c h as, to the sect, those w h o do not keep t h e m are unacceptable to those w h o do, the lines of difference a n d distinctive structure will be all the m o r e inviolable.

IX. The Interim-Category-Formation: 77he Halakhah between the Wars of 66-70 and

132-135

T h e period between the wars marks a transition in the unfolding of the Mishnaic law a n d system. T h e law moved out of its narrow, sectarian framework. But it did not yet attain the full definition, serviceable for the governance of a whole society a n d the formation of a government for the nation as a whole, which would be realized in the a f t e r m a t h of the wars. T h e marks of the f o r m e r state rem a i n e d . But those of the later character of the Mishnaic system began to m a k e their a p p e a r a n c e . Still, the systemic fulfillment of the law would be some time in coming. For, as I shall point out in the next section, the system as a whole in its ultimate shape would totally r e f r a m e the inherited vision. 111 the end the M i s h n a h ' s final framers would accomplish what was not d o n e before or between the wars: m a k e provision for the ordinary condition of Israelite m e n a n d w o m e n , living everyday lives u n d e r their own government. T h e laws suitable for a sect would remain, to be j o i n e d by others which, in the aggregate, would wholly revise the character of the whole. T h e shift after the Bar K o k h b a W a r would be f r o m a perspective f o r m e d u p o n

188

CHAPTER THREE

the T e m p l e m o u n t to a vision f r a m e d within the plane of Israel, f r o m a cultic to a c o m m u n a l conception, a n d f r o m a center at the locative pivot of the altar, to a system resting u p o n the Utopian character of the nation as a whole. 1 5 W h e n we take u p the changes in this transitional period, we notice, first of all, continuity with the i m m e d i a t e past. W h a t was taking place after 70 is encapsulated in the expansion, along predictable a n d familiar lines, of the laws of uncleanness, so to these we t u m first. If the destruction of J e r u s a l e m a n d the T e m p l e in 70 marks a watershed in the history of J u d a i s m , the development of the system of uncleanness does not indicate it. T h e destruction of the T e m p l e in no way interrupted the unfolding of those laws, consideration of which is well attested when the T e m p l e was standing a n d the cult maintained. Development is continuous in a second aspect as well. W e find that, in addition to carrying forward antecedent themes a n d supplying secondary a n d even tertiary conceptions, the authorities between the wars develop new areas a n d motifs of legislation. T h e s e turn out to be both wholly consonant with the familiar ones, a n d , while fresh, generated by logical tensions in what h a d gone before. If, therefore, the destmction of the T e m p l e raised in some minds the question of w h e t h e r the system of cleanness at h o m e would collapse along with the cult, the rules a n d system before us in n o way suggest so. T o be sure, the destmction of the T e m p l e does m a r k a new phase in the growth of the law. W h a t n o w h a p p e n s is a n evidently rapid extension of the range of legislation, on the one side, a n d provision of specific a n d concrete mles for w h a t matters of purity were apt to have been taken for granted but not given definition before 70, on the other. So the crisis of 70 in the system of uncleanness gives new impetus to m o v e m e n t along lines laid forth long before. Let us first dwell u p o n the points of continuity, which are m a n y a n d impressive. T h e development of the rules on the uncleanness of menstrual blood, the zab, a n d corpse uncleanness is wholly predictable on the basis of w h a t has gone before. T h e principal conceptual traits carry forward established themes. For example, if we have in h a n d an interest in resolving matters of d o u b t , then, in the present age, f u r t h e r types of doubts will be investigated. O n c e we know that a valid birth is not a c c o m p a n i e d by unclean blood, we ask a b o u t the definition of valid births. T h e present thought on the zab (Lev. 15) 15

Cf. my History of the Mishnaic Law of Women. Leiden, 1979-1980. I-VI.

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

189

d e p e n d s entirely 011 the materials assigned to the Houses, which, m o r e o v e r , a p p e a r to be prior to, a n d i n d e p e n d e n t of, w h a t is attribu t e d to the authorities after 70. T h e transfer of the zab's uncleanness t h r o u g h pressure, f o r m i n g so large a n d i m p o r t a n t a p a r t of the tractate of Z a b i m , begins n o t with a reference to the z a b at all, b u t to the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n . T h e fresh point in this regard is to be seen as a step b e y o n d Scripture's own rule, a shift based o n analogical thinking. Rulings on corpse c o n t a m i n a t i o n dwell u p o n secondary a n d derivative issues. O n e n e w idea is the interest in projections f r o m a house a n d h o w they too o v e r s h a d o w a n d so bring corpse uncleanness. It is f r o m this point that a n i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t begins. O n c e we treat the tent as in some way functional, it is natural to focus u p o n the process or f u n c t i o n of o v e r s h a d o w i n g in general. A m a j o r innovation in regard to transfer of the c o n t a m i n a t i o n of corpse m a t t e r t h r o u g h the tent is the notion that the tent takes an active role, c o m b i n i n g the diverse bits a n d pieces a n d corpse uncleanness into a v o l u m e sufficient to i m p a r t corpse uncleanness. W h a t is d o n e is to treat the o v e r s h a d o w i n g as a function, r a t h e r t h a n the tent as a thing. H e r e the m o d e of t h o u g h t is b o t h contrastive a n d analogical. W h a t is n e w n o w requires attention. T h e c o m p a r i s o n of the table in the h o m e to the cult in the T e m p l e is an old t h e m e in the Mislinaic system. W h a t is d o n e at just this time a p p e a r s to have b e e n the recognition of two c o m p l e m e n t a r y sequences, the removes of u n cleanness, the degrees of holiness. T h e f o r m e r involves several steps of c o n t a m i n a t i o n f r o m the original source of uncleanness. T h e latter speaks of several degrees of sanctification, o r d i n a r y food, heave offering, food deriving f r o m the altar (holy things), a n d things involved in the p r e p a r a t i o n of purification water. E a c h of the latter is subject to the effects of c o n t a m i n a t i o n p r o d u c e d by each of the former, in an a s c e n d i n g ladder of sensitivity to uncleanness. A n essentially n e w topic for intense analysis was Holy T h i n g s . At issue n o w is the f o r m a t i o n , between the wars, of laws governing the cult. T h e principal statement of this n e w system is as follows: the T e m p l e is holy. Its priests therefore are indispensable. But the gove r n a n c e of the T e m p l e n o w is to be in accord with T o r a h , a n d it is the sage w h o knows T o r a h a n d therefore applies it. Since a literal r e a d i n g of Scripture p r e v e n t e d a n y o n e ' s m a i n t a i n i n g that s o m e o n e a p a r t f r o m the priest could be like a priest a n d d o the things priests do, it was the next best t h i n g to impose the pretense that priests must obey laymen in the c o n d u c t even of the priestly liturgies a n d services.

190

CHAPTER THREE

T h i s is a n a t u r a l step in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the law. A second p a r a m o u n t trait of the version of the system between the wars is its rationalization of those uncontrolled powers i n h e r e n t in the sacred cult as laid forth by Leviticus. T h e lessons of N a d a b a n d A b i h u a n d n u m e r o u s o t h e r accounts of the cult's o r altar's intrinsic m a n a (inclusive of the h e r e m ) are quietly set aside. T h e altar sanctifies only w h a t is a p p r o p r i a t e to it, n o t w h a t e v e r c o m e s into contact with its power. In that principle, the sacred is forced to c o n f o r m to simple c o n c e p tions of logic a n d sense, its p o w e r uncontrollably to strike out dramatically r e d u c e d . T h i s s a m e rationality extends to the definition of the effective r a n g e of intention. If o n e intends to d o improperly w h a t is not in a n y event d o n e at all, o n e ' s intention is null. T h i r d , attention is paid to defining the sorts of offerings required in various situations of sin or guilt. H e r e too the message is not to be missed. Sin still is to b e expiated, w h e n circumstances p e r m i t , t h r o u g h the sacrificial syst e m . N o t h i n g h a s c h a n g e d . T h e r e is n o surrogate for sacrifice, a n exceedingly i m p o r t a n t a f f i r m a t i o n of the cult's c o n t i n u i n g validity a m o n g people b u r d e n e d with sin a n d a c h i n g for a m o d e of a t o n e m e n t . Finally, we observe that the established habit of thinking a b o u t gifts to be p a i d to the priest a c c o u n t s for the choices of topics o n fees p a i d to m a i n t a i n the cult. All pertain to priestly gifts analogous to tithes a n d heave offerings. T i t h e of cattle is a n i m p o r t a n t subject, a n d the rules of firstlings a n d o t h e r gifts to the priests are subject to considerable d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e u p s h o t is that the principal concerns of the Division of H o l y T h i n g s are defined by the e n d of the age b e t w e e n the wars. 1 6 Systematic work o n the f o r m a t i o n of a Division of A p p o i n t e d T i m e s did not get u n d e r w a y in the a f t e r m a t h of the destruction of the T e m p l e . T h e established interest in rules g o v e r n i n g meals, h o w ever, was carried f o r w a r d in laws reliably assigned to the time between the wars. T h e r e is s o m e small t e n d e n c y to develop laws pertin e n t to the observance of the S a b b a t h ; a few of these laws were i m p o r t a n t a n d g e n e r a t e d later d e v e l o p m e n t s . But the age between the wars m a y be characterized as a period between i m p o r t a n t develo p m e n t s . W o r k on legislation for meals o n S a b b a t h s a n d festivals h a d b e g u n earlier. T h e effort systematically a n d t h o r o u g h l y to legislate for the generality of festivals, with special attention to c o n d u c t in the T e m p l e cult, would begin later on. In the intervening generations only a little work was d o n e , a n d this was episodic a n d r a n d o m . 16

Cf. M. Tohorot 2:2-7, for instance.

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

191

W h e n fully worked out, the M i s h n a h ' s Division of W o m e n would p a y close attention to exchanges of p r o p e r t y a n d d o c u m e n t s a t t e n d a n t u p o n the transfer of a w o m a n f r o m h e r father's to h e r h u s b a n d ' s house. Authorities between the wars p r o v i d e d only a little g u i d a n c e for such matters. F o r a very long time before 70 the national, prevailing law must have defined a n d g o v e r n e d t h e m . W h a t is significant is that b r o a d e r a n d n o n s e c t a r i a n matters, surely subject to a long history of accepted p r o c e d u r e , should have been raised at all. It m e a n s that, a f t e r the destruction, attention t u r n e d to m a t t e r s which sectarians h a d n o t r e g a r d e d as p a r t of their realm of concern. T h i s m a y have m e a n t that others w h o h a d carried responsibility for the administration of public affairs, such as scribes, n o w m a d e a n app e a r a n c e . A n d it also m a y have m e a n t that the vision of the sectarians themselves h a d b e g u n to b r o a d e n a n d to e n c o m p a s s the administration of the life of o r d i n a r y folk, not within the sect. Both m e a n i n g s are to be i m p u t e d to the fact of interest in issues of public administration of p r o p e r t y transfers a l o n g with the transfer of w o m e n to a n d f r o m the father's h o m e . C o n c e r n for definition of personal status devolves u p o n genealogical questions u r g e n t to the priesthood, a n d , it follows, in the present s t r a t u m are c o n t a i n e d m a t t e r s of d e e p c o n c e r n to yet a t h i r d constituency. But these matters of interest to scribes a n d priests d o not p r e d o m i n a t e . It is their a p p e a r a n c e , r a t h e r t h a n their complete expression a n d articulation, which is of special interest. W h o e v e r before 70 h a d settled those disputes a b o u t real estate, working conditions, debts a n d loans, torts a n d d a m a g e s , a n d o t h e r sorts of conflicts which naturally c a m e u p in a vital a n d stable society, the g r o u p represented in the M i s h n a h did n o t . " T h a t is w h y the Division of D a m a g e s , dealing with civil law a n d g o v e r n m e n t , contains virtually n o t h i n g assigned to authorities before the wars. Scribes in T e m p l e times served as j u d g e s a n d courts within the T e m pie g o v e r n m e n t , holding positions in such system of administration of the Israelite p a r t of Palestine as the R o m a n s left within Jewish control. T h e Division of D a m a g e s is r e m a r k a b l y reticent on w h a t after the destruction they might have c o n t r i b u t e d out of the heritage of their earlier traditions a n d established practices. Materials of this period yield little evidence of access to a n y tradition prior to 70, except (predictably) for Scripture. W h e n people at this time did take u p topics relevant to the larger system of D a m a g e s , they directed 17

Cf. My History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages. Leiden, 1983-1985. I-V.

192

CHAPTER THREE

their attention to the exegesis of Scriptures a n d p r o d u c e d results w h i c h clarify w h a t Moses laid d o w n , o r which carry f o r w a r d p r o b lems o r topics suggested by the T o r a h . T h a t is n o t evidence that thinkers of this p e r i o d h a d access (or wished to gain access) to a n y source of i n f o r m a t i o n o t h e r t h a n that one, long since available to the c o u n t r y as a whole, p r o v i d e d by Moses. It follows that, in so far as a n y materials at all relevant to the later M i s h n a i c system of D a m a g e s did c o m e forth between the wars, the work a p p e a r s to have b e g u n f r o m scratch. A n d not m u c h work c a n have b e e n d o n e to begin with. T h e r e is n o evidence of sustained a n d systematic t h o u g h t a b o u t the topics assembled in the Division of D a m a g e s . W e find s o m e effort devoted to the exegesis of Scriptures relevant to the Division. But w h e t h e r o r n o t those particular passages were selected because of a large-scale inquiry into the r e q u i r e m e n t s of civil law a n d g o v e r n m e n t , o r because of a n overriding interest in a given set of Scriptures provoked by s o m e o t h e r set of questions entirely, we c a n n o t say. T h e net result of the stage in the law's u n f o l d i n g d e m a r c a t e d by the two wars is that history—the world-shattering events of the day— is kept at a distance f r o m the center of life. T h e system of sustaining life s h a p e d essentially within a n ahistorical view of reality, goes forw a r d in its o w n p a t h , a way a b o v e history. Yet the facts of history are otherwise. T h e people as a whole can h a r d l y be said to have accepted the ahistorical ontology f r a m e d by the sages a n d in p a r t expressed by the systems of Purities, Agriculture, a n d H o l y T h i n g s . T h e people followed the p a t h of Bar K o k h b a a n d took the road to w a r once m o r e . W h e n the three g e n e r a t i o n s h a d passed after the destruction a n d the historical occasion for restoration t h r o u g h historical—political a n d military—action c a m e to fulfillment, the great w a r of 132 to 135 broke forth. A view of b e i n g in which people were seen to be m o v i n g t o w a r d s o m e point within time, the fulfillment a n d the e n d of history as it was k n o w n , clearly s h a p e d the consciousness of Israel after 70 just as h a d been the case in the decades before 70. So if to the sages of o u r legal system, history a n d the e n d of history were essentially beside the point a n d pivot, the construction of a world of cyclical eternities being the p u r p o s e a n d center, a n d the c o n d u c t of h u m b l e things like eating a n d drinking the p a r a m o u n t a n d decisive focus of the sacred, others saw things differently. T o those w h o h o p e d a n d therefore fought, Israel's life h a d o t h e r m e a n i n g s entirely. T h e S e c o n d W a r proved still m o r e calamitous t h a n the First. 111 70 the T e m p l e was lost, in 135, even access to the city. 111 70 the people,

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

193

t h o u g h suffering grievous losses, e n d u r e d m o r e or less intact. In 135 the l a n d of J u d a h — s u r e l y the holiest p a r t of the holy L a n d — e v i dently lost the bulk of its Jewish population. T e m p l e , L a n d , people— all were g o n e in the forms in w h i c h they h a d been k n o w n . In the g e n e r a t i o n following the calamity of Bar K o k h b a , w h a t would be the effect u p o n the f o r m a t i o n of the system of H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h ? It is to that question that we n o w t u m .

X. The Halakhah of the Mid-Second Century: The Halakhah's Fully-Realized Category-Formation in Structure and System T h e H a l a k h a h r e a c h e d its full a n d c o m p l e t e statement, as the M i s h n a h would present it, after the Bar K o k h b a W a r . O v e r the next sixty years, f r o m ca. 140 to ca. 200, the system as a whole took shape. If I a m correct that the initial category-formation encompasses the large t h e m e s of E d e n a n d the L a n d , intentionality, a n d sanctification a n d uncleanness, then it was a f t e r the Bar K o k h b a W a r that the second a n d vastly a u g m e n t e d construction c a m e to full articulation. W h a t was implicit in the original category-formation, the imperative of restoration of Israel to the L a n d as of A d a m a n d Eve to E d e n a n d the c o n c o m i t a n t victory of life over d e a t h n o w was realized in the H a l a k h i c construction of Israel's social order, s t m c t u r e a n d system alike. But that is hardly surprising. T h e O r a l T o r a h ' s own categoryf o r m a t i o n represents a r e a d i n g of the P e n t a t e u c h a l narrative of exile a n d return a n d a translation of that narrative into social n o r m s . T h e H a l a k h i c category-formation as we k n o w it in the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a Yerushalmi-Bavli took s h a p e in response to a n event u n d e r s t o o d (rightly, in m y view) within the p r e c e d e n t of Scripture: the destruction of a n o t h e r T e m p l e a n d its closure for n o o n e knew how long. A n d here too, I should claim, sages read f r o m Scripture f o r w a r d to their own day, t r a n s f o r m i n g into a n a c c o u n t of the Israelite social o r d e r a n d its c h a r a c t e r the story of Israel f r o m creation t h r o u g h the first d e s t m c t i o n into a p a r a d i g m to a c c o u n t for the c o n t e m p o r a r y recapitulation. T h e whole then was i n t e n d e d to restore E d e n : life with G o d , life over d e a t h , all in the h a n d s of Israel by reason of its o w n will, intentionality, a n d attitude. T o describe the fully realized category-formation of the H a l a k h a h , we survey the six divisions a n d their tractates a n d the m a i n points covered in each.

194

CHAPTER THREE

T h e Division of Agriculture treats two topics, first, p r o d u c i n g crops in accord with the Scriptural rules 011 the subject, second, p a y i n g the required offerings a n d tithes to the priests, Levites, a n d poor. T h e principal point of the Division is that the L a n d is holy, because G o d has a claim b o t h 011 it a n d u p o n w h a t it produces. G o d ' s claim m u s t be h o n o r e d by setting aside a portion of the prod u c e for those for w h o m G o d has designated it. G o d ' s ownership m u s t be acknowledged by observing the rules G o d has laid d o w n for use of the L a n d . In s u m , the Division is divided a l o n g these lines: (1) Rules for p r o d u c i n g crops in a state of holiness—tractates Kilayim, Shebi'it, O r l a h ; (2) Rules for disposing of crops in accord with the rules of holiness—tractates P e a h , D e m a i , T e r u m o t , M a a s e r o t , M a a s e r Sheni, H a l l a h , Bikkurim, Berakhot. T h e M i s h n a i c Division of A p p o i n t e d T i m e s forms a system in which the a d v e n t of a holy day, like the S a b b a t h of creation, sanctilies the life of the Israelite village t h r o u g h imposing on the village rules o n the m o d e l of those of the T e m p l e . T h e p u r p o s e of the system, therefore, is to bring into a l i g n m e n t the m o m e n t of sanctification of the village a n d the life of the h o m e with the m o m e n t of sanctification of the T e m p l e o n those s a m e occasions of a p p o i n t e d times. T h e underlying a n d generative theory of the system is that the village is the m i r r o r image of the T e m p l e . If things are d o n e in o n e w a y in the T e m p l e , they will be d o n e in the opposite w a y in the village. T o g e t h e r the village a n d the T e m p l e o n the occasion of the holy d a y therefore f o r m a single c o n t i n u u m , a c o m p l e t e d creation, thus awaiting sanctification. T h e village is m a d e like the T e m p l e in that o n a p p o i n t e d times o n e m a y not freely cross the lines distinguishing the village f r o m the rest of the world, just as o n e m a y n o t freely cross the lines distinguishing the T e m p l e f r o m the world. But the village is a m i r r o r image of the T e m p l e . T h e b o u n d a r y lines p r e v e n t free entry into the T e m p l e , so they restrict free egress f r o m the village. O n the holy d a y w h a t o n e m a y d o in the T e m p l e is precisely w h a t o n e m a y n o t d o in the village. So the a d v e n t of the holy d a y affects the village by bringing it into sacred s y m m e t r y in such wise as to effect a system of opposites; e a c h is holy, in a w a y precisely the opposite of the other. Because of the u n d e r l y i n g conception of perfection attained t h r o u g h the u n i o n of opposites, the village is not represented as c o n f o r m i n g to the m o d e l of the cult, b u t of constituting its antithesis. T h e world thus regains perfection w h e n o n the holy d a y heaven

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

195

a n d earth are united, the whole c o m p l e t e d a n d clone: the h e a v e n , the e a r t h , a n d all their hosts. T h i s m o m e n t of perfection renders the events of o r d i n a r y time, of "history," essentially irrelevant. F o r w h a t really m a t t e r s in time is that m o m e n t in which sacred time intervenes a n d effects the perfection f o r m e d of the u n i o n of heaven a n d e a r t h , of T e m p l e , in the m o d e l of the f o r m e r , a n d Israel, its c o m p l e m e n t . It is n o t a r e t u r n to a perfect time b u t a recovery of perfect being, a fulfillment of creation, which explains the essentially ahistorical c h a r acter of the M i s h n a h ' s Division o n A p p o i n t e d T i m e s . Sanctification constitutes a n ontological category a n d is effected by the creator. T h i s explains why the Division in its rich detail is c o m p o s e d of two cjuite distinct sets of materials. First, it addresses w h a t o n e does in the sacred space of the T e m p l e o n the occasion of sacred time, as distinct f r o m w h a t o n e does in that s a m e sacred space o n ordinary, undifferentiated days, which is a subject worked out in Holy T h i n g s . S e c o n d , the Division defines h o w for the occasion of the holy d a y o n e creates a c o r r e s p o n d i n g space in one's o w n circumstance, a n d w h a t o n e does, within that space, d u r i n g sacred time. T h e issue of the T e m p l e a n d cult o n the special occasion of festivals is treated in tractates Pesahim, S h e q a l i m , Y o m a , Sukkah, a n d H a g i g a h . T h r e e f u r t h e r tractates, R o s h H a s h s h a n a h , T a a n i t , a n d Megillah, are necessary to c o m p l e t e the discussion. T h e m a t t e r of the rigid definition of the outlines in the village, of a sacred space, delineated by the limits within which o n e m a y m o v e o n the S a b b a t h a n d festival, a n d of the specification of those things w h i c h o n e m a y not d o within that space in sacred time, is in S h a b b a t , E r u b i n , Besah, a n d M o e d Q a t a n . While the twelve tractates of the Division a p p e a r to fall into two distinct groups, j o i n e d merely by a c o m m o n t h e m e , in fact they relate t h r o u g h a shared, generative m e t a p h o r . It is the c o m p a r i s o n , in the context of sacred time, of the spatial life of the T e m p l e to the spatial life of the village, with activities a n d restrictions to be specified for e a c h , u p o n the c o m m o n occasion of the S a b b a t h or festival. T h e M i s h n a h ' s p u r p o s e therefore is to correlate the sanctity of the T e m pie, as defined by the holy day, with the restrictions of space a n d of action w h i c h m a k e the life of the village different a n d holy, as defined by the holy day. T h e M i s h n a i c system of W o m e n defines the position of w o m e n in the social e c o n o m y of Israel's s u p e r n a t u r a l a n d natural reality. T h a t position acquires definition wholly in relationship to m e n , w h o imp a r t f o r m to the Israelite social e c o n o m y . It is effected t h r o u g h b o t h

196

CHAPTER THREE

s u p e r n a t u r a l a n d natural, this-worldly action. W h a t m a n a n d w o m a n d o on earth provokes a response in h e a v e n , a n d the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s are perfect. So the position of w o m e n is defined a n d secured b o t h in heaven a n d here o n e a r t h , a n d that position is always a n d invariably relative to m e n . T h e principal interest for the M i s h n a h is the point at which a w o m a n b e c o m e s , a n d ceases to be, holy to a particular m a n , that is, enters a n d leaves the marital u n i o n . T h e s e transfers of w o m e n are the d a n g e r o u s a n d disorderly points in the relationship of w o m a n to m a n , therefore, to society as well. Five of the seven tractates of the Division of W o m e n are d e v o t e d to the f o r m a t i o n a n d dissolution of the marital b o n d . O f t h e m , three treat w h a t is d o n e by m a n here on e a r t h , that is, f o r m a t i o n of a marital b o n d t h r o u g h betrothal a n d m a r r i a g e c o n t r a c t a n d dissolution t h r o u g h divorce a n d its consequences: Q i d d u s h i n , K e t u b o t , a n d Gittin. O n e of t h e m is devoted to w h a t is d o n e by w o m a n here o n earth: S o t a h . A n d Y e b a m o t , greatest of the seven in size a n d in f o r m a l a n d substantive brilliance, deals with the c o r r e s p o n d i n g heavenly intervention into the f o r m a t i o n a n d e n d of a marriage: the effect of d e a t h u p o n b o t h f o r m i n g the marital b o n d a n d dissolving it t h r o u g h d e a t h . T h e o t h e r two tractates, N e d a rim a n d Nazir, d r a w into o n e the two realms of reality, heaven a n d e a r t h , as they work out the effects of vows, p e r h a p s because vows taken by w o m e n a n d subject to the c o n f i r m a t i o n or a b r o g a t i o n of the f a t h e r or h u s b a n d m a k e a d e e p i m p a c t u p o n the marital life of the w o m a n w h o has taken t h e m . So, in sum, the Division a n d its system delineate the n a t u r a l a n d s u p e r n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r of the w o m a n ' s role in the social e c o n o m y f r a m e d by m a n : the beginning, e n d , a n d middie of the relationship. T h e M i s h n a i c system of W o m e n thus focuses u p o n the two crucial stages in the transfer of w o m e n a n d of p r o p e r t y f r o m o n e d o m a i n to a n o t h e r , the leaving of the father's house 111 the f o r m a t i o n of a m a r riage, a n d the r e t u r n to the father's house at its dissolution t h r o u g h divorce or the h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h . T h e r e is yet a third point of interest, t h o u g h , as is clear, it is m u c h less i m p o r t a n t t h a n these first two stages: the d u r a t i o n of the m a r r i a g e . Finally, included within the Division a n d at a few points relevant to w o m e n in particular are rules of vows a n d of the special vow to be a Nazir. T h e f o r m e r is included because, in the Scriptural t r e a t m e n t of the t h e m e , the rights of the f a t h e r or h u s b a n d to a n n u l the vows of a d a u g h t e r or wife f o r m the

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

197

central problematic. T h e latter is included for n o very clear reason except that it is a species of w h i c h the vow is the genus. T h e r e is in the Division of W o m e n a clearly defined a n d neatly conceived system of laws, not a b o u t w o m e n in general, b u t c o n c e r n ing w h a t is i m p o r t a n t a b o u t w o m e n to the f r a m e r s of the M i s h n a h . T h i s is the transfer of w o m a n a n d p r o p e r t y associated with that s a m e transfer f r o m o n e d o m a i n , the father's, to a n o t h e r , the h u s b a n d ' s , a n d back. T h e whole constitutes a significant part of the M i s h n a h ' s e n c o m p a s s i n g system of sanctification, for the reason that heaven confirms w h a t m e n d o 011 earth. A correctly p r e p a r e d writ of divorce o n earth changes the status of the w o m a n to w h o m it is given, so that in heaven she is available for sanctification to some o t h e r m a n , while, without that same writ, in h e a v e n ' s view, should she go to some o t h e r m a n , she would be liable to be p u t to d e a t h . T h e earthly d e e d a n d the heavenly perspective correlate. T h a t is indeed very m u c h part of larger system, which says the same thing over a n d over again. T h e f o r m a t i o n of the m a r r i a g e comes u n d e r discussion in Q i d dushin a n d K e t u b o t , as well as in Y e b a m o t . T h e rules for the d u r a tion of the m a r r i a g e are scattered t h r o u g h o u t , but derive especially f r o m parts of K e t u b o t , N e d a r i m , a n d Nazir, 011 the o n e side, a n d the p a r a m o u n t unit of S o t a h , o n the other. T h e dissolution of the m a r riage is dealt with in Gittin, as well as in Y e b a m o t . W e see very clearly, therefore, that i m p o r t a n t overall are issues of the transfer of property, along with w o m e n , covered in K e t u b o t a n d to some measure 111 Q i d d u s h i n , a n d the p r o p e r d o c u m e n t a t i o n of the transfer of w o m e n a n d property, treated in K e t u b o t a n d Gittin. T h e critical issues therefore turn u p o n legal d o c u m e n t s — w r i t s of divorce, for e x a m p l e — a n d legal recognition of changes in the ownership of p r o p erty, e.g., t h r o u g h the collection of the settlement of a m a r r i a g e contract by a widow, t h r o u g h the provision of a dowry, or t h r o u g h the disposition of the p r o p e r t y of a w o m a n d u r i n g the period in which she is m a r r i e d . Within this orderly world of d o c u m e n t a r y a n d proced u r a l c o n c e n t s a place is m a d e for the disorderly conception of the m a r r i a g e not f o r m e d by h u m a n volition but decreed in heaven, the levirate connection. Y e b a m o t states that s u p e r n a t u r e sanctifies a w o m a n to a m a n (under the conditions of the levirate connection). W h a t it says by indirection is that m a n sanctifies too: m a n , like G o d , can sanctify that relationship between a m a n a n d a w o m a n , a n d can also effect the cessation of the sanctity of that same relationship. T h e Division of D a m a g e s comprises two subsystems, which fit

198

CHAPTER THREE

together in a logical way. O n e p a r t presents rules for the n o r m a l c o n d u c t of civil society. T h e s e cover c o m m e r c e , trade, real estate, a n d o t h e r m a t t e r s of everyday intercourse, as well as mishaps, such as d a m a g e s by chattels a n d persons, f r a u d , overcharge, interest, a n d the like, in that s a m e context of everyday social life. T h e o t h e r p a r t describes the institutions governing the n o r m a l c o n d u c t of civil society, that is, courts of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a n d the penalties at the disposal of the g o v e r n m e n t for the e n f o r c e m e n t of the law. T h e two subjects f o r m a single tight a n d systematic dissertation o n the n a t u r e of Israelite society a n d its e c o n o m i c , social, a n d political relationships, as the M i s h n a h envisages t h e m . T h e m a i n point of the first of the two parts of the Division is expressed in the sustained u n f o l d i n g of the three Babas, B a b a Q a m m a , B a b a Mesia, a n d B a b a Batra. It is that the task of society is to m a i n t a i n perfect stasis, to preserve the prevailing situation, a n d to secure the stability of all relationships. T o this e n d , in the interc h a n g e s of buying a n d selling, giving a n d taking, b o r r o w i n g a n d lending, it is i m p o r t a n t that there be a n essential equality of interc h a n g e . N o p a r t y in the e n d should have m o r e t h a n w h a t he h a d at the outset, a n d n o n e should be the victim of a sizable shift in f o r t u n e a n d circumstance. All parties' rights to, a n d in, this stable a n d u n c h a n g i n g e c o n o m y of society are to be preserved. W h e n the condition of a person is violated, so far as possible the law will secure the restoration of the a n t e c e d e n t status. An a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e n d i x to the Babas is at A b o d a h Z a r a h , which deals with the orderly g o v e r n a n c e of transactions a n d relationships between Israelite society a n d the outside world, the realm of idolatry, relationships which are subject to certain special considerations. T h e s e are g e n e r a t e d by the fact that Israelites m a y not derive benefit (e.g., t h r o u g h c o m m e r c i a l transactions) f r o m a n y t h i n g which has served in the worship of an idol. C o n s e q u e n t l y , c o m m e r c i a l transactions suffer limitations 011 a c c o u n t of extrinsic considerations of cultic taboos. While these cover b o t h special occasions, e.g., fairs a n d festivais of idolatry, a n d general matters, that is, w h a t Israelites m a y b u y a n d sell, the m a i n practical illustrations of the principles of the m a t t e r p e r t a i n to wine. T h e M i s h n a h supposes that gentiles routinely m a k e use, for a libation, of a d r o p of a n y sort of wine to which they have access. It therefore is taken for g r a n t e d that wine over which gentiles have h a d control is f o r b i d d e n for Israelite use, a n d also that such wine is p r o h i b i t e d for Israelites to b u y a n d sell. T h i s o t h e r m a t t e r —

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

199

o r d i n a r y everyday relationships with the gentile world, with special reference to trade a n d c o m m e r c e — c o n c l u d e s w h a t the M i s h n a h has to say a b o u t all those m a t t e r s of civil a n d criminal law which together define everyday relationships within the Israelite nation a n d between that nation a n d all others in the world a m o n g w h o m , 111 Palestine as a b r o a d , they lived side by side. T h e o t h e r p a r t of the Division describes the institutions of Israelite g o v e r n m e n t a n d politics. T h i s is in two m a i n aspects, first, the description of the institutions a n d their jurisdiction, with reference to courts, conceived as b o t h judicial a n d administrative agencies, a n d , second, the extensive discussion of criminal penalties. T h e penalties are three: d e a t h , b a n i s h m e n t , a n d flogging. T h e r e are four ways by which a person convicted of a capital crime m a y be p u t to d e a t h . T h e M i s h n a h organizes a vast a m o u n t of i n f o r m a t i o n on w h a t sorts of capital crimes are p u n i s h a b l e by which of the f o u r m o d e s of execution. T h a t i n f o r m a t i o n is alleged to derive f r o m Scripture. But the facts are m a n y , a n d the relevant verses few. W h a t the M i s h n a h clearly contributes to this exercise is a first-rate piece of organization a n d elucidation of available facts. W h e r e the facts c o m e f r o m we d o not know. T h e M i s h n a h tractate S a n h é d r i n f u r t h e r describes the way in which trials are c o n d u c t e d in b o t h m o n e t a r y a n d capital cases a n d pays attention to the possibilities of p e r j u i y . T h e m a t t e r of banishm e n t brings the M i s h n a h to a r a t h e r routine restatement by flogging a n d application o f t h a t m o d e of p u n i s h m e n t conclude the discussion. T h e s e matters, worked out at S a n h e d r i n - M a k k o t , are supplem e n t e d in two tractates, S h e b u o t a n d H o r a y o t , b o t h e m e r g i n g f r o m Scripture. Lev. 5 a n d 6 refer to various oaths which apply mainly, t h o u g h not exclusively, in courts. Lev. 4 deals with errors of j u d g m e n t inadvertently m a d e a n d carried out by the high priest, the ruler, a n d the people; the M i s h n a h knows that these considerations apply to Israelite courts too. W h a t for Leviticus draws the c h a p t e r s together is their c o m m o n interest in the guilt offering, which is owing for violation of the r a t h e r diverse m a t t e r s u n d e r discussion. N o w in tractates S h e b u o t a n d H o r a y o t the materials of Lev. 5-6 a n d 4, respectively, are worked out. But here is it f r o m the viewpoint of the o a t h o r e r r o n e o u s instruction, r a t h e r t h a n the cultic penalty. 111 S h e b u o t the discussion in intellectually imaginative a n d t h o r o u g h , in H o r a y o t , routine. T h e relevance of b o t h to the issues of S a n h é d r i n a n d M a k k o t is obvious. For the m a t t e r of oaths in the m a i n enriches the discussion of the c o n d u c t of the courts. T h e possibility of e r r o r is

200

C H A P T E R THREE

principally in the courts a n d o t h e r political institutions, so the f o u r tractates o n institutions a n d their f u n c t i o n i n g f o r m a r e m a r k a b l e unified a n d cogent set. T h e goal of the system of civil law is the recovery of the prevailing o r d e r a n d balance, the preservation of the established wholeness of the social e c o n o m y . T h i s idea is powerfully expressed in the organization of the three Babas, w h i c h treat first a b n o r m a l a n d then norm a l transactions. T h e f r a m e r s deal with d a m a g e s d o n e by chattels a n d by h u m a n beings, thefts a n d o t h e r sorts of malfeasance against the p r o p e r t y of others. T h e Babas in b o t h aspects p a y closest attention to h o w the p r o p e r t y a n d person of the i n j u r e d p a r t y so far as possible are restored to their prior condition, that is, a state of normality. So attention to torts focuses u p o n penalties paid by the malefactor to the victim, r a t h e r t h a n u p o n penalties inflicted by the court o n the m a l e f a c t o r for w h a t he has d o n e . W h e n speaking of d a m a g e s , the M i s h n a h thus takes as its principal c o n c e n t the restoration of the f o r t u n e of victims of assault o r robbery. T h e n the f r a m e r s take u p the c o m p l e m e n t a r y a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g set of topics, the regulation of n o r m a l transactions. W h e n we rapidly survey the kinds of transactions of special interest, we see f r o m the topics selected for discussion w h a t we have already u n c o v e r e d in the deepest structure of organization a n d articulation of the basic t h e m e . T h e o t h e r half of this s a m e unit of three tractates presents laws governing n o r m a l a n d routine transactions, m a n y of t h e m of the s a m e sort as those dealt with in the first half. Bailments, for e x a m p l e , o c c u r in b o t h wings of the triple tractate, first, bailments subjected to m i s a p p r o p r i a t i o n , or accusation thereof, by the bailiff, then, bailm e n t s transacted u n d e r n o r m a l circumstances. U n d e r the rubric of routine transactions are those of workers a n d householders, that is, the p u r c h a s e a n d sale of labor; rentals a n d bailments; real estate transactions; a n d inheritances a n d estates. O f the lot, the o n e involving real estate transactions is the most fully articulated a n d covers the widest r a n g e of p r o b l e m s a n d topics. T h e Babas all together thus provide a complete a c c o u n t of the orderly g o v e r n a n c e of b a l a n c e d transactions a n d u n c h a n g i n g civil relationships within Israelite society u n d e r o r d i n a r y conditions. T h e c h a r a c t e r a n d interests of the Division of D a m a g e s present probative evidence of the larger p r o g r a m of the philosophers of the M i s h n a h . T h e i r intention is to create n o t h i n g less t h a n a full-scale Israelite g o v e r n m e n t , subject to the administration of sages. T h i s

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

201

g o v e r n m e n t is fully supplied with a constitution a n d bylaws (Sanhédrin, Makkot). It makes provision for a court system a n d procedures (Shebuot, S a n h é d r i n , Makkot), as well as a full set of laws governing civil society (Baba Q a m m a , B a b a Mesia, Baba Batra) a n d criminal justice (Sanhédrin, Makkot). T h i s g o v e r n m e n t , m o r e o v e r , mediates between its own c o m m u n i t y a n d the outside ("pagan") world. T h r o u g h its system of laws it expresses its j u d g m e n t of the others a n d at the s a m e time defines, protects, a n d d e f e n d s its own society a n d social frontiers (Abodah Zarah). It even makes provision for p r o c e d u r e s of remission, to expiate its o w n errors (Horayot). T h e (then non-existent) Israelite g o v e r n m e n t i m a g i n e d by the seco n d - c e n t u r y philosophers centers u p o n the (then non-existent) T e m pie, a n d the (then forbidden) city, J e r u s a l e m . F o r the T e m p l e is o n e principal focus. T h e r e the highest court is in session; there the high priest reigns. T h e penalties for law i n f r i n g e m e n t are of three kinds, o n e of which involves sacrifice in the T e m p l e . (The others are c o m pensation, physical p u n i s h m e n t , a n d death.) T h e basic conception of p u n i s h m e n t , m o r e o v e r , is that u n i n t e n t i o n a l i n f r i n g e m e n t of the rules of society, w h e t h e r "religious" or otherwise, is n o t penalized but r a t h e r expiated t h r o u g h a n offering in the T e m p l e . If a m e m b e r of the people of Israel intentionally infringes against the law, to be sure, that o n e m u s t be r e m o v e d f r o m society a n d is p u t to d e a t h . A i d if there is a claim of o n e m e m b e r of the people against a n o t h e r , that m u s t be righted, so that the prior, prevailing status m a y be restored. So offerings in the T e m p l e are given u p to appease heaven a n d restore a whole b o n d between heaven a n d Israel, specifically 011 those occasions 011 which without malice or ill will a n Israelite lias dist u r b e d the relationship. Israelite civil society without a T e m p l e is not stable o r n o r m a l , a n d not to be imagined. A n d the M i s h n a h is above all a n act of imagination 111 defiance of reality. T h e plan for the g o v e r n m e n t involves a clear-cut philosophy of society, a philosophy which defines the p u r p o s e of the g o v e r n m e n t a n d ensures that its task is not merely to p e r p e t u a t e its own power. W h a t the Israelite g o v e r n m e n t , within the Mishnaic fantasy, is supposed to d o is to preserve that state of perfection which, within the same fantasy, the society to begin everywhere attains a n d expresses. T h i s is 111 at least five aspects. First of all, o n e of the o n g o i n g principies of the law, expressed 111 o n e tractate after a n o t h e r , is that people are to follow a n d m a i n t a i n the prevailing practice of their locale. S e c o n d , the p u r p o s e of civil penalties, as we have noted, is to restore

202

CHAPTER THREE

the i n j u r e d party to his prior condition, so far as this is possible, r a t h e r t h a n merely to penalize the aggressor. T h i r d , there is the conception of true value, m e a n i n g that a given object has a n intrinsic w o r t h , which, in the course of a transaction, must be paid. In this way the seller does n o t leave the transaction a n y richer t h a n w h e n he entered it, o r the b u y e r a n y p o o r e r (parallel to penalties for damages). F o u r t h , there can be n o usury, a biblical prohibition a d o p t e d a n d vastly e n r i c h e d in the M i s h n a i c t h o u g h t , for m o n e y ("coins") is w h a t it is. Any pretense that it has b e c o m e m o r e t h a n w h a t it was violates, in its way, the conception of true value. Fifth, w h e n real estate is divided, it m u s t be d o n e with full attention to the rights of all conc e r n e d , so that, once m o r e , o n e p a r t y does not gain at the expense of the other. In these a n d m a n y o t h e r aspects the law expresses its obsession with the perfect stasis of Israelite society. Its p a r a m o u n t p u r p o s e is in preserving a n d e n s u r i n g that that perfection of the division of this world is kept inviolate o r restored to its true status w h e n violated. T h e Division of H o l y T h i n g s presents a system of sacrifice a n d sanctuary: M a t t e r s c o n c e r n i n g the praxis of the altar a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of the sanctuary. T h e praxis of the altar, specifically, involves sacrifice a n d things set aside f o r sacrifice a n d so d e e m e d consecrated. T h e topic covers these a m o n g the eleven tractates of the present Division: Z e b a h i m a n d p a r t of Hullin, M e n a h o t , T e m u r a h , Keritot, part of Meilah, T a m i d , a n d Q i n n i m . T h e m a i n t e n a n c e of the sanctuary (inclusive of the personnel) in dealt with in Bekhorot, A r a k h i n , p a r t of Meilah, M i d d o t , a n d p a r t of Hullin. V i e w e d f r o m a distance, therefore, the M i s h n a h ' s tractates divide themselves u p into the following g r o u p s (in parentheses are tractates c o n t a i n i n g relevant materials): (1) Rules for the altar a n d the praxis of the c u l t — Z e b a h i m M e n a h o t , Hullin, Keritot, T a m i d , Q i n n i m (Bekhorot, Meilah); (2) Rules for the altar a n d the animals set aside for the c u l t — A r a k h i n , T e m u r a h , Meilah (Bekhorot); a n d (3) Rules for the altar a n d s u p p o r t of the T e m p l e stalf a n d buildings—Bekhorot, M i d d o t (Hullin, A r a k h i n , Meilah, T a m i d ) . I n a w o r d , this Divisiort speaks of the sacrificial cult a n d the s a n c t u a r y in which the cult is c o n d u c t e d . T h e law pays special attention to the m a t t e r of the status of the p r o p e r t y of the altar a n d of the sanctuary, b o t h materials to be utilized in the actual sacrificial rites, a n d p r o p e r t y the value of which supports the cult a n d s a n c t u a r y in general. Both are d e e m e d to be sanctified, that is: qodoshim, "holy things."

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

203

T h e system of H o l y T h i n g s centers u p o n the everyday a n d rules always applicable to the cult: the daily whole offering, the sin offering a n d guilt offering which o n e m a y bring a n y time u n d e r o r d i n a r y circumstances; the right sequence of diverse offerings; the way in which the rites of the whole, sin, a n d guilt offerings are carried out; w h a t soits of animals are acceptable; the a c c o m p a n y i n g cereal offerings; the s u p p o r t a n d provision of a n i m a l s for the cult a n d of m e a t for the priesthood; the support a n d material m a i n t e n a n c e of the cult a n d its building. W e have a system before us: the system of the cult of the J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e , seen as a n o r d i n a r y a n d everyday affair, a continuing a n d routine o p e r a t i o n . T h a t is w h y special rules for the cult, b o t h in respect to the altar a n d in regard to the m a i n t e n a n c e of the buildings, personnel, a n d even the hold city, will be elsewhere in A p p o i n t e d T i m e s a n d Agriculture. But f r o m the perspective of H o l y T h i n g s , those Divisions intersect by supplying special rules a n d raising e x t r a o r d i n a r y (Agriculture: l a n d - b o u n d ; A p p o i n t e d T i m e s : timeb o u n d ) considerations for that t h e m e which Holy T h i n g s claims to set forth in its most general a n d unexceptional way: the cult as something p e r m a n e n t a n d everyday. T h e o r d e r of Holy T h i n g s thus in a concrete way m a p s out the cosmology of the sanctuary a n d its sacrificial system, that is, the world of the T e m p l e , which h a d been the cosmic center of Israelite life. A later saying states m a t t e r s as follows: "Just as the navel is f o u n d at the center of a h u m a n being, so the land of Israel is f o u n d at the center of the world ... a n d it is the f o u n d a t i o n of the world. J e r u s a l e m is at the center of the land of Israel, the T e m p l e is at the center of J e r u s a l e m , the Holy of Holies is at the center of the T e m p l e , the Ark is at the center of the Holy of Holies, a n d the F o u n d a t i o n S t o n e is in front of the Ark, which spot is the f o u n d a t i o n of the world." ( T a n h u m a Q e d o s h i m 10). T h e Division of Purities presents a very simple system of three principal parts: sources of uncleanness, objects a n d substances susceptible to uncleanness, a n d m o d e s of purification f r o m uncleanness. So it tells the story of w h a t makes a given sort of object u n c l e a n a n d w h a t makes it clean. T h e tractates 011 these several topics are as follows: (1) sources of u n c l e a n n e s s - O h a l o t , N e g a i m , N i d d a h , M a k h shirin, Z a b i m , T e b u l Y o m ; (2) objects a n d substances susceptible to u n c l e a n n e s s — K e l i m , T o h o r o t , Uqsin; a n d (3) m o d e s of purification — P a r a h , Miqvaot, Yadayim. V i e w e d as a whole, the Division of Purities treats the interplay of

204

CHAPTER THREE

persons, food, a n d liquids. D r y i n a n i m a t e objects or food are not susceptible to uncleanness. W h a t is wet is susceptible. So liquids activate the system. W h a t is u n c l e a n , m o r e o v e r , emerges f r o m u n c l e a n ness t h r o u g h the o p e r a t i o n of liquids, specifically, t h r o u g h i m m e r s i o n in fit w a t e r of requisite v o l u m e a n d in n a t u r a l condition. Liquids thus deactivate the system. T h u s , w a t e r in its n a t u r a l condition is w h a t concludes the process by r e m o v i n g uncleanness. W a t e r in its u n n a t u ral condition, that is, deliberately affected by h u m a n agency, is w h a t i m p a r t s susceptibility to uncleanness to begin with. T h e uncleanness of persons, f u r t h e r m o r e , is signified by b o d y liquids or flux in the case of the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n (Niddah) a n d the z a b (Zabim). C o r p s e uncleanness is conceived to be a kind of effluent, a viscous gas, which flows like liquid. Utensils for their p a r t receive uncleanness w h e n they f o r m receptacles able to contain liquid. 111 s u m , we have a system in which the invisible flow of fluid-like substances o r powers serve to p u t food, drink, a n d receptacles into the status of uncleanness a n d to r e m o v e those things f r o m that status. W h e t h e r or not we call the system " m e t a p h y s i c a l , " it certainly has n o material base b u t is conditioned u p o n highly abstract notions. T h u s in material terms, the effect of liquid is u p o n food, drink, utensils, a n d m a n . T h e conseq u e n c e has to d o with w h o m a y eat a n d drink w h a t food a n d liquid, a n d w h a t food a n d drink m a y be c o n s u m e d in which pots a n d pans. T h e s e loci are specified by tractates on utensils (Kelim) a n d o n food a n d drink ( T o h o r o t a n d Uqsin). T h e h u m a n b e i n g is a m b i v a l e n t . Persons fall 111 the middle, between sources a n d loci of uncleanness, because they are both. T h e y serve as sources of uncleanness. T h e y also b e c o m e u n c l e a n . T h e zab, the m e n s t r u a t i n g w o m a n , the w o m a n after childbirth, the T e b u l Y o m , a n d the person afflicted with nega (Scripture: leprosy) all are sources of uncleanness. But b e i n g u n c l e a n , they fall within the systern's loci, its p r o g r a m of consequences. So they m a k e o t h e r things u n c l e a n a n d are subject to penalties because they are unclean. U n a m b i g u o u s sources of uncleanness never also constitute loci affected by uncleanness. T h e y always are u n c l e a n a n d n e v e r can b e c o m e clean: the corpse, the d e a d creeping thing, a n d things like t h e m . I n a n i m a t e sources of uncleanness a n d i n a n i m a t e objects are affected by uncleanness. Systemically u n i q u e , m a n a n d liquids have the capacity to i n a u g u r a t e the processes of uncleanness (as sources) a n d also are subject to those s a m e processes (as objects of uncleanness). T h e Division of Purities, which presents the basically simple system just

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

205

n o w described, is not only the oldest in the M i s h n a h . It also is the largest a n d contains by far the most c o m p l e x laws a n d ideas.

X I . 77te Oral Torah Seen Whole: The Restoration of Eden through the Reconstruction of Israel's Social Order Seen whole a n d in its fully realized f o r m u l a t i o n in the M i s h n a h Tosefta-Yerushalmi-Bavli, the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o r a h translates the P e n t a t e u c h ' s cases into rules, the rules into governing, abstract p r i n c i p l e s — e x e m p l a r y of the success of the O r a l T o r a h t h r o u g h o u t . T h e f o r m u l a t i o n as abstractions of rules of cases turns the entire H a l a k h i c structure, a composite of inert i n f o r m a t i o n , into a working system, able to a b s o r b a n d reconstitute a nearly-unlimited variety of discrete a n d i n c o n g r u o u s cases. T h e s e the system forms into a single set of c o h e r e n t principles, a n a c c o u n t of the social o r d e r a n d its metaphysical f o u n d a t i o n s seen whole. T h e category-formation of the H a l a k h a h , critical elements of which surfaced in T e m p l e times, c a m e to fulfillment only w h e n all of Scripture's category-formations h a d b e e n taken over a n d recapitulated in the H a l a k h a h of the O r a l T o rah, its rules a n d cases r e f r a m e d as principles within the large construction we have n o w surveyed. It m u s t follow that the H a l a k h a h states in its way, t h r o u g h the f o r m a t i o n of social n o r m s , w h a t Scripture sets forth in its m a n n e r , t h r o u g h narratives a n d case-laws. J u s t as sages f o u n d in the Pentateuch, a n d in the A u t h o r i z e d History f r o m the P e n t a t e u c h t h r o u g h Kings, a theological h e r m e n e u t i c s expressed t h r o u g h history, so in the O r a l T o r a h they realized that s a m e theology, n o w f r a m e d as the n o r m s of the social order. T h e theological system t h a t is built u p o n the H a l a k h a h set forth in the M i s h n a h , T o s e f t a , a n d baraita-corpus, rests o n f o u r propositions, all of t h e m variations on the a u t h o r i z e d history of Scripture f r o m Genesis t h r o u g h Kings, that are articulated in the A g g a d a h c o n t a i n e d within the T a l m u d s a n d the M i d r a s h compilations: 1. G o d f o r m e d c r e a t i o n in a c c o r d with a plan, w h i c h the T o r a h reveals. W o r l d o r d e r c a n be s h o w n by the facts of n a t u r e a n d society set forth in that plan to c o n f o r m to a p a t t e r n of reason based u p o n justice. T h o s e w h o possess the T o r a h — I s r a e l — k n o w G o d a n d those w h o d o n o t — t h e gentiles—reject h i m in f a v o r of idols. W h a t h a p pens to e a c h of the two sectors of h u m a n i t y , respectively, responds to

206

CHAPTER THREE

their relationship with G o d . Israel in the p r e s e n t age is s u b o r d i n a t e to the nations, because G o d has designated the gentiles as the m e d i u m for penalizing Israel's rebellion, m e a n i n g t h r o u g h Israel's subo r d i n a t i o n a n d exile to p r o v o k e Israel to r e p e n t . Private life as m u c h as the public o r d e r c o n f o r m s to the principle t h a t G o d rules j u s d y in a c r e a t i o n of perfection a n d stasis . 2. T h e perfection of creation, realized in the rule of exact justice, is signified by the timelessness of the world of h u m a n affairs, their c o n f o r m i t y to a few e n d u r i n g p a r a d i g m s that t r a n s c e n d c h a n g e . 111volved h e r e is a theology of history, a n a c c o u n t of h o w G o d works t h r o u g h w h a t h a p p e n s to m a n . N o present, past, or f u t u r e m a r k s time, but only the recapitulation of those patterns. Perfection is furtlier e m b o d i e d in the u n c h a n g i n g relationships of the social c o m m o n w e a l t h . W h a t is r e q u i r e d h e r e is a theology of political e c o n o m y , w h i c h assures that scarce resources, o n c e allocated, rem a i n in stasis. In that w a y the politics a n d e c o n o m i c s of the social o r d e r will c o r r e s p o n d to that perfection t h a t was a t t a i n e d at E d e n . A f u r t h e r indication of perfection lies in the c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y of the c o m p o n e n t s of creation, o n the o n e side, a n d , finally, the corres p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n G o d a n d m a n , in G o d ' s i m a g e (theological a n thropology), o n the o t h e r . At stake h e r e is a n a c c o u n t of G o d ' s view of m a n , a systematic investigation of h o w G o d i n t e n d e d m a n to be. 3. Israel's condition, public a n d personal, m a r k s flaws in creation. W h a t disrupts perfection is the sole p o w e r c a p a b l e of s t a n d i n g o n its o w n against G o d ' s p o w e r , a n d t h a t is m a n ' s will. W h a t m a n controls a n d G o d c a n n o t coerce is m a n ' s capacity to f o r m intention a n d t h e r e f o r e choose either a r r o g a n d y to defy, or h u m b l y to love, G o d . Because m a n defies G o d , the sin that results f r o m m a n ' s rebellion flaws c r e a t i o n a n d disrupts world o r d e r . T h e p a r a d i g m of the rebellion of A d a m 111 E d e n governs, the act of a r r o g a n t rebellion leading to exile f r o m E d e n thus a c c o u n t i n g f o r the c o n d i t i o n of h u m a n i t y . But, as in the original t r a n s a c t i o n of alienation a n d c o n s e q u e n t exile, G o d retains the p o w e r to e n c o u r a g e r e p e n t a n c e t h r o u g h p u n i s h i n g m a n ' s a r r o g a n c e . In m e r c y , m o r e o v e r , G o d exercises the p o w e r to r e s p o n d to r e p e n t a n c e with forgiveness, that is, a c h a n g e of attitude evoking a c o u n t e r p a r t c h a n g e . Since, c o m m a n d i n g his o w n will, m a n also has the p o w e r to initiate the process of reconciliation with G o d , t h r o u g h r e p e n t a n c e , a n act of humility, m a n m a y restore the perfection of that o r d e r that t h r o u g h a r r o g a n c e he has m a r r e d . 4. G o d ultimately will restore that perfection t h a t e m b o d i e d his plan for creation. In the w o r k of restoration d e a t h t h a t c o m e s a b o u t by reason of sin will die, the d e a d will be raised a n d j u d g e d for their deeds in this life, a n d m o s t of t h e m , h a v i n g b e e n justified, will go o n to e t e r n a l life in the world to c o m e . In the p a r a d i g m of m a n restored to E d e n is realized in Israel's r e t u r n to the L a n d of Israel. In t h a t world o r age to c o m e , h o w e v e r , t h a t sector of h u m a n i t y that t h r o u g h the T o r a h knows G o d will e n c o m p a s s all of h u m a n i t y . Idolaters will

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

207

perish, a n d h u m a n i t y t h a t c o m p r i s e s Israel at the e n d will k n o w the o n e , true G o d a n d s p e n d eternity in his light." 1

N o w , r e c o r d e d in this way, the story told by the H a l a k h a h set forth in the M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a - Y e r u s h a l m i - B a v l i proves r e m a r k a b l y familiar, with its stress o n G o d ' s justice (to which his m e r c y is integral), m a n ' s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with G o d in his possession of the p o w e r of will, m a n ' s sin a n d G o d ' s response. But the M i s h n a h a n d the o t h e r H a l a k h i c compilations d o not tell their story t h r o u g h narrative but t h r o u g h law. T h e story that the law m e a n s to translate into n o r m a tive rules of c o n d u c t turns o u t to a c c o u n t for the condition of the world a n d also to a d u m b r a t e the restoration of h u m a n i t y to E d e n t h r o u g h the e m b o d i m e n t of Israel in the L a n d of Israel. T h a t is w h a t I m e a n w h e n I say that the O r a l T o r a h systematizes the anecdotal rules of the P e n t a t e u c h into the design for the social order, the actualization of which restores E d e n .

X I I . One Whole Torah, Oral and Written? Sages in later generations would call the M i s h n a h " t h e oral T o r a h , ' " 9 a n d it is therefore correct to ask, is the p u r p o s e of the literature c o n g r u e n t with the message of the H e b r e w Scriptures, a.k.a., the W r i t t e n T o r a h ? If we translate into the narrative of Israel, f r o m the b e g i n n i n g to the calamity of the destruction of the (first) T e m p l e , w h a t is set forth in b o t h abstract a n d concrete ways 111 the O r a l T o r a h , we t u r n out to state a reprise of the story laid out in Genesis t h r o u g h Kings a n d amplified by the principal p r o p h e t s . R e c o r d e d 111 this way, the story told t h r o u g h law by the M i s h n a h a n d related writings proves r e m a r k a b l y familiar, with its stress o n G o d ' s justice (to which his m e r c y is integral), m a n ' s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with G o d in his possession of the p o w e r of will, m a n ' s sin a n d G o d ' s response. 18

I have shown that these four propositions encompass the entire system of Rabbinic Judaism in my Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God (Kingston, 1999: McGill-Queens University Press). 19 I refer to my What, Exactly, Did the Rabbinic Sages Mean by "the Oral Torah"? An Inductive Answer to the Question of Rabbinic Judaism. Atlanta, 1998: Scholars Press for South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism. This is not the place to ask the historical question, when did the conception of "the dual Torah, oral and written," take shape, and at what point in its development did the "oral Torah" find its definition in the Mishnah and related documents? These questions are answered in that monograph.

208

CHAPTER THREE

A r e the H a l a k h a h ' s sages right a b o u t the written p a r t of the T o rah, m e a n i n g , is w h a t they say the W r i t t e n T o r a h says actually w h a t the ancient Israelite Scriptures say? Will those w h o p u t forth the books of Genesis t h r o u g h K i n g s as a sustained narrative a n d those w h o in t h a t s a m e context selected a n d organized the writings of the p r o p h e t s , Isaiah, J e r e m i a h , Ezekiel, a n d the twelve, in the aggregate h a v e c o n c u r r e d in sages' structure a n d system? Certainly others w h o lay claim to these s a m e Scriptures f r o m the Gospels f o r w a r d could n o t a n d did not c o n c u r . At the time the sages did their greatest theological work, in the f o u r t h a n d fifth c e n t u r y C.E., their Christian c o u n t e r p a r t s , in the Latin, G r e e k a n d Syriac speaking sectors of Christianity alike, n o t only r e a d Scripture in a very different w a y b u t also accused the rabbis of falsifying the T o r a h . H o w would the sages have r e s p o n d e d to the charge? T h e y would point to the fact that nearly every proposition they set forth, the m a i n b e a m s of the structure of faith they construct, all sets securely a n d symmetrically u p o n the written T o r a h . Proof-texts constantly reinforce the structure by showing its scriptural f o u n d a t i o n s . T h a t is w h y sages speak of the o n e whole T o r a h , in two m e d i a , correlative a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y . S e c o n d , sages' f o r m u l a t i o n of the T o r a h , the o n e whole T o r a h of Moses, o u r rabbi, defines holy Israel's relationship with G o d for all time to c o m e . A c c o r d i n g l y — t h a t is n o w sages' view—if we take u p the O r a l T o r a h a n d explore its theological structure a n d system, we m e e t J u d a i s m , p u r e a n d simple. T h e r e we find its learning a n d its piety, w h a t it knows a b o u t a n d hears f r o m G o d , w h a t it has to say to G o d . So m u c h for the claim of theological apologetics. T h e facts s u p p o r t that claim. Sages have h e r m e n e u t i c s o n their side. 111 their r e a d i n g of the written T o r a h whole, in canonical context, as a record of life with G o d , they are right to say their story goes over the written T o r a h ' s story. But in the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h a n d its c o n t i n u a t o r - c o m p i l a t i o n s , they design the story of the restoration of Israel to the L a n d , of A d a m to E d e n . Start to finish, creation t h r o u g h Sinai to the fall of J e r u s a l e m , all perceived in the light of the p r o p h e t s ' rebuke, consolation, a n d h o p e for restoration, Scripture's a c c o u n t is rehearsed in the O r a l T o r a h . All is in p r o p o r t i o n a n d balance. V i e w e d as a systematic h e r m e n e u t i c s , the sages' theology accurately sets forth the principal possibility of the theology that is implicit in the written p a r t of the T o r a h — t o be sure, in a m o r e systematic a n d cogent m a n n e r t h a n does Scripture. A n d that is with greater e m p h a s i s on the t h e m e that the fulfillment of Scripture's

T H E MISHNAH AND ITS TIMES

209

p r o m i s e can only be restoration. So it is entirely within the imaginative capacity of the O r a l T o r a h to raise the question: w h a t c a m e before in relationship to w h a t we have in h a n d ? T o state the m a t t e r m o r e directly, are the rabbis of the O r a l T o r a h right in m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t they have provided the originally oral p a r t of the o n e whole T o r a h of Moses o u r rabbi? T o a n s w e r that question in the affirmative, sages would have only to point to their theology in the setting of Scripture's as they grasped it. T h e theology of the O r a l T o r a h e m bodied in the H a l a k h a h of the M i s h n a h a n d associated compilations tells a simple, sublime story. [1] G o d created a perfect, just world a n d in it m a d e m a n in his image, equal to G o d in the p o w e r of will. [2] M a n in his a r r o g a n c e sinned a n d was expelled f r o m the perfect world a n d given over to d e a t h . G o d gave m a n the T o r a h to purify his h e a r t of sin. [3] M a n e d u c a t e d by the T o r a h in humility can repent, accepting G o d ' s will of his own free will. W h e n he does, m a n will be restored to E d e n a n d eternal life. In o u r terms, we should call it a story with a beginning, middle, a n d e n d . In sages' f r a m e w o r k , we realize, the story e m b o d i e s a n e n d u r i n g a n d timeless p a r a d i g m of h u m a n i t y in the e n c o u n t e r with G o d : m a n ' s powerful will, G o d ' s powerful word, in conflict, a n d the resolution thereof. T h e task of the law of the M i s h n a h a n d related writings was to spell out the r e q u i r e m e n t s of that c o m m u n i t y that would restore A d a m a n d Eve to E d e n t h r o u g h Israel to the L a n d of Israel. T h a t is the upshot of the category-formation in three large composites that I f o u n d particular to the O r a l T o r a h . But if a b o u t the written T o r a h I claim sages were right, t h e n w h a t a b o u t the h e r m e n e u t i c s of others? If the sages claimed fully to spell out the message of the written T o r a h , as they d o explicitly in nearly every d o c u m e n t a n d on nearly every page of the O r a l T o r a h , so too did others. A n d those others, w h o , like the sages, a d d e d to the received Scripture o t h e r writings of a (to-tliem) authoritative c h a r a c t e r , set forth not only the story of the fall f r o m grace that occupied sages but, in addition, different stories f r o m those the sages told. T h e y d r e w different consequences f r o m the heritage of ancient Israel. Sages' critics will find their a c c o u n t not implausible but incomplete, a t r u n c a t e d r e a d i n g of Scripture. T h e y will w o n d e r a b o u t leaving out nearly the whole of the apocalyptic tradition. But, in the balance, sages' critics err. For n o o n e can reasonably d o u b t that sages'

210

C H A P T E R THREE

restorationist r e a d i n g of Scripture recovers, in p r o p o r t i o n a n d accurate stress a n d balance, the m a i n lines of Scripture's principal story, the o n e a b o u t creation, the fall of m a n a n d G o d ' s salvation of m a n t h r o u g h Israel a n d the T o r a h . A d u m b r a t e d in T e m p l e times, if not e m b o d i e d in the category-formations t h a t would f r a m e the structure a n d the system as a whole, the fully-realized H a l a k h i c system c a m e to fruition in the m i d - s e c o n d century, w h e n the P e n t a t e u c h a l p a t t e r n of exile a n d r e t u r n a n d return r e a c h e d its recapitulation with the closure of J e r u s a l e m , b u t the story of the r e t u r n was yet to c o m m e n c e . It would be a long time in c o m i n g to realization.

CHAPTER THREE

F O R M A N D M E A N I N G IN T H E M I S H N A H

I. Formulation and Transmission of the Mishnah: By Whom, For What? T h e d o m i n a n t stylistic trait of the M i s h n a h is the acute formalization of its syntactical structure, specifically, its intermediate divisions, so organized that the limits of t h e m c o r r e s p o n d to those of f o r m u l a r y pattern. 1 T h e b a l a n c e a n d o r d e r of the M i s h n a h are particular to. T o s e f t a does n o t sustainedly reveal equivalent traits. Since the Mislin a h is so very distinctive a d o c u m e n t , we n o w investigate the intentions of the people w h o m a d e it. A b o u t w h o m does it speak? A n d why, in particular, have its authorities distinctively s h a p e d language, which in T o s e f t a does not speak in r h y m e s a n d balanced, m a t c h e d declarative sentences, imposing, u p o n the conceptual, factual prose of the law, a peculiar kind of poetry? W h y d o they create r h y t h m i c order, grammatically b a l a n c e d sentences c o n t a i n i n g discrete laws, laid out in w h a t seem to be carefully e n u m e r a t e d sequences, a n d the like? L a n g u a g e not only contains culture, which could not exist witho u t it. L a n g u a g e — i n o u r case, linguistic a n d syntactical style a n d stylization—expresses a worldview a n d ethos. W h o s e worldview is c o n t a i n e d a n d expressed in the M i s h n a h ' s formalized rhetoric? 2 1

This essay makes reference in particular to the Mishnah's Division of Purities and derives from my Histoiy of the Mishnaic Law of Purities (Leiden, 1977), XXI:298330. But the same analysis serves for the other five divisions of the Mishnah, which is rhetorically uniform. But anyone who has conducted form-analysis of the Tosefta will know that the generalizations offered here are particular to the document under study; the rhetoric of the Tosefta, viewed as a coherent document (as people these days argue it should be), bears its own distinctive and indicative traits, all the more so, the modes of construction and redaction. If the Mishnah is formalized to facilitate memorization, then the Tosefta does not exhibit the same mnemonic devices and is not meant for memorization (or at least: memorization in the same manner as the Mishnah); that is the fact, all the more so, of the two Talmuds, which as we have them presuppose formulation and transmission in writing, not in memory. But how materials now collected and preserved in the Talmud were originally formulated and transmitted presents another set of problems, to which much more thought must be devoted. 2 In the discussion that follows I make no reference whatsoever to the similarly stylized and formalized modes of expression in other documents of law or religion, in

212

CHAPTER THREE

T h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o d o u b t t h a t if w e a s k e d t h e t r a d e n t a l - r e d a c t i o n a l authorities b e h i n d the M i s h n a h the i m m e d i a t e p u r p o s e of their formalization, their a n s w e r w o u l d be, to facilitate m e m o r i z a t i o n .

For

t h a t is t h e p r o x i m a t e e f f e c t o f t h e a c u t e f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e i r d o c u m e n t . M u c h i n its c h a r a c t e r c a n b e s e e n a s m n e m o n i c . T h e M i s h n a h w a s n o t p u b l i s h e d i n w r i t i n g , L i e b e r m a n (Publication, p . 8 7 ) m a i n t a i n s : "Since in the entire T a l m u d i c literature we d o not find that a b o o k of the M i s h n a h was ever consulted in the case of controversies o r d o u b t c o n c e r n i n g a p a r t i c u l a r r e a d i n g , w e m a y safely c o n c l u d e t h a t c o m p i l a t i o n w a s n o t p u b l i s h e d in writing;, t h a t a written

the

ekdosis

[edition] of the M i s h n a h did not exist." T h e M i s h n a h was published in a different w a y : " A regular oral ekdosis, edition, of was in existence, a fixed text recited by the T a n n a i m of the college. T h e T a n n a ("repeater", reciter) c o m m i t ted to m e m o r y the text of certain p o r t i o n s of the M i s h n a h w h i c h he ancient times and later on. Self-evidendy, the traits of stylization to which I allude are not distinctive to Mishnah, except in its own context. David Mellinkoff, The Language of Law (Boston, 1963) points to many traits of legal language which will be familiar to readers of this work e.g., distinctive use of a common language for a particular purpose, the presence of mannerisms of various kinds, formal words and expressions, and the like. Literary traits of documents much closer to the Mishnah in time upon examination appear to be not distant from the Mishnah's. Remarkably reminiscent of Sifra, the Pahlavi Nirangestan, for example, presents citations of Avesta followed by something very like pericope in dispute-form, a statement of a problem, with diverse opinions, in the names of authorities + guft (= 'omer) + balanced and matched opinions. (I have published some preliminary observations on the correspondence of forms and Gattungen in Rabbinic and Zoroastrian texts in Judaism and £oroastrianism at the Dusk of Late Antiquity. How Two Ancient Faiths Wrote Down Their Great Traditions. Adanta, 1993: Scholars Press for South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism. But the work has scarcely begun.) By interpretation of the relationship between Mishnaic rhetorical patterns and the reality contained and expressed therein and of the larger meaning of that rhetoric is directed wholly and completely to the document at hand and to the system of which it is a principal expression. It is by no means meant to exclude them possibility that similar literary preferences in other systems and their literature generate exactly the same approach to the interpretation of the meaning of those preferences, or the possibility that exactly the same literary traits bear wholly other meanings in other systems. The claim in all that foUows is that Mishnaic redactional and formal traits are to be interpreted, in this context, as expressions of the Mishnaic world and testimonies to its conceptions of reality. Systemic interpretation is all that is attempted here. A more wide-ranging and comparative approach certainly is of interest. But since exactly the same phenomenon may, in diverse systems, bear quite various meanings, the comparative approach must be to systems, not to matters of detail. The problem of undertaking the requisite comparison for me is that I known work equivalent to mine in the systematic exposition of the laws, system, and language of rules of uncleanness, e.g., of the Pahlavi code.

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

213

subsequently recited in the college in the p r e s e n c e of the great masters of the Law. Those T a n n a i m w e r e pupils chosen for their e x t r a o r d i n a r y m e m o r y , a l t h o u g h they w e r e not always e n d o w e d with d u e intelligence... W h e n the M i s h n a h was c o m m i t t e d to m e m o r y a n d the T a n n a i m recited it in the coUege, it was t h e r e b y published a n d possessed all the traits a n d features of a written ekdosis... O n c e the M i s h n a h was a c c e p t e d a m o n g the college T a n n a i m (reciters) it was difficult to cancel it."

While he speaks with certainty, in fact, L i e b e r m a n ' s evidence for these conclusions is d r a w n f r o m two sources, first, his own faith in the historicity of sayings within the R a b b i n i c a l c o i p u s a n d stories a b o u t h o w diverse p r o b l e m s of transmission of materials were worked out, second, parallels, only some of t h e m g e r m a n e but n o n e of t h e m probative, d r a w n f r o m G r a e c o - R o m a n p r o c e d u r e s of literary transmission. Nonetheless, that view is broadly acknowledged a n d should be noted. L i e b e r m a n missed the m a i n point, which is this: the traits of the d o c u m e n t itself, which he never subjected to systematic analysis. Considerably m o r e compelling evidence of the same proposition derives f r o m the internal c h a r a c t e r of the M i s h n a h itself. But if stylization a n d formalization testify to a m n e m o n i c p r o g r a m , then absence of the s a m e traits m u s t m e a n that some materials were not i n t e n d e d to be m e m o r i z e d ; o r that they were, at least, not so f o r m u l a t e d a n d transmitted as to facilitate m e m o r i z a t i o n ; it comes d o w n to the s a m e thing. T h e M i s h n a h , a n d the M i s h n a h alone, was the c o r p u s to be f o r m u l a t e d for m e m o r i z a t i o n a n d t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h 'living books', T a n n a i m , to the c o m i n g generations. Internal traits d e m o n s t r a t e bey o n d d o u b t that the T o s e f t a c a n n o t have been f o r m u l a t e d along the s a m e lines. Accordingly, the M i s h n a h is given a special place a n d role by those w h o stand b e h i n d it. 111 whose worldview is m e m o r i z a t i o n of the principal c o r p u s a m a j o r c o m p o n e n t ? T h e R a b b i n i c compilations, beginning with T o s e f t a , claim that the M i s h n a h as we k n o w it is the p r o d u c t of m a n y generations of formalization arrd stylization of law. T . Z a b . 1:5 speaks of Aqiba's systematizing laws for his pupils. But the evidence before us hardly permits the specification of w h a t was formally a n d stylistically old, as distinct f r o m the work of the ultimate tradentalredactional generation. O n the contrary, w h a t we k n o w strongly suggests, a n d 111 m y j u d g m e n t proves, that the work of organization, f o r m u l a t i o n , a n d redaction is a c c o m p l i s h e d in o n e a n d the same process by a single g e n e r a t i o n . T h e r e are n o substantial traces of

214

CHAPTER T H R E E

m a n y , very extensive earlier collections that have b e e n inserted whole a n d used as the f r a m e w o r k for the organization of tractates or even l a r g e i n t e r m e d i a t e d i v i s i o n s t h e r e i n . 3 L i e b e r m a n (p. 9 1 ) t r a n s l a t e s t h e p e r i c o p e in Z a b i m , " W h e n R . A q i b a s y s t e m a t i z e d M i s h n a y o t h his pupils.'‫ י‬T h e

text refers to H a l a k h o t , laws o r legal

for

pericopae.

F u r t h e r (p. 95), h e r e a f f i r m s , " R . ' A q i b a is e x p l i c i t l y c r e d i t e d w i t h a n edition of the M i s h n a h . .

T h i s o f c o u r s e is n o t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e

cited saying. A n d a g a i n , " A t a n y r a t e t h e p a r t p l a y e d b y R . ' A q i b a as a s y s t e m i z e r o f t h e M i s h n a h is q u i t e e v i d e n t f r o m t h e t r a d i t i o n r e p o r t e d in A b o t h d e R . N a t h a n , " w h i c h s a y s t h a t ' A q i b a the whole T o r a h into

rings"

"converted

(!). T h i s g e n e r a t e s t h e f u r t h e r n o t i o n (p.

96): T h e disciples of R . ' A q i b a c o n t i n u e d their t e a c h e r s work; they a d d e d the c o m m e n t s of R . ' A q i b a a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s to the b o d y of the n e w M i s h n a h . A large n u m b e r of different versions of the M i s h n a h was c r e a t e d by R . ' A q i b a , s disciples a r o u n d the m i d d l e of the s e c o n d century. T h e various T a n n a i m in the different colleges m e m o r i z e d divergent superpositions o n R . ' A q i b a ' s M i s h n a h . T h e multiplication of such different versions of the latter w o u l d eventually result in multiplying a n d d e e p e n i n g controversies in Israel. For this reason R . J u d a h the Prince u n d e r t o o k a n e w edition of the M i s h n a h a r o u n d the e n d of the s e c o n d or the b e g i n n i n g of the third c e n t u r y C . E . His M i s h n a h was virtually c a n o n i z e d ; the rest of the M i s h n a y o t h w e r e declared 'external, ‫י‬ B a r a i t h o t h , which h a d only a s e c o n d a r y a u t h o r i t y in c o m p a r i s o n with the M i s h n a h of R . J u d a h the Prince. T h e O r d e r of Purities c o n t a i n s n o h i n t of this l o n g process of re 3 It is true that there clearly are earlier collections, e.g., the apophthegmatic constructions of M. Par. 8: 27 and M. Nid. 6: 2-10. These in fact form intermediate units, in accord with the discussion above. But the claim that various authorities, e.g., Aqiba or some of his students, created whole "the Mishnah s", that is to say, complete and systematic accounts of the halakhic system covering the whole range of the law, certainly is false for our Order. Sometimes a conception of a Yavnean, e.g., Aqiba, Eliezer, or Joshua, or the opposite of such a conception, forms the generative problematic of a (later) tractate. But there is no evidence known to us after our survey of the Order of Purities which justifies the widespread conception that before the Mishnah as we know it were prior, comparable Mishnahs. That is not to suggest that there were not the mishnahs—that is, pericopes, fairly formally fixed cognitive units—or that the language of some of the cognitive units in a general way derives from the period before Rabbi. I think there were. It seems to me that the intermediate units formed around apophthegm or around the names of authorities supports that notion. But the only the Mishnah, the existence of which is indicated by the Mishnah as we know it, is the Mishnah attributed to Judah the Patriarch. I suppose that it is conceptual unclarity that has led to the contrary, and, unfortunately, widespread conception.

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

215

vision a n d complication. Its stylistic e c o n o m y testifies to formalization a n d redaction within a single limited circle. T h e imposition f r o m the outset (let us say, f r o m the time of Acjiba) of a small h a n d f u l of strictly e n f o r c e d formulaic a n d redactional conventions is not alleged in the sources. T h e claim of the sources (and scholars) s u m m a r i z e d by L i e b e r m a n is that there was divergence, that the M i s h n a h as we know it was necessitated not merely by the growth of the tradition's size but the diversity of its c h a r a c t e r : "the multiplication of different versions . . . " W e see t h r o u g h o u t the M i s h n a h , w h e n it is properly analyzed as to its rhetorical traits, 1 the m a r k s of a r e m a r k a b l y c o h e r e n t , cogent, a n d exceedingly limited c o r p u s of literary-formulaic devices a n d redactional conventions. W e have been wholly u n a b l e to point to significant divergence f r o m a single n o r m of agglutination: reliance u p o n distinctive f o r m u l a r y traits that are imposed 011 a sequence of sentences, a n d u p o n distinctive t h e m a t i c substance, expressed by these s a m e p a t t e r n e d sentences. T h a t is h o w i n t e r m e d i a t e units were p u t together a n d accounts also for the formalization of small oneswithout reference to the diversity of authorities cited tlerein. F o u r distinctive syntactical patterns characterize all, with the "simple declarative s e n t e n c e " itself so s h a p e d as to yield its own distinctive traits. If there are traces of diverse theories of formulation a n d redaction of materials in o u r O r d e r , which would reflect the individual preferences a n d styles of diverse circles over two h u n d r e d years, we have not f o u n d t h e m . T h o s e w h o m a i n t a i n that the Misltn a h as we know it not merely contains ideas f r o m successive g e n e r a tions b u t also preserves the language a n d whole sequences of peric o p a e m a d e u p by these successive generations will w a n t to specify the criteria for the recognition ο the diverse literary results of those divergent groups. T h e unified a n d cogent formal c h a r a c t e r of the M i s h n a h testifies in particular to that of its ultimate tradent-redactors. W e learn in the M i s h n a h a b o u t the intention of that last generation of Palestinian authorities, w h o gave us the d o c u m e n t as we have it. It is their way of saying things that we know for certain. F r o m this we h o p e to learn s o m e thing a b o u t t h e m a n d their worldview. O n e certain fact is that they choose to h a n d 011 i m p o r t a n t materials in such a f o r m as facili4

That work is carried out in my History of the Mishnaic Law series, and then recapitulated in the comparative study of the rhetoric of the various Rabbinic documents in The Documentary Form-History project.

216

CHAPTER THREE

tated m e m o r i z a t i o n . T h e second, which follows closely, is that the d o c u m e n t is m e a n t to b e m e m o r i z e d . W h e t h e r or not it also was copied a n d t r a n s m i t t e d in writing, a n d w h e t h e r or n o t such copies were d e e m e d authoritative, are n o t questions we can answer o n the basis of the M i s h n a h ' s internal evidence. T o s e f t a certainly suggests that the M i s h n a h p e r i c o p a e were copied a n d glossed, b u t its evidence does n o t p e r t a i n to these larger issues.

II. Rhetoric and Reality It follows that the system of g r a m m a r a n d syntax distinctive to the M i s h n a h expresses rules a n d conventions intelligible to m e m b e r s of a particular c o m m u n i t y , that which stands b e h i n d the M i s h n a h . It certainly is a peculiar kind of formalized language. It is f o r m e d to facilitäte a principal function, m e m o r i z a t i o n a n d transmission of special rules. T h e language of the M i s h n a h therefore does not relate those w h o m a d e a n d used it to o n e a n o t h e r or to the world in which they lived. It is n o t a functional i n s t r u m e n t of neutral c o m m u n i c a t i o n . R a t h e r , it distinguishes its users f r o m that o r d i n a r y world, a n d sets a p a r t o n e aspect of their interrelationships, the o n e defined in the M i s h n a h , f r o m such o t h e r aspects as d o not require speech in a few p a t t e r n s a n d in a kind of poetry. Accordingly, while the language represented in p a r t by the M i s h n a h m a y or m a y n o t have been used for o t h e r purposes t h a n those defined by the M i s h n a h , the w a y in which that language is used in the M i s h n a h bespeaks a limited a n d circumscribed circumstance. H o w things were said can have been grasped primarily by the people instructed in saying a n d h e a r i n g things in just that way. In this sense formalized language sets the M i s h n a h a p a r t f r o m its larger linguistic context, for M i d d l e H e b r e w was a language utilized outside of R a b b i n i c a l circles. T h e M i s h n a h ' s is l a n g u a g e for a n occasion. T h e occasion is p a r ticular: f o r m a t i o n a n d transmission of special sorts of conceptions in a special way. T h e p r e d o m i n a n t , referential function of language, which is to give verbal structure to the message itself, is secondary in o u r d o c u m e n t . T h e expressive f u n c t i o n , to convey the speaker's attit u d e t o w a r d w h a t he is talking a b o u t , the c o n n a t i v e function, to focus u p o n w h o is being addressed, a n d o t h e r ritualized functions of language c o m e to the fore. T h e M i s h n a h ' s language therefore is special, m e a n t as a n expression of a non-referential function (Farb, Wordplay,

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

217

p p . 23-4). So far as the M i s h n a h was m e a n t to be m e m o r i z e d by a particular g r o u p of people for a distinctive purpose, it is language that includes few a n d excludes m a n y , unites those w h o use it a n d sets t h e m a p a r t f r o m others w h o d o not. T h e f o r m a l rhetoric of the M i s h n a h is e m p t y of content, which is proved by the fact that pretty m u c h all t h e m e s a n d conceptions can be reduced to these s a m e few formal patterns. T h e s e patterns, I have shown, are established by syntactical recurrences, as distinct f r o m repetition of sounds. ' T h e s a m e words d o n o t recur, except in the case of the few forms we have specified, o r keywords in a few con texts. T h e s e forms have to be excised f r o m the f o r m u l a r y patterns in which they occur, e.g., ' W M R , M ' S H , the dispute, so that we m a y discern the operative a n d expressive p a t t e r n s themselves. O n the o t h e r h a n d , long sequences of sentences fail to repeat the s a m e words —that is, syllabic balance, r h y t h m , o r sound—-yet the d o establish a powerful claim to o r d e r a n d f o r m u l a r y sophistication a n d perfection. T h a t is w h y we could n a m e a p a t t e r n , he who . . . it is . . . apocopation: the a r r a n g e m e n t of the words, as a g r a m m a t i c a l p a t t e r n , not their substance, is indicative of p a t t e r n . Accordingly, while we have a d o c u m e n t c o m p o s e d along w h a t clearly are m n e m o n i c lines, the docunient s susceptibility to memorization rests principally upon the utter abstraction of recurrent .syntactical patterns rather than on the concrete repetition of particular words rhythms syllabic counts or sounds. A sense for the deep, i n n e r logic of w o r d - p a t t e r n s , of g r a m m a r a n d syntax, r a t h e r t h a n for their external similarities, governs the Mishn a i c m n e m o n i c . Even t h o u g h the M i s h n a h is to be m e m o r i z e d a n d h a n d e d on orally, it expresses a m o d e of t h o u g h t a t t u n e d to abstract ‫נ‬ I have not alluded to the high probability that the Mishnah was intended to be chanted. The musical line evidently was meant to serve any sequence of words, determined rather by the structure and position of phrases. Bathja Bayer (Encyctopaedia Judaica 15, p. 753) states, "The transmission of an unwritten text depends on constant repetition ..., and the more formal such a text becomes, the more its rendition will tend to develop into a formal - a n d soon also formulaic—sequence of quasimelodic phrases." T. Oh. 16:8 has Aqiba tell his students to sing, and b. Meg. 32b is more explicit still, "He who repeats [the Mishnah traditions] without a tune ..." Accordingly, we have every reason to suppose there was some sort of "melodic (or rather melodized) rendition," but we do not know the nature or structure of these melodies for the Mishnah . In any event the repetition of a melodic line for diverse materials will have constituted still one more formal pattern. Everyone knows that in ancient times the classical texts were sung and declaimed, and in the case of philosophical dialogues, some hold they also were performed. So the Mishnah's blatantly formalized character, its rhythms and its matched repetitions, invite just the kind of singing performance that we see, today, in the authentic yeshivas.

218

CHAPTER T H R E E

relationships, r a t h e r t h a n concrete a n d substantive forms. T h e formulaic, n o t the formal, c h a r a c t e r of M i s h n a i c rhetoric yields a picture of a subculture that speaks of i m m a t e r i a l a n d n o t material things. I n this subculture the relationship, r a t h e r t h a n the thing or person t h a t is related, is p r i m a r y a n d constitutes the principle of reality. T h e t h i n g in itself is less t h a n the t h i n g in cathexis with o t h e r things, so too the person. T h e repetition of f o r m creates f o r m . But w h a t here is r e p e a t e d is not f o r m , b u t f o r m u l a r y p a t t e r n , a p a t t e r n effected t h r o u g h persistent g r a m m a t i c a l or syntactical relationships a n d affecting an infinite r a n g e of diverse objects a n d topics. F o r m a n d structure e m e r g e n o t f r o m concrete, f o r m a l things b u t f r o m abstract a n d unstated, b u t ubiquitous a n d powerful relationships. T h i s f a c t — t h e creation of p a t t e r n t h r o u g h g r a m m a t i c a l relation ship of syntactical elements, m o r e t h a n t h r o u g h concrete sounds 1 ' — tells us that the people w h o m e m o r i z e d conceptions r e d u c e d to these particular f o r m s were c a p a b l e of extraordinarily abstract perception. H e a r i n g peculiarities of w o r d - o r d e r in quite diverse cognitive con texts, their ears a n d m i n d s perceived regularities of g r a m m a t i c a l arr a n g e m e n t , r e p e a t e d functional variations of utilization of diverse words, grasping f r o m such subtleties syntactical p a t t e r n s not imposed or expressed by recurrent external p h e n o m e n a a n d a u t o n o m o u s of particular meanings. W h a t they h e a r d , it is clear, not only were abstract relationships, b u t also principles conveyed along with a n d t h r o u g h these relationships. F o r w h a t was m e m o r i z e d , as I have said, was a f u n d a m e n t a l notion, expressed in diverse examples but in rec u r r e n t rhetorical-syntactical patterns. Accordingly, w h a t they could a n d did h e a r was w h a t lay far b e n e a t h the surface of the rule: b o t h the u n s t a t e d principle a n d the u n s o u n d e d p a t t e r n . T h i s m e a n s , I stress, that their m o d e of t h o u g h t was a t t u n e d to w h a t lay b e n e a t h the surface, their m i n d a n d their ears perceived w h a t was not said b e h i n d w h a t was said, a n d h o w it was said. Social interrelationships within the c o m m u n i t y of Israel are left b e h i n d in the ritual speech of the M i s h n a h , just as, within the laws, n a t u r a l realities are m a d e to give f o r m a n d expression to s u p e r n a t u r a l or metaphysical regularities. T h e M i s h n a h speaks of Israel, b u t the speakers are a g r o u p 6

T o be sure, mnemonic patterns make use of keywords. Furthermore, we do find repetition of whole phrases and large-scale clauses, e.g., a fixed apodosis will serve diverse protases, or a uniform predicate, a range of subjects. But I think these external mnemonic devices are secondary to what is ubiquitous, which is the patterning of grammar and syntax, autonomous of what actually is said and sounded.

219

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

a p a r t . T h e M i s h n a h talks o f t h i s - w o r l d l y t h i n g s , b u t t h e t h i n g s s t a n d for a n d evoke a n o t h e r world entirely. W h o is t h e p e r s o n a , s e r v i n g a s t h e M i s h n a h ' s v o i c e ? T h e M i s h n a h is r e m a r k a b l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d e s t a b l i s h m e n t

of

t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e p e r s o n w h o s p e a k s . It n o t o n l y is f o r m a l l y a n o n y m o u s , i n t h a t it d o e s n o t b e a r a s i g n a t u r e o r a s i n g l e

first

person

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . It a l s o is s u b s t a n t i v e l y a n o n y m o u s , i n t h a t it d o e s n o t p e r m i t variation of p a t t e r n s of f o r m u l a t i o n to a c c o r d with the traits of individuals o r even to suggest that individuals w h o d o o c c u r

have

d i s t i n c t i v e t r a i t s o f s p e e c h , w o r d c h o i c e , o r , i n t h e final a n a l y s i s , e v e n generative c o n c e p t i o n . T h i s a b s e n c e of individuation should n o t sugg e s t t h a t o u r O r d e r is e s s e n t i a l l y n e u t r a l a s t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a highly

distinctive

mode

of discourse.

The

contrary

is t h e

case.

W i l l i a m S c o t t G r e e n (Biography) s t a t e s t h i s m a t t e r a s f o l l o w s : T h e s e d o c u m e n t s a p p e a r to be not accidental, i n c h o a t e collections, but carefully a n d deliberately c o n s t r u c t e d compilations. E a c h d o c u m e n t has its o w n ideological or theological a g e n d u m , a n d it is a x i o m a t i c that the a g e n d u m of a n y d o c u m e n t , t h o u g h s h a p e d to a degree by inherited materials, ultimately is the c r e a t i o n of the authorities, most of w h o m are a n o n y m o u s , w h o p r o d u c e d the d o c u m e n t itself. T h e y have d e t e r m i n e d the focus, selected the materials, a n d p r o v i d e d the f r a m e w o r k that unites the discrete p e r i c o p a e a n d gives the d o c u m e n t its internal consistency a n d c o h e r e n c e . T h e features of these d o c u m e n t s suggest that their a g e n d a t r a n s c e n d the t e a c h i n g of a n y single master. First, r a b b i n i c d o c u m e n t s c o n t a i n a substantial a m o u n t of unattrib u t e d material. T h i s gives t h e m a n a t e m p o r a l quality, a n d creates the sense that the d o c u m e n t , or the tradition, is speaking for itself, indep e n d e n t of a n individual m i n d . S e c o n d , r a b b i n i c d o c u m e n t s are not c o n s t r u c t e d a r o u n d the sayings of a n y individual, but follow either a t h e m a t i c , f o r m a l , topical, or scriptural a r r a n g e m e n t in w h i c h the teachings of opinions of various masters a r e g a t h e r e d together to address a single issue or to i n t e r p r e t a particular verse of scripture. T h i s sort of a r r a n g e m e n t points to a process of selection in w h i c h the teachings of individuals have been m a d e subservient to the goals of the d o c u m e n t s . I n d e e d , within the d o c u m e n t s the c o m m e n t s of the masters a n d their d i s a g r e e m e n t s with e a c h o t h e r almost always focus o n m a t t e r s of detail. T h e larger conceptions which i n f o r m the d o c u m e n t s themselves a r e never called into question . . . T h i r d , a l t h o u g h every teaching in r a b b i n i c literature originated in the m i n d of a n individual, the c o n t i n u e d vitality of those teachings dep e n d e d o n the r a b b i n i c circles a n d c o m m u n i t i e s w h o preserved a n d t r a n s m i t t e d t h e m . T h e c h a i n of tradents, only occasionally m e n t i o n e d by n a m e , the r e d a c t o r s a n d the editors w h o stand b e h i n d the p r e s e n t f o r m of b o t h discrete p e r i c o p a e a n d entire d o c u m e n t s substantively

220

CHAPTER T H R E E

revised, embellished a n d refined received materials, a n d s o m e t i m e s inv e n t e d n e w ones, to suit their various a g e n d a . All of this m e a n s t h a t we k n o w a b o u t early r a b b i n i c is w h a t the various authorities b e h i n d the d o c u m e n t s w a n t us to k n o w , a n d we k n o w it in the w a y they w a n t e d us to k n o w it. C o n s e q u e n t l y , the historical context, the p r i m a r y locus of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for a n y saying a t t r i b u t e d to a given m a s t e r o r story a b o u t h i m is the d o c u m e n t in w h i c h the passage a p p e a r s , n o t the p e r i o d in w h i c h he is alleged to h a v e lived.

W h a t does the rhetoric of the M i s h n a h leave unstated? T h e first thing we never are told is w h o is speaking, w h e r e we are, a n d the p u r p o s e for which discourse is u n d e r t a k e n . T h e s e m a y be taken for g r a n t e d , but n o t h i n g in T h e M i s h n a h of o u r O r d e r a n d little e n o u g h in T o s e f t a (T. Z a b . 1: 5 at best is a suggestive exception) cares to tell us a b o u t the societal or concrete context of rhetoric. If this is a m o d e of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , then to w h o m is c o m m u n i c a t i o n addressed? W h o , we ask again, is the speaker, a n d w h o the listener? T h e sole evidence of the speaker is the use of the invariable attributive, , W M R , a particle t h a t bears n o m e a n i n g particular to a saying a n d h o m o g e n i z e s all sayings into a c o m m o n f o r m . ' W M R states only that w h a t follows bears the n a m e of a n authority a n d therefore is claimed to be authoritative. ' W M R is all we are told a b o u t the setting of a saying, w h e r e it was said, for w h a t p u r p o s e , a n d , in all, in w h a t social, spatial, t e m p o r a l , a n d intellectual context. T o p u t m a t t e r s simply, ' W M R obscures all d a t a of particularity a n d h u m a n circumstance. Yet ' W M R generally, t h o u g h not always, is intellectually partitive. T h a t is, once we have the presence of ' W M R , we know that a private authority, n o t the a n o n y m o u s a n d u n a n i m o u s consensus of the c o r p u s represented by the s p e a k e r — t h e d o c u m e n t —is at h a n d . T h e use of ' W M R establishes that the conception n o w to be stated is private. N o claim is to be m a d e for the consensus of the c o m m u n i t y for w h a t is to be said. It follows that the silence of the M i s h n a h o n the authority b e h i n d a saying m e a n s to claim the consensus of the c o m m u n i t y (to speak in solely secular terms) for the stated proposition. But is w h a t is stated to be interpreted as transactional, in that relationships between speaker, listener, a n d topic are presupposed? T h e M i s h n a h is r e m a r k a b l y reticent on that very m a t t e r . Its language invariably is descriptive, in the c o n t i n u o u s participle. Its claim, t h r o u g h f o r m a l rhetoric, is that is the way things are, describes a n d establishes the n o r m s a n d f o r m s of being. T h e r e is n o speaker n o r person-spoken-to, in the sense that a single individual to s o m e o t h e r

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

221

gives private expression to w h a t is said (whether it reflects consensus or private opinion) o r private context to w h a t is h e a r d . T h e acute formalization of all things detaches f r o m the private person a n y claim that he alone says, in his own way, a particular opinion. It imposes u p o n all sayings the authority of the d o c u m e n t as a whole (again, to use secular a n d descriptive language). T h e absence of differentiation a m o n g , a n d description of, the a u d i e n c e to w h a t is said bears the s a m e implication. T h i s is h o w things are, without regard to the situation to which they are addressed, the condition, let alone opinion, of the people by w h o m they are h e a r d . T h e abstraction of t h o u g h t is carried over into the indifference to the n u a n c e d situation of the people by w h o m a n d to w h o m t h o u g h t is conveyed (see above, p. 18). 111 this sense, therefore, the l a n g u a g e of the M i s h n a h a n d its g r a m matically formalized rhetoric create a world of discourse quite separate f r o m the concrete realities of a given time, place, or society. T h e exceedingly limited repertoire of g r a m m a t i c a l patterns by which all things on all matters are said gives symbolic expression to the notion that b e n e a t h the accidents of life are a few, c o m p r e h e n s i v e relationships: unchanging and enduring patterns lie deep in the inner structure of reality and impose structure upon the, accidents of the world. T h i s m e a n s , as I have implied, that reality for M i s h n a i c rhetoric consists in the g r a m m a r a n d syntax of language, consistent a n d e n d u r i n g patterns of relationship a m o n g diverse a n d c h a n g i n g concrete things or persons. W h a t lasts is not the concrete thing but the abstract interplay governing an a n d all sorts of concrete tilings. T h e r e is, therefore a c o n g r u e n c e between rhetorical patterns of speech, o n the o n e side, a n d the f r a m e w o r k of discourse established by these same patterns, on the other. J u s t as we accomplish m e m o r i z a t i o n by perceiving not w h a t is said but h o w w h a t is said is persistently a r r a n g e d , so we speak to, u n d e r t a k e to address a n d describe, a world in which w h a t is concrete a n d material is secondary. T h e m o d e of expression in all contexts is principal. T h e M i s h n a h ' s ideas are s h a p e d , in particular, as g n o m i c expressions. T h e y deal with basic truths, m a k e use of devices to create a p a t t e r n (if not o n e of sound). T h e v o c a b u l a r y is invariably i m p e r sonal, they d o or o n e does or he who. A n d the verb nearly always is 111 the present tense, a n d always is in the present tense f o r descriptive rules. T h i s too e n h a n c e s the a u r a of universal application. So too, " C o n s t r u c t i o n s such as parallelism, s y m m e t r y , a n d reversal of the elements 111 the expression are c o m m o n " (Farb, W o r d Play, p. 118).

222

CHAPTER T H R E E

F a r b states, " T h e s e characteristics c o m b i n e to p r o d u c e a strategy of l a n g u a g e m a n i p u l a t i o n for the particular p u r p o s e s of teaching, conveying wisdom, a n d expressing a p h i l o s o p h y . " (Farb, p. 118). But all of this is attained, as we h a v e seen, t h r o u g h formalization of language. T h e skill of the f o r m u l a t o r s of the M i s h n a h is to m a n i p u l a t e the raw materials of everyday speech. 7 W h a t they have d o n e is so to structure language as to m a k e it strange a n d alien, to impose a fresh p e r c e p t i o n u p o n w h a t to others a n d w h a t in T o s e f t a — a r e merely u n p a t t e r n e d a n d o r d i n a r y ways of saying things. W h a t is said in the M i s h n a h is simple. H o w it is said is a r c a n e . O r d i n a r y folk c a n n o t have h a d m u c h difficulty u n d e r s t a n d i n g the words, which refer to o r d i n a r y actions a n d objects. H o w long it m u s t have taken to grasp the m e a n i n g of the p a t t e r n s into w h i c h the words are a r r a n g e d , h o w h a r d it was a n d is to d o so, is suggested by the necessity for the creation of T o s e f t a , the G e m a r o t , a n d the c o m m e n t a r i e s in the long centuries since the M i s h n a h c a m e into being. I n this sense the Mishn a h speaks openly a b o u t public matters, yet its d e e p substructure of syntax a n d g r a m m a t i c a l forms shapes w h a t is said into a n essentially ritualistic language. It takes m a n y years to m a s t e r the difficult argot, t h o u g h only a few m i n u t e s to m e m o r i z e the simple patterns. T h a t p a r a d o x reflects the situation of the creators of the M i s h n a h . U p to n o w we have said only a little a b o u t tense structure. T h e reason is that the M i s h n a h exhibits r e m a r k a b l e indifference to the potentialities of m e a n i n g i n h e r e n t therein. Its persistent preference for the plural participle, thus the descriptive present tense, is m a t c h e d by its capacity to accept the m i x t u r e of past, present, a n d future tenses, which can be j u m b l e d together in a single sentence a n d , even m o r e c o m m o n l y , 111 a single pericope. It follows that the M i s h n a h is r e m a r k a b l y uninterested 111 differentiation of times-sequences. T h i s fact is most clearly shown by the Gemisch of the e x t r e m e - a p o c o p a t e d sentence, with its capacity to s u p p o r t s o m e t h i n g like the following: " H e w h o does so a n d so . . . the rain c a m e a n d wet it d o w n . . . if he was h a p p y . . . it [is] U n d e r the law, If w a t e r be p u t . " Clearly, the m a t t e r of tense, past, present, future, is simply n o t relevant to the p u r p o s e of the speaker. If tense is irrelevant, however, t h e n we find ourselves 111 the undifferentiated present. W h a t is said is m e a n t to 7 A reliable statement of the complex linguistic situation is Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32, 1970, pp. 501-531.

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

223

b e a r n o relationship w h a t e v e r to the c i r c u m s t a n c e or particular time o r context 111 which w h a t is said applies. T h e absence of a powerful a n d r e c u r rent system of tense-differentiation is strong evidence in favor of o u r conception that the M i s h n a h describes a world d e t a c h e d f r o m time. T h e t e m p o r a l a n d worldly a u t h o r i t y of the M i s h n a h ' s unspecified " s p e a k e r " likewise is curiously unspecified. W h a t is omitted is a n y reference to a system of institutional e n f o r c e m e n t , political or supernatural. At n o point in o u r O r d e r is there a n effort to give n u a n c e to language to be used for o n e setting, as against some other, in the h o m e as distinct f r o m the T e m p l e , the court, the school, or the street. T h e h o m o g e n i z a t i o n of t h o u g h t a n d its expression in a limited a n d u n i f o r m rhetorical p a t t e r n impose the c o n c e p t i o n that the n o r m s are axiomatic for, a n d expose the logic of, all situations in general, but pertain to n o n e in particular. T h i s once again brings to the surface the notion, implicit in the way the M i s h n a h says things, that the M i s h n a h describes h o w things are, w h e t h e r or not material-reality c o n f o r m s . T h e absence of descriptive reference to a speaker a n d his role reinforces the c o n c e p t i o n that this-worldly details of identified authorities, with circumscribed a n d concrete authority, are not pertinent. T h e reason is that w h a t c o m e s u n d e r description does not d e p e n d u p o n the details of this-worldly institutions. T h a t is why the d o c u m e n t is so strikingly indifferent to the differentiation of rhetoric. Diverse ideational materials are r e d u c e d to a single rhetoric. T h e various contexts to which w h a t is said is applicable are never given specific definition in the choice of w o r d s or rhetorical patterns. 111 the p r o f o u n d l y conventional discourse of the M i s h n a h , the o n e thing left u n t o u c h e d by the affect of convention is the concrete world which is to c o n f o r m , w h e t h e r in fact it does o r does not c o n f o r m . It scarcely needs saying that this sameness of rhetoric hardly is functional to the situation of o r d i n a r y people. If the language of the M i s h n a h serves a small g r o u p , its intent is cjuite the opposite: to e n c o m p a s s a n d describe all things. W e have therefore to distinguish between the effects of formalization of t h o u g h t , which p r o d u c e a private f r a m e w o r k of discourse a m o n g specialists, a n d the function thereof, which is to m a k e discourse a m o n g individuals public a n d general a n d abstract it f r o m the o r d i n a r y life. T h e M i s h n a h lacks a b u n d a n t ways to speak 111 g r a m m a t i c a l utterances, r e d u c i n g to its h a n d f u l of possibilities all truths a b o u t all things pertinent to Purities. A level of address has been chosen, a n d , it is clear, is severely im-

224

CHAPTER T H R E E

p o s e d u p o n all t h e m e s a n d all contexts. It is n o t possible for t h a t a e s t h e t i c _ m n e m o n i c s a m e n e s s to express t h e diverse things w h i c h n e e d saying in o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s . In this sense M i s h n a i c rhetoric, while a n t i - c o n t e x t u a l , creates its o w n c o n t e x t of m e a n i n g . Its indifference to a n y o t h e r setting of discourse b u t its o w n is suggested b y its partitive a t t r i b u t i o n a l f o r m u l a , t h e s a m e for all sayings of o n e g e n r e , a n d also b y its single honorific. T h e M i s h n a h is r e m a r k a b l y u n i n t e r e s t e d in diverse honorifics, using the single title, R a b b i , in all c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d for n e a r l y all n a m e d authorities. T h e sole differentiation effected b y t h e title is to o m i t f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e t e a c h i n g s of p e o p l e w h o d o n o t h a v e t h a t title, a n d this is effected solely in T o s e f t a . T h e a b s e n c e of all r e f e r e n c e to w h o is listening i m p o s e s a n e q u i v a l e n t s a m e n e s s u p o n t h e a u d i e n c e . W h a t is said is said to w h o m it m a y c o n c e r n , a n d the i m p o r t a n t p a r t s of w h a t is said are stated b y p e o p l e w h o are p e r m i t t e d n e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a t i o n n o r identification, w h o talk, as I h a v e e m p h a s i z e d , 111 t h e s a m e syntactical p a t t e r n s a b o u t all subjects a n d in all contexts. 111 c o n t e x t it is trivial to notice t h a t sexual differences play n o role, except as d e m a n d e d by the setting of a case o r rule. Since w o m e n d o the cooking, cases a n d e x a m p l e s of rules w h i c h deal with k n e a d i n g d o u g h will use the f e m i n i n e f o r m . 111 g e n e r a l , t h o u g h , in t h e M i s h n a h t h e r e is n e i t h e r m a l e n o r f e m a l e , n o r is t h e r e the slightest suggestion t h a t w o m e n speak differently f r o m m e n . W h e r e a w o m a n is q u o t e d , w h a t she is m a d e to say, h a r d l y surprisingly, is in t h e f a m i l i a r r h e t o ric. T h e reason is t h a t differences of sex a r e as irrelevant to the M i s h n a h ' s s p e e c h - w o r l d as differences of c o n t e x t , social status, o r institutional c i r c u m s t a n c e . O u t s i d e of the p r e c e d e n t s (ma'asim), the f o r m a l characteristics of w h i c h are difficult to discern a n d w h i c h in a n y case o c c u r seldom in the M i s h n a h , o u r O r d e r presents r e m a r k a b l y little living dialogue. (X says is n o t dialogue, n o r a r e disputes a n d d e b a t e s dialogical 111 a n y n a t u r a l sense.) M i s h n a i c s y n t a x is b a s e d u p o n the m o n o l o g u e . O c c a sionally, as i n disputes, two o r m o r e m o n o l o g u e s a r e j u x t a p o s e d , b u t scarcely constitute dialogues. T h e reciter recites. N o response is suggested within o u r d o c u m e n t . 111 this sense, dialogue, a basic f o r m of h u m a n s p e e c h , is n o t e w o r t h y f o r its a b s e n c e . T o s e f t a m a k e s u p f o r the m a t t e r , with its citation of t h e M i s h n a h , as if to a s s u m e o n e side of a c o n v e r s a t i o n , a n d its even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d effort at inter c h a n g e , its r e f e r e n c e to s o m e t h i n g m e n t i o n e d by the M i s h n a h in the f o r m , " W h a t a r e . . . ?" o r " U n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s . . . ?" But in

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

225

the m a i n the d o c u m e n t s highly f o r m a l c h a r a c t e r precludes the possibility of dialogue, there being only a few ways of possibly uttering a t h o u g h t , a n d these, as we have seen, not only formal but also g n o m i c . T h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y lack of a context of c o m m u n i c a t i o n — s p e c i f i c a tion of speaker, h e a r e r — o f o u r d o c u m e n t f u r t h e r m o r e suggests that for the M i s h n a h , language is a self-contained formal system used m o r e or less incidentally for c o m m u n i c a t i o n . It is a system for description of a reality, the reality of which is created a n d c o n t a i n e d by, a n d e x h a u s t e d within, the description. T h e saying of the words, w h e t h e r h e a r d meaningfully by a n o t h e r o r not, is the creation of the world. Speech is action a n d creation. T h e s p e e c h - c o m m u n i t y represented by the M i s h n a h stands strongly not only against n u a n c e b u t also against c h a n g e . T h e imposition of conventional a n d highly patt e n t e d syntax clearly is m e a n t to preserve w h a t is said without c h a n g e (even t h o u g h , we know, c h a n g e s in the w o r d i n g of traditions were effected for m a n y centuries thereafter). T h e language is m e a n t to be u n s h a k e a b l e , a n d its strict rules of rhetoric are m e a n t not only to convey, but also to preserve, equally strict mles of logic, or, m o r e really, equally p e r m a n e n t p a t t e r n s of relationship. W h a t was at stake in this f o r m a t i o n of language in the service of p e r m a n e n c e ? Clearly, h o w things were said was i n t e n d e d to secure eternal preservation of w h a t was said. C h a n g e affects the accidents a n d details. It c a n n o t reshape e n d u r i n g principles, a n d l a n g u a g e will be used to effect their very e n d u r a n c e . W h a t is said, m o r e o v e r , is not to be subjected to p r a g m a t i c e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n . T h e unstated b u t carefu1]y considered principles shape reality a n d are n o t s h a p e d a n d tested by a n d against reality. Use of pat phrases a n d syntactical cliches divorced f r o m different t h o u g h t s to be said a n d different ways of thinking testifies to the prevailing notion of unstated, but secure a n d u n c h a n g i n g , reality b e h i n d a n d b e n e a t h the accidents of context a n d circumstance. Clearly, so far as Middle H e b r e w serves as a secular language, the M i s h n a h has t r a n s f o r m e d a c o m m o n speech to sacred language a n d has d o n e so t h r o u g h peculiar formalization of syntactical structures in particular. Yet we c a n n o t point to a n y t h i n g intrinsically sacred even in those structures a n d patterns. F o r example, there is n o use of the divine n a m e , n o t e n d e n c y either to cite, let alone to m o d e l sentences after those of, Sacred Scripture. I n d e e d , Scripture is treated with r e m a r k a b l e disinterest. T h e t r e a t m e n t of leprosy in Leviticus C h a p ters T h i r t e e n a n d F o u r t e e n follows a n illogical t h e m a t i c scheme. N e g a i m revises that t h e m e a n d introduces the a p p r o p r i a t e correc-

226

CHAPTER T H R E E

t i o n . O u r O r d e r is r e m a r k a b l y u n i n t e r e s t e d i n S c r i p t u r a l p r o o f s f o r its p r o p o s i t i o n s , a m a t t e r o n w h i c h w e h a v e d w e l t a t s o m e l e n g t h . A c c o r d i n g l y , w h a t s e r v e s a s t h e v e h i c l e o f s a n c t i f i c a t i o n is t h e i m p o sition

upon

common

speech

of

fixed,

secular patterns of

syntax,

w h i c h f u n c t i o n a l l y t r a n s f o r m talk a b o u t c o m m o n things i n t o sacred language

through

the employment

of certain stereotype

patterns.

W h a t is r e g u l a r is s a c r e d . T h e s e p a t t e r n s t h e m s e l v e s o n t h e s u r f a c e , a r e r o u t i n e a n d secular, yet in f u n c t i o n a c c o m p l i s h t h e sanctification o f l a n g u a g e , its t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n t o s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n , a n d d i f f e r ent

from,

ordinary

speech.

We

should

expect

distinctive

word-

c h o i c e s , b u t I d i s c e r n n o n e . (By c o n t r a s t , a s t o r y a t b . Q i d d u s h i n 7 0 a b states that rabbis h a v e their o w n language, different f r o m that of o r d i n a r y folk (italics=Aramaic): V.5

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

K. L.

M. N. O. P. Q. R.

There was a man from Nehardea who went into a butcher shop in Pumbedita. He said to them, "Give me meat. " They said to him, "Wait until the servant of R. Judah bar Ezekielgets his, and then we'll give to you." He said, "So who is this Judah bar Sheviskel who comes before me to get served before me?" They went and told R. Judah. He excommunicated him. They said, "He is in the habit of calling people slaves. " He proclaimed concerning him, "He is a slave." The other party went and sued him in court before R. Nahman. When the summons came, R. Judah went to R. Huna, he said to him, "Should I go, or shouldn't I go?" He said to him, "In point of fact, you really don't have to go, because you are an eminent authority. But on account of the honor owing to the household of the patriarch [of the Babylonian Jews], get up and go." He came. He found him making a parapet. He said to him, ".Doesn't the master concur with what R. Huna bar Idi said Samuel said, ' O n c e a m a n is a p p o i n t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the c o m m u n i t y , it is f o r b i d d e n for h i m to d o servile l a b o r before three persons'?" He said to him, "I'm just making a little piece of the balustrade." He said to him, "So what's so bad about the word, parapet,' that the Torah uses, or the word 'partition, ' that rabbis use?" He said to him, "Will the master sit down on a seat?" He said to him, "So what's so bad about 'chair,' which rabbis use, or the word 'stool, ' which people generally use?" He said to him, "Will the master eat a piece of citron-fruit?" He said to him, "This is what Samuel said, ' W h o e v e r uses the w o r d " c i t r o n - f r u i t " is a third p u f f e d u p with pride.' It should be called either etrog, as the rabbis do, or 'lemony-thing, ' as people do. "

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

S. T.

227

He said to him, " Would the master like to drink a goblet of wine?" He said to him, "So what's so bad about the word 'wineglass,' as rabbis say, or 'a drink,' as people say?"

T h e story proceeds in its own direction; w h a t is i m p o r t a n t is n o w selfevident. Clearly, linguistic usages signified social differentiation. But at 110 point does o u r O r d e r of the M i s h n a h contain an equivalent suggestion. W h o used the M i s h n a h ' s language? Clearly, people w h o m e m o r i z e d the M i s h n a h used it. T o t h e m was a c c o r d e d significant status in the later schools. But that does not answer the question, W h o first used this language a n d for w h a t purpose? T h e answer by n o w is familiar. It was a g r o u p which p r o p o s e d to create a d o c u m e n t which would be transmitted by m e m o r y a n d therefore required formulation which would facilitate the m n e m o n i c process. T w o facts have been established. First, the formalization of Mishnaic thought-units is separate f r o m the utilization of s o u n d a n d o t h e r extrinsic characteristics of word-choice. It d e p e n d s , rather, u p o n recurrent g r a m m a t i c a l p a t t e r n s i n d e p e n d e n t of the choices of words set forth in strings. T h e listener or r e a d e r has to grasp relations of words, in a given sequence of sentences, quite separate f r o m the substantive c h a r a c t e r of the words themselves. Accordingly, second, the natural language of Middle H e b r e w is not a p t to be represented by the highly f o r m a l language of the Mishn a h . M i s h n a i c language constitutes s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n a r a n d o m sequence of words used routinely to say things. It is m e a n t as a highly formulaic way of expressing a particular set of distinctive c o n c e p tions. It is, therefore, e r r o n e o u s to refer to M i s h n a h - l a n g u a g e ; r a t h e r , we deal with the M i s h n a i c revision of the n a t u r a l language of Middle H e b r e w . A n d , it is clear, w h a t the M i s h n a h does to revise that n a t u ral language is ultimately settled in the c h a r a c t e r of the g r a m m a r , inclusive of syntax, of the language. M i d d l e H e b r e w has a great m a n y m o r e g r a m m a t i c a l sequences t h a n does M i s h n a i c H e b r e w , a n d , it follows, Mishnaic H e b r e w declares u n g r a m m a t i c a l — t h a t is, refuses to m a k e use o f — c o n s t r u c t i o n s which Middle H e b r e w will r e g a r d as wholly g r a m m a t i c a l a n d entirely acceptable. T h e single striking trait of the formalization of Mishnaic language therefore is that it d e p e n d s u p o n g r a m m a r . A n d just as, by definition, " G r a m m a r is a u t o n o m o u s a n d i n d e p e n d e n t of m e a n i n g " (Chomsky, p. 17), so in the M i s h n a h , the formalization of t h o u g h t into recurrent patterns is b e n e a t h the surface a n d i n d e p e n d e n t of discrete meanings. Yet the M i s h n a h imposes its own discipline, therefore its own d e e p e r

228

CHAPTER T H R E E

level of unitary m e a n i n g , u p o n everything a n d a n y t h i n g which actually is said. T o s u m m a r i z e o u r discussion of M i s h n a i c rhetoric, let us n o w ask a b o u t the ecology of M i s h n a i c m o d e s of speech ( H a u g e n , p p . 336-7). W h a t is its classification in relationship to o t h e r languages? A variety of M i d d l e H e b r e w , it is used in particular by people engaged in the m e m o r i z a t i o n a n d transmission of teachings 011 behalf of which is claimed divine revelation. Accordingly, its users are religious specialists. W h a t are the d o m a i n s of use? So far as we k n o w , the M i s h n a h ' s distinctive m o d e s of speech are particular to the M i s h n a h . But this j u d g m e n t m u s t be qualified. Even in T o s e f t a the s a m e m o d e s d o not consistently o c c u r a n d scarcely serve to characterize inter m e d i a t e divisions. Accordingly, w h a t is particular to the M i s h n a h is n o t the r e m a r k a b l y distinctive sentence-structures we have discerned, b u t rec u r r e n t use of such sentence-structures to give express10n)n to sizable g r o u p s of cognitive units. T h a t indeed is a limited d o m a i n of use. W h a t c o n c u r r e n t languages are e m p l o y e d by the users of this m o d e of speech? Clearly, we m a y assume, M i d d l e H e b r e w in n o n - M i s h n a i c p a t t e r n s was available to t h e m . W h e t h e r in addition they spoke A r a m a i c or Greek is not equivalently clear, n o r d o we k n o w that they spoke Middle H e b r e w as a l a n g u a g e of o r d i n a r y use. Accordingly, we d o not k n o w the dialinguistical d a t a necessary to a n s w e r this question. Does the M i s h n a h yield evidence of dialect? T h e a n s w e r is clearly that it does not. O n the contrary, the speech is decidedly u n i f o r m a n d u n n u a n c e d . T o w h a t degree has the Mishnaic variety of Middle H e b r e w been s t a n d a r d i z e d , united a n d codified? H e r e the answer is clear. W e have the highest degree of standardization. W h a t kind of institutional s u p p o r t stands b e h i n d the M i s h n a h ? T h e a n s w e r is n o t wholly clear f r o m the d a t a we have e x a m i n e d . I a m inclined to think that, if we take seriously the claim in behalf of the M i s h n a h that it is O r a l T o r a h , then we have to assign to the M i s h n a h the claim of a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y sort of H e a v e n l y support for its variety of p a t t e r n s of speech. T h e M i s h n a h p r o b a b l y also is s u p p o r t e d t h r o u g h the activities of those w h o m e m o r i z e d the lang u a g e a n d those w h o s u p p o r t e d t h e m , a wide circle of savants. W h a t are the attitudes of the users t o w a r d the language? It certainly is public a n d ritualistic, not a language of intimacy. Its use assuredly confers u p o n the user a defined status, leading to personal identification as a T a n n a in the schools a n d a rabbi outside of t h e m . (But the evidence in behalf of these claims is not within the M i s h n a h itself.)

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

229

Finally, h o w does the M i s h n a i c variety of H e b r e w relate to o t h e r languages? T h e answer is, of course, that it is not a language at all, but, rather, a variety of a language, limited a n d formalized for special purposes. Its ecology will t h e n share the profile of cultic languages in general, with the qualification that, if Middle H e b r e w was widely used, it is a revision of a c o m m o n language into a cultic language. Its relatedness to, a n d difference f r o m , u n p a t t e r n e d Middle H e b r e w serves to s h a p e a n d express the ethos a n d worldview of a particular speech-community.

III. Form and Meaning H o w a n d for w h a t p u r p o s e was the M i s h n a h edited into final f o r m , a n d w h a t is the n a t u r e of the sources used for the final p r o d u c t ? T h e consideration of the M i s h n a h ' s external traits, of its limited repertoire of patterns of language a n d of its single a n d u n i f o r m p r o c e d u r e for the c o n g l o m e r a t i o n of materials into intelligible p a t t e r n s — p r i n c i p a l divisions, i n t e r m e d i a t e divisions, cognitive units—helps to secure the redefinition of these questions. W e shall n o w take u p a fresh agend u m of questions, but revert time a n d again to the discussion, just c o n c l u d e d , of Mishnaic rhetoric a n d its relationship to the social realities of its linguistic world. T h i s results in a m e a s u r e of repetition, necessitated by the reconsideration, f r o m a different perspective, of virtually identical data. W e turn first to the n a t u r e of the sources used in the formulation of the M i s h n a h . W e c a n n o t define o r describe these s o u r c e s — t h o u g h we m u s t take for g r a n t e d there were sources of s o m e kind, in which a n t e c e d e n t sayings were p r e s e r v e d — b e c a u s e the M i s h n a h a p p e a r s so completely to have r e f o r m u l a t e d w h a t e v e r sorts of materials in w h a t ever kinds of collections that were in h a n d , as to obliterate their f o r m e r literary-formulary c h a r a c t e r a n d distinctive traits. Accordingly, o n e fact a b o u t those w h o f r a m e d a n d f o r m e d the M i s h n a h as we know it is that, while they d r e w u p o n diverse a n d ancient c o r p o r a of ideas, a n d while at their disposal were n o t simply ideas but ideas given particular a n d concrete f o r m in words, sentences, p a r a g r a p h s , a n d the like, the formal c h a r a c t e r of the a n t e c e d e n t heritage has been radically revised. W e c a n n o t specify extensive collections of antecedent materials preserved in the M i s h n a h b u t revised therein. But we d o know that S c r i p t u r e — a collection of particularly authoritative

230

CHAPTER T H R E E

c h a r a c t e r — a s s u r e d l y did exist a n d was available. Yet its literary character p r o d u c e d n o i m p a c t whatsoever on that of the Mishnah." Perhaps, a l o n g these s a m e lines, there were c a t a n a e of sayings assigned to a given authority. Episodically, the existence of collections organized a r o u n d a single n a m e has c o m e before us. Likewise, there were constructions of diverse sayings on a wide range of topics o r g a n i z e d in t e r m s of a single powerful syntactic a n d g r a m m a t i c a l structure. T h e s e too are k n o w n . But we have too few of either sort of construction to p r o p o s e that b e h i n d the M i s h n a h are extensive collections of sayings in the n a m e of a single authority or of rules o n diverse topics in the m o d e l of a single g r a m m a t i c a l syntactical f o r m . If there were, however, f o r m by the M i s h n a h is j o i n e d to, a n d revised by, substance a n d deprived of its a n t e c e d e n t organizing power. Authority is r e n d e r e d s e c o n d a r y to the p a r a m o u n t confluence of substance a n d f o r m . Accordingly, if we assume t h a t the shards in o u r h a n d s testify to older c o r p o r a , t h e n two earlier m o d e s of redaction, by f o r m a n d by authority, h a v e b e e n set aside. T h e M i s h n a h therefore has its own theory of h o w sayings are to be stated a n d organized, a n d t h a t is, we have p r o v e d b e y o n d d o u b t , in the u n i o n of t h e m e a n d formulary pattern. It follows that, in the absence of m o r e t h a n episodic evidence, we m u s t speculate a b o u t the p u r p o s e of the editing of the M i s h n a h in final f o r m solely by systematically extrapolating f r o m the facts of its redaction insight into the p u r p o s e of its redaction. W h a t we learn f r o m the c h a r a c t e r of the literature a b o u t the circle that p r o d u c e d the 8

This fact suggests that Rabbi and his colleagues were remarkably sure of themselves and certain of their own tastes. It would have been far more 'conservative' to take over and revise existing collections, e.g., sayings of a given authority, apophthegmatic constructions, and the like, than to destroy such collecrions as had come down and rework the whole in the thematic and formulary structure before us. I am reminded of the tearing down of the medieval foundarions of Oxford—then many hundreds of years old—and the substitution for such antiquities by the great then modern Palladian architecture of the English Renaissance. The poorer colleges preserved their medieval buildings into modern times; the richer ones replaced them. Such confidence in one's own taste and judgment in my view is commendable. But then as we know, this most modern document is alleged—contrary to the explicit evidence of its fresh, totally unbiblical rhetoric and of all of its cited authorities—also to have been revealed by God to Moses at Sinai!—the allegation of Abot 1:1 on the face of it is contradicted by every line of Mishnah, yet the Rabbinical sponsors of Mishnah made it. I suppose that, while from one viewpoint, this is a paradox, from another, it is unmitigated gall. Signing Moses's name to the Mishnah without even pretending to imitate his language (as was done by the Essenes of Qumran) is like a forger's signing his own name to someone else's check—and successfully cashing it.

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

231

literature, so far as that c h a r a c t e r speaks of those w h o created it, is n o t h i n g whatsoever. T h e people w h o m a d e the M i s h n a h d o n o t w a n t us to know t h e m , as I said above, because, I should imagine, n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e m was d e e m e d i m p o r t a n t in the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w h a t they did. T h a t is why they d o not organize materials a r o u n d given n a m e s of authorities, t h o u g h some such constructions d o survive. It is futile to ask w h e t h e r the redactors were lawyers, philosophers, w o n d e r workers, teachers, g o v e r n m e n t officials, preachers, soldiers, holy m e n , priests, a n o i n t e d messiahs, or a n y of the o t h e r things people w h o p r o d u c e a holy d o c u m e n t such as this might have been. T o ask w h e t h e r they legislated for themselves o r for all Israelites is equally hopeless, because, as we know, silent as they are 011 themselves, so reticent are they a b o u t those to w h o m they seek to speak. Yet they d o take certain things for g r a n t e d . 111 o r d e r to m a k e sense of w h a t they d o tell us, there are things that we have to k n o w a n d that are not told to us by t h e m . But f r o m the perspective of f o r m a n d rhetoric the catalogue hardly is a long one. T h e M i s h n a h presupposes the existence of Scripture. It is not possible to m a k e sense of the details of a n y tractate without knowledge of Scriptural laws. Yet w h a t , in rhetoric a n d g r a m m a r , is it a b o u t , a n d in, Scripture that is presupposed? It is not, I have stressed, the style a n d language of Scripture. It is necessary to k n o w certain facts of Scripture, e.g., that a corpse c o n t a m i n a t e s , that there is a dimension of the clean a n d the u n c l e a n . T h e knowledge even of facts of Scripture by themselves c a n n o t , of course, suffice. T h e M i s h n a h has distinctive conceptions even of the m e a n i n g of simple facts, d a t a of Scripture themselves. 111 the present context, w h a t is i m p o r t a n t is that knowledge of Scripture's f o r m s a n d style in n o i m p o r t a n t way improves u n d e r s t a n d i n g of those of the M i s h n a h o r even is relevant to interpreting t h e m . Yet there is a side to Scripture that, I think, is at the very bed rock of the M i s h n a h ' s linguistic c h a r a c t e r a n d explains the M i s h n a h ' s selfevident p r e o c c u p a t i o n with the interplay of t h e m e a n d f o r m . Scripture speaks of creation t h r o u g h words, a n d , we know, it is as m u c h t h r o u g h h o w things are said as t h r o u g h w h a t is said that the M i s h n a h proposes to effect its own creative purpose. T h e priestly notion of creation by m e a n s of speech is carried t h r o u g h in the M i s h n a h ' s m o s t distinctive a n d ubiquitous attributive, X ' W M R , o n e says, just as at Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 29, at e a c h of the stages of creation, G o d says ( ' M R ) s o m e t h i n g a n d it is. T h e supposition of the M i s h n a h that Scripture is k n o w n is, while not trivial, obvious.

232

CHAPTER T H R E E

T h e r e is a second, less blatant supposition. It is that the language of the M i s h n a h will be u n d e r s t o o d , its n u a n c e s a p p r e c i a t e d , its points of stress a n d e m p h a s i s grasped. 9 O u r discussion of the cathectically neutral a n d indifferent style of the M i s h n a h , its failure to speak to s o m e distinct a u d i e n c e in behalf of s o m e defined speaker, does n o t obscure the simple fact that the M i s h n a h is n o t gibberish, but a c o r p u s of f o r m e d a n d intensely m e a n i n g f u l statements, the f o r m of which is m e a n t to b e a r d e e p m e a n i n g . Accordingly, the g n o m i c sayings of the M i s h n a h , c o r r e s p o n d i n g in their deep, universal g r a m m a r to the s u b t e r r a n e a n c h a r a c t e r of 'reality,' p e r m i t the inference that the reality so described was to be grasped a n d u n d e r s t o o d by people of m i n d . Given the u n a r t i c u l a t e d points at which stress occurs, the level of g r a m m a r a u t o n o m o u s of discrete statements a n d concrete rulings, m o r e o v e r , we m u s t c o n c l u d e that the f r a m e r s of the M i s h n a h expected to be u n d e r stood by r e m a r k a b l y keen ears a n d active minds. C o n v e y i n g w h a t is f u n d a m e n t a l at the level of g r a m m a r aut o n o m o u s of m e a n i n g , the manifest c o n f i d e n c e that the listener will p u t m a n y things together a n d d r a w the i m p o r t a n t conclusions for himself o r herself. T h a t m e a n s that the M i s h n a h assumes a n active intellect, c a p a b l e of perceiving inferred c o n v e n t i o n , a n d a vividly participating audience, c a p a b l e of following w h a t was said with 111tense c o n c e n t r a t i o n . T h i s d e m a n d s , first, m e m o r i z i n g the message, second, perceiving the subtle a n d unarticulated message of the m e d i u m of syntax a n d , g r a m m a r . T h e h e a r e r , third, is a s s u m e d to be capable of p u t t i n g the two together into the still f u r t h e r insight that the cogent p a t t e r n exhibited by diverse statements preserves a substantive cogency a m o n g those diverse a n d delimited statements. Superficially-various 9 And, I think I should add, the Mishnah takes for granted that people will want to understand and study the document, that it will be not only interesting but urgent for generations to come. The measure of success in this regard is complete, down to this, my own last and least testimony to the extraordinary power of the Mishnah to engage minds and command attention. Quite bluntly, I think the authorities of the Mishnah cannot have been surprised by their amazing success, because they so stated matters as to secure it to begin with. It is a triumph of rhetoric no less remarkable than that of Plato or other philosophers who wrote to be read and understood outside of their immediate and concrete context. This side to the anticontextual character of Mishnaic rhetoric should not be missed. And when we take account of the doggedly concrete and uninspiring matters under discussion—not the meaning of knowledge or the definition of the good but the affects of a dead creeping thing on a loaf of bread set aside for a !Driest— the full nature of Mishnah's achievement comes into view, testifies

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

233

rules, stated in sentences unlike o n e a n o t h e r o n the surface a n d m a d e u p of unlike word-choices, in fact say a single thing in a single way. N o n e of this is possible, it goes without saying, without anticipating that exegesis of the fixed text will be u n d e r t a k e n by the audience. T h e M i s h n a h d e m a n d s c o m m e n t a r y . It takes for g r a n t e d that the a u d i e n c e is c a p a b l e of exegesis a n d proposes to u n d e r t a k e the work. T h e M i s h n a h c o m m a n d s a sophisticated a n d engaged socio-intellectual context within the Israelite world. The M i s h n a h ' s lack of specificity 011 this point should not obscure its quite precise expectation: T h e thing it does not tell us is that the M i s h n a h will be u n d e r stood. T h e process of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the c h a r a c t e r of the M i s h n a h ' s language, is c o m p l e x a n d dilficult. T h e M i s h n a h is a d o c u m e n t that c o m p l i m e n t s its audience.

IV. Language, Reality, and Power L a n g u a g e serves the authorities of the M i s h n a h as an i n s t r u m e n t of p o w e r , specifically, p o w e r to create reality. Wittgenstein (cited by F a r b , p. 192) said, " T h e limits of m y l a n g u a g e m e a n the limits of m y world." W h a t are the limitations of the M i s h n a h ' s formalized m o d e s of speech? W h a t sort of reality is m a d e possible within t h e m a n d is constructed by t h e m ? T o w h a t degree, specifically, does M i s h n a i c language attain n e w possibilities for the c o n t a i n m e n t a n d creation of reality precisely by its t e n d e n c y to avoid explicit generalizations a n d its p e r p e t u a l expression of precise but abstract relationships between things only in concrete terms? A n d , finally, we return to the central a n d inescapable question, F o r w h a t p u r p o s e was the M i s h n a h m a d e ? W e begin with the g n o m i c c h a r a c t e r of Mishnaic discourse. Clearly, the M i s h n a h claims to m a k e wise a n d true statements, statem e n t s that, m o r e o v e r , apply at a n y time a n d in a n y place. It follows, second, that the M i s h n a h proposes to describe how things truly are. A i d third, accordingly, the people w h o m a d e the M i s h n a h did so in o r d e r to p u t together, in a single d o c u m e n t a n d in encapsulated f o r m , a n a c c o u n t of the i n n e r structure of reality, specifically, of that aspect of reality that, in their j u d g m e n t , is susceptible of encapsulation in formally-patterned words. W h e n , fourth, we recall the exceedingly limited repertoire of ways by which statements are m a d e , we recognize that, to the authorities of the M i s h n a h , all of the diverse a n d c h a n g i n g things in the world can be reduced to a few simple,

234

CHAPTER T H R E E

descriptive equations. T h e s e , fifth, are to be expressed in particular b the i n n e r a n d d e e p traits of the interrelationships of words, by persistent p a t t e r n s of g r a m m a r a n d of syntax, r a t h e r t h a n by superficial traits of s o u n d a n d repetition of c o n c r e t e t h o u g h t . T h e principle is to be derived by the listener's reflection u p o n a n y set of diverse rules or statements, his c o n t r i b u t e d perception of w h a t unites the whole, which will be left unsaid b u t everywhere d e e m e d obvious. 1 0 Relying entirely on the traits of syntax a n d g r a m m a r that are before us, w h a t can we say a b o u t the deepest convictions c o n c e r n i n g reality characteristic of people w h o spoke in the ways we have considered? T h e r e is a d e e p sense of balance, of c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y , of the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of opposites 111 the completion of a whole t h o u g h t , m a n y times d o we h e a r : if thus, then so, a n d if n o t this, then not so. M i s h n a i c rhetoric d e m a n d s , because M i s h n a h ' s creators' sense of g r a m m a r requires, the c o m p l e t i o n of the positive by the negative, a n d of the negative by the positive. T h e contrastive c o m p l e x predicate is testimony to the d a t u m that o r d e r consists 111 completion a n d wholeness. So, too, the m a n y b a l a n c e d declarative sentences before us reveal the s a m e i n n e r conviction that in the c o m p l e t i o n of a pattern, in the working out of its single potentiality t h r o u g h a sequence of diverse actualities, lie that besought o r d e r a n d wholeness. T h e fact that it is the i n t e r m e d i a t e division t h a t constitutes the f o r m u l a r y context of the M i s h n a h needs n o f u r t h e r specification. Accidents d o require specification a n d repetition. T h e M i s h n a h is scarcely satisfied to give a single instance of a rule, f r o m which we m a y generalize. It 10 Professor Wayne A. Meeks comments: "Is it really true of the Mishnah that 'the limits of its language ac the limits of its world'? O r do we see in the peculiar language of the Mishnah only a rip of the iceberg that is its linguistic world? Does the Mishnah create a world or does it presuppose a world?" This is, of course, an entirely valid observation. Mishnah surely presupposes a world. But the contention here is that the world presupposed is the world created. We certainly have only the tip of the iceberg of a linguistic world, as Meeks says. But die Mishnah stands: it is what its makers wanted it to be, presenting and preserving those patterns of syntax and of thought which are, by their inclusion, designated for memorization and preservation. Meeks further comments, "In group language can also function as a shorthand for a more discursive language which the group ordinarily uses on other occasions or in different media (e.g., orally instead of in writing, when meeting together rather than speaking to outsiders). T h e laconic style of the Mishnah has always struck me as of that sort. O n e can hardly understand what is being said unless he already knows. That is, the reader who understands is not necessarily one of 'remarkably keen ears and active mind,' but just one who knows the code." I think these points are wholly correct. But to know the code, one must have remarkable capacities of oral-aural perception and powers of rapid synthetic reasoning.

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

235

strongly prefers to give us three or six o r nine instances, on the basis of which we m a y t h e n conclude that there is, indeed, a n underlying rule. T h e singleton case is not the rule solely for itself, n o r , all by itself, for all things. I d o not perceive an equivalent m e a n i n g in the duplicated subject. W h e n , however, we c o m e to a p o c o p a t i o n — b e s i d e the sequentially b a l a n c e d sentence, the M i s h n a h ' s o t h e r r e m a r k a b l e f o r m u l a r y struct u r e — we once m o r e perceive s o m e t h i n g f r o m the external of expression a b o u t the m i n d , the i n n e r structure of w h i c h is subject to articulation. W h a t d o we have in a p o c o p a t i o n ? It is, first of all, a powerful sense of superficial incompleteness a n d disorder. A p o c o p a t e d sentences f o r m Sentences are c o m p o s e d of disjoined phrases. T h e subject of such sentences generally is m a d e u p of two or m o r e such phrases, each of t h e m i n t r o d u c i n g its o w n actor a n d acted u p o n , its subject a n d predicate. W h a t unites the several clauses a n d imposes m e a n i n g u p o n all of t h e m is the ultimate predicate. T h i s , by itself, c a n n o t always be asked to refer to a n y single o n e of the phrases of the subject. But it encompasses the result of all of t h e m , all together. It is, there fore, a construction, the m e a n i n g of which d e p e n d s u p o n a context that is inferred f r o m , b u t not m a d e explicit by, its constituents. 111 a p r o f o u n d sense, the a p o c o p a t e d sentence, that we f o u n d so distinctive to the M i s h n a h , expresses that d e e p sense of a wholeness b e n e a t h discrete parts that M i s h n a i c language presupposes. For it is the m i n d of the h e a r e r that m a k e s sense of the phrases a n d clauses of the subject a n d perceives the relationship, e n d o w i n g whole m e a n i n g u p o n the clauses of the subject, required by the predicate. T h e m i n d of the h e a r e r is central in the process by which a p o c o p a tion attains m e a n i n g . T h e capacity for perceiving the rational a n d orderly sense of things exhibited by that m i n d is the unstated necessity of a p o c o p a t i o n . T h a t , as we have seen in the preceding discussion, is characteristic of Mishnaic m o d e s of expression, there fore also of perception. H e a r i n g discrete rules, applicable to cases related in t h e m e a n d f o r m , but not in detail a n d concrete actualities, the h e a r e r puts together two things. First is the repetition of g r a m m a t i c a l usages. S e c o n d is the repetition of the s a m e principle, the presence of which is implied by the repetition of syntactical patterns in diverse cases. T h e s e two, stable principle a n d disciplined g r a m m a r a u t o n o m o u s of m e a n i n g , are never stated explicitly but invariably present implicitly. So there are these two striking traits of m i n d reflected within Mishnaic rhetoric: first, the perception of o r d e r a n d balance, second, the

236

CHAPTER T H R E E

perception of the m i n d ' s centrality in the construction of o r d e r a n d balance, the imposition of wholeness upoit discrete cases, in the case of the routine declarative sentence, a n d u p o n discrete phrases, in the case of the a p o c o p a t e d one. Both o r d e r a n d balance are contained f r o m within a n d are imposed f r o m without. T h e relation ships revealed by d e e p grammatical consistencies internal to a sentence a n d the implicit regularities revealed by the congruence a n d cogency of specified cases rarely are stated but always are to be discerned. Accordingly, the one thing that the M i s h n a h invariably does not make explicit but that always is necessary to know is, I stress, the presence of the active intellect, the participant w h o is the hearer. It is the h e a r e r w h o ultimately makes sense of, perceives the sense in, the M i s h n a h . O n c e m o r e we are impressed by the M i s h n a h ' s expectation of high sophistication a n d p r o f o u n d sensitivity to order a n d to form on the part of its impalpable audience. In this sense the M i s h n a h serves both as a book of laws and as a book for learners, a law-code and a Schoolbook. But it is in this sense alone. If o u r O r d e r of the M i s h n a h is a law-code, it is remarkably reticent a b o u t p u n i s h m e n t s for infractions of its rules. It rarely says w h a t one must do, or must not do, if he or she becomes unclean, a n d hardly even alludes to p u n i s h m e n t s or rewards consequent u p o n disobedience or obedience to its laws. " C l e a n " a n d " u n c l e a n " rhetorically are the e n d of the story a n d generate little beyond themselves. If o u r O r d e r serves as a Schoolbook, it never informs us a b o u t its institutional setting, speaks of its teachers, sets clear-cut perceptible educational goals for its students, and, above all, attempts to stand in relationship to some larger curriculum or educational a n d social structure. Its lack of context a n d unselfconsciousness framework of discourse hardly support the view that, in a this-worldly a n d ordinary sense, we have in o u r h a n d s a m a j o r division of a law-code or of a Schoolbook. N o r is the M i s h n a h a corpus of traditions that lay claim to authority or to m e a n i n g by virtue of the authorities cited therein. T h a t is why the n a m e of an authority rarely serves as a redactional fulcrum. As I have stressed, the tense-structure is ahistorical a n d anti-historical. Sequences of actions generally are stated in the descriptive present tense. Rules attain authority not because of w h o says t h e m , b u t because (it would seem) n o specific party at a specific time stands behind them. T h e reason, I think, that shortly after the promulgation

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

237

of the M i s h n a h , the M i s h n a h gained for itself the place in the revealed T o r a h of Moses at Sinai, testifies against its capacity to serve as an essentially historical s t a t e m e n t of w h o said what, w h e n , a n d for which p u r p o s e . T h e M i s h n a h , as I have e m p h a s i z e d , is descriptive of h o w things are. It is indifferent to w h o has said so, uninterested in the cumulative past b e h i n d w h a t it has to say. T h e s e are not the traits of a c o r p u s of "traditions." I a m inclined to think that law-code, schoolbook, a n d c o r p u s of traditions all are not quite to the point of the a c c u r a t e characterization of the M i s h n a h . Yet, if not cjuite to the point, all nonetheless preserve a m e a s u r e of p r o x i m a t e relevance to the definition of the M i s h n a h . T he M i s h n a h does contain descriptive laws. T h e s e laws require the active participation of the m i n d of the h e a r e r , thus are m e a n t to be learned, not merely obeyed, a n d Self-evidently are so s h a p e d as to i m p a r t lessons, not merely rules to be kept. T h e task of the h e a r e r is not solely or primarily to obey, t h o u g h I think o b e d i e n c e is taken for g r a n t e d , but to participate in the process of discovering principles a n d u n c o v e r i n g patterns of m e a n i n g . T h e very f o r m of Mishnaic rhetoric, its formalization a n d the function of that f o r m testify to the role of the learner a n d h e a r e r , that is, the student, in the process of definitive a n d indicative description, not c o m m u n i c a t i o n , of w h a t is a n d of w h a t is real. Self-evidently, the M i s h n a h ' s citation of authorities makes explicit the claim that s o m e m e n , n o w d e a d , have m a d e their contribution, therefore have given s h a p e a n d substance to tradition, that which is s h a p e d by o n e a n d h a n d e d o n w a r d by a n o t h e r . So the M i s h n a h i n d e e d is, a n d therefore is m e a n t as, a law-code, a schoolbook, a n d a c o r p u s of tradition. It follows that the p u r p o s e for which the M i s h n a h was edited into final f o r m was to create such a multip u r p o s e d o c u m e n t , a tri partite goal a t t a i n e d in a single c o r p u s of f o r m e d a n d formal sayings. A n d yet, it is obvious, the M i s h n a h is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n these three things in one. It transcends the three a n d accomplishes m o r e t h a n the triple goals that on the surface f o r m the constitutive c o m p o n e n t s of its p u r p o s e . T o describe that t r a n s c e n d e n t {3urp0se, we r e t u r n to Wittgenstein's saying. " T h e limits of m y language m e a n the limits of m y world." T h e M i s h n a h ' s formulaic rhetoric o n the o n e side imposes limits, b o u n d a ries, u p o n the world. W h a t fits into that rhetoric, can be said by it, constitutes world, world given s h a p e a n d b o u n d a r y by the M i s h n a h . T h e M i s h n a h implicitly maintains, therefore, that a wide range of things fall within the territory m a p p e d out by a limited n u m b e r of

238

CHAPTER T H R E E

linguistic conventions, g r a m m a t i c a l sentences. W h a t is g r a m m a t i c a l can be said a n d therefore constitutes p a r t of the reality created by M i s h n a i c word. W h a t c a n n o t be c o n t a i n e d within the g r a m m a r of the sentence c a n n o t be said a n d therefore falls outside of the realm of Mishnaic reality. M i s h n a i c reality consists in those things that can attain o r d e r , balance, a n d principle. C h a o s then lies without. Yet, if we m a y extrapolate f r o m the capacity of the impoverished repertoire of g r a m m a r to serve for all sorts of things, for the eleven topics of o u r O r d e r , for e x a m p l e , then .re m u s t c o n c e d e that aU things can be said by f o r m a l revision. E v e r y t h i n g can be r e f o r m e d , r e d u c e d to the o r d e r a n d b a l a n c e a n d exquisite sense for the just m a t c h characteristic of the M i s h n a i c pericope. A n y t h i n g of which we wish to speak is susceptible of the o r d e r i n g a n d p a t t e r n i n g of M i s h n a i c g r a m m a r a n d syntax. T h a t is a fact that is implicit t h r o u g h o u t o u r O r d e r . Accordingly, the territory m a p p e d o u t by M i s h n a i c l a n g u a g e e n c o m p a s s e s the whole of the pertinent world u n d e r discussion. T h e r e are n o t h e m a t i c limitations of M i s h n a i c formalized speech. Yet reality, the world of clean a n d u n c l e a n in the present context, is forced to surpass itself, to strive for a h i g h e r level of o r d e r a n d m e a n i n g t h r o u g h its submission to M i s h n a i c formalization. Implicit in the rhetoric of o u r d o c u m e n t is the notion, n o w alluded to m a n y times, of d e e p regularities that in principle unite cases, just as regularities in rhetoric unite cases. W h a t is abstract n e e d not be spelled o u t a n d instantiated endlessly because it already is spelled out t h r o u g h recurrent, implicit relationships a m o n g words, a m o n g cases. In this context we recall G r e e n ' s s t a t e m e n t (cited above), "If the p e r f o r m a n c e of rituals within the T e m p l e exposes the lines of G o d ' s revealed reality, then thinking. . . a b o u t these rituals out side the T e m p l e , even without the possibility of p e r f o r m i n g all of t h e m , has the s a m e result. T h e M i s h n a i c rabbis express their p r i m a r y cognitive statements, their j u d g m e n t s u p o n large matters, t h r o u g h . . . law, not t h r o u g h m y t h or theology, n e i t h e r of w h i c h is articulated at all. Early R a b b i n i s m took ritual b e y o n d the realm of practice a n d t r a n s f o r m e d it into the object of speculation a n d the substance of t h o u g h t . Study, learning, a n d exposition b e c a m e . . . the basic R a b b i n i c activity. . ." Restating this view in terms of Mishnaic g r a m m a t i c a l rhetoric, we m a y say that the thinking a b o u t m a t t e r s of detail within a particular p a t t e r n of cognitive constructions treats speculation a n d t h o u g h t as themselves c a p a b l e of i n f o r m i n g a n d s h a p i n g being, not merely expressing its external traits.

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

239

V. Language Becomes ontology L a n g u a g e in the M i s h n a h replaces cult, formalism of o n e kind takes the place of formalism of a n o t h e r . T h e claim that infinitely careful a n d p a t t e r n e d d o i n g of a particular sort of deeds is ex o p e r e o p e r a t o an expression of the sacred has its c o u n t e r p a r t in the implicit c h a r a c ter of the M i s h n a h ' s language. Its rhetoric is f o r m e d with infinite care, a c c o r d i n g to a finite p a t t e r n for speech, a b o u t d o i n g deeds of a particular sort. L a n g u a g e n o w c o n f o r m s to cult then. T h e formal cult, once p e r f o r m e d in perfect silence, n o w is given its c o u n t e r p a r t in f o r m a l speech. W h e r e once m e n said n o t h i n g , b u t t h r o u g h gesture a n d m o v e m e n t , in o t h e r circumstances quite secular, p e r f o r m e d holy deed, n o w they d o nothing, but t h r o u g h equally p a t t e r n e d revision of secular words a b o u t secular things p e r f o r m holy speech. 111 the cult it is the very context that makes an intrinsically neutral, therefore secular, act into a holy one. D o i n g the thing right, with precision a n d studied care, m a k e s the d o i n g holy. Slaughtering an animal, collecting its blood a n d b u t c h e r i n g it, b u n t i n g incense a n d p o u r i n g wine— these by themselves are things that can be a n d are d o n e in the h o m e as m u c h as in the cult. But in the cult they are characterized by formality a n d precision. 111 the M i s h n a h , by contrast, there is n o spatial context to sanctify the secular act of saying things. T h e con text left, once cult is gone, is solely the cultic m o d e of formalism, the ritualization of speech, that most neutral a n d c o m m o n p l a c e action, the M i s h n a h transforms speech into ritual a n d so creates the surrogate of ritual deed. T h a t which was n o t present in cult, speech, is all that is present now that the silent cult is gone. A n d , it follows, it is by the formalization of speech, its limitation to a few patterns, a n d its perfection t h r o u g h the creation of p a t t e r n s of relationships in particular, that the old nexus of H e a v e n a n d e a r t h , the cult, n o w is to be replicated in the n e w a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y nexus, cultic speech a b o u t all things. W h a t the limitation of M i s h n a i c l a n g u a g e to a few implicit relational realities accomplishes, therefore, is the reduction of the world to the limits of language. 111 r i t u a l - g r a m m a r the world therein contained a n d expressed attains formalization a m o n g , a n d simplification by, the unstated but r e m a r k a b l y few principles c o n t a i n e d within, a n d stated by, the m u l t i t u d i n o u s cases that c o r r e s p o n d to the world. Mishnaic language makes possible the formalization of the whole of the everyday a n d w o r k a d a y world. It accomplishes the t r a n s f o r m a -

'240

CHAPTER T H R E E

tion of all things in a c c o r d with that sense for perfect f o r m a n d unfailing regularity that once were distinctive to the operation of the cult. M i s h n a i c language explores the possibility of c o n t a i n i n g a n d creating a n e w realm of reality, o n e that avoids abstractions a n d expresses all things only t h r o u g h the precision of g r a m m a t i c a l patterns, that is, the reality of abstract relationships alone. H a v e we c o m e closer to a p e r c e p t i o n of the p u r p o s e for which, a c c o r d i n g to the internal testimony of o u r O r d e r , the M i s h n a h was created? 111 a concrete sense, of course, we have not. Mishnaic rhetoric says n o t h i n g explicit a b o u t the p u r p o s e of the rhetoric. 111 the simplest sense, as we n o t e d long ago, the p r o x i m a t e p u r p o s e of formalization was to facilitate the m n e m o n i c process. Yet it is to b e g the question to say that the p u r p o s e of facilitating m e m o r i z a t i o n is to help people r e m e m b e r things. T h e M i s h n a h w a n t s to be m e m o r i z e d for a reason. The reason transcends the process, pointing, rather, to its p u r p o s e . N o r d o we stand closer to the i n n e r intentions of the M i s h n a h ' s authorities w h e n we raise the polemical p u r p o s e of m e m o rization. T h i s was to act out the claim that there are two c o m p o n e n t s of the o n e whole T o r a h that "Moses, o u r r a b b i , " received f r o m G o d at Sinai, o n e t r a n s m i t t e d in writing, the o t h e r h a n d e d o n by tradition, in oral f o r m only. T r u e , the claim for the M i s h n a h , laid d o w n in A b o t , the M i s h n a h ' s first a n d most compelling apologetic, is that the authority of the M i s h n a h rests u p o n its status as received tradition of G o d . It follows that tradition h a n d e d o n t h r o u g h m e m o r y is valid specifically because, while Self-evidently not p a r t of the written T o rah, w h i c h all Israel has in h a n d , it is essential to the whole T o r a h . Its m o d e of tradition t h r o u g h m e m o r y verifies a n d a u t h e n t i c a t e s its authority as tradition b e g u n by G o d , despite its absence f r o m the written part of T o r a h . Both these t h i n g s — t h e facilitation of m e m o r i z a tion, the a u t h e n t i c a t i o n of the d o c u m e n t t h r o u g h its external f o r m while correct also are post facto. T h e y testify to the result of Mishnaic rhetoric for b o t h e d u c a t i o n a l - t r a d e n t a l a n d polemical apologetic purposes. O n c e we m e m o r i z e , we accomplish m u c h . But why, to begin with, c o m m i t these g n o m i c sayings to such language as facilitates their m e m o r i z a t i o n ? 111 a world such as the M i s h n a h ' s , in which writing is routine, m e m o r i z a t i o n is special. W h a t h a p p e n s w h e n we k n o w s o m e t h i n g by heart that does not h a p p e n w h e n we m u s t read it o r look for it in a scroll or a book is that w h e n we walk in the street a n d w h e n we sit at h o m e , w h e n we sleep a n d w h e n we awake, we c a r i y with us in o u r

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

241

everyday perceptions that m e m o r i z e d g n o m i c saying. T h e process of formulation t h r o u g h formulization a n d the coequal process of m e m o rizing p a t t e r n e d cases to sustain the perception of the u n d e r lying principle, uniting the cases just as the p a t t e r n unites their language, extends the limits of language to the o u t e r b o u n d a r i e s of experience, the accidents of everyday life itself. G n o m i c sayings are routine in all cultures. But the reduction of all truth, particularly to g n o m i c sayings is not. T o impose u p o n those sayings an underlying a n d single structure of g r a m m a r c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the i n n e r structure of reality is to transf o r m the structure of language into a statement of ontology. O n c e o u r m i n d s are trained to perceive principle a m o n g cases a n d p a t t e r n within g r a m m a t i c a l relationships, we f u r t h e r discern in the concrete events of daily life both principle a n d underlying a u t o n o m o u s pattern. T h e f o r m of the M i s h n a h is m e a n t to c o r r e s p o n d to the formalization perceived within, not merely u p o n imposed u p o n , the c o n d u c t of concrete affairs, principally, the m e a n i n g a n d c h a r a c t e r of concrete h a p p e n i n g s a m o n g things, in the w o r k a d a y life of people. T h e m a t t e r obviously is not solely ethical, but the ethical c o m p o n e n t is self-evident. It also has to d o with the n a t u r a l world a n d the things that break its routine, of w h i c h o u r O r d e r speaks so fully a n d in such exquisite detail. H e r e all things are a m a t t e r of relationship, circumstance, fixed a n d recurrent interplay. If X, then T, if not X, then not Y that is the d a t u m by which m i n d s are s h a p e d . T h e way to shape a n d e d u c a t e m i n d s is to impart into the ear, t h e n c e into the m i n d , p e r p e t u a l awareness that what h a p p e n s recurs, a n d w h a t recurs is p a t t e n ! a n d order, a n d , t h r o u g h t h e m , wholeness. H o w better t h a n to fill the m i n d with formalized sentences, generative b o t h of m e a n i n g for themselves a n d of significance b e y o n d t h e m selves, in which m e a n i n g rests u p o n the perception of relation ship? Pattern is to be discovered in alertness, in the multiplicity of events a n d h a p p e n i n g s , n o n e of which states o r articulates p a t t e r n . M i n d , trained to m e m o r i z e t h r o u g h w h a t is implicit a n d b e n e a t h the surface, is to be a c c u s t o m e d a n d taught in such a way to discern p a t t e r n . O r d e r is because o r d e r is discovered, first in language, t h e n in life. As the cult in all its precise a n d obsessive attention to fixed detail effected the perception that f r o m the orderly center flowed lines of m e a n i n g to the periphery, so the very language of the M i s h n a h , in the particular traits which I h a v e specified, also in its precise a n d obsessive concentration 011 i n n a t e a n d fixed relationship, effects the

242

CHAPTER T H R E E

perception nature, and

of o r d e r d e e p within

the disorderly world of

lacunae,

man.

W h a t we h a v e said a b o u t m a t t e r s of f o r m a n d l a n g u a g e h a s n o w t o b e set i n t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t o f o u r d o c u m e n t , w h i c h is, t h e r e a l m of the sacred. F o r the m e m o r i z a t i o n

and

repetition of

the

M i s h n a h f r o m the time of the creation of the M i s h n a h are perceived as holy, a n intrinsically sacred action, n o t m e r e l y a n informative a n d functionally useful one. I n d e e d , given the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of o u r O r d e r , it is d i f f i c u l t t o s e e w h y s o m e o n e s h o u l d w a n t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e M i s h n a h , o r w h a t f u n c t i o n t h e r e b y is t o b e s e r v e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e t u m at t h e e n d to a discussion ο t h e c h a r a c t e r of religion, so f a r as religion conveys a worldview, as the M i s h n a h ' s f o r m a l c h a r a c t e r cert a i n l y d o e s . C l i f f o r d G e e r t z (Ethos, p p . 4 2 1 - 2 ) s t a t e s : In recent a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l discussion, the m o r a l (and aesthetic) aspects of a given culture, the evaluative elements, h a v e c o m m o n l y b e e n s u m m e d u p in the t e r m 'ethos,' while the cognitive, existential aspects h a v e b e e n designated by the t e r m 'worldview.' A people's ethos is the tone, c h a r a c t e r , a n d quality of their life, its m o r a l a n d aesthetic style a n d m o o d ; it is the u n d e r l y i n g attitude t o w a r d t h e m selves a n d their world t h a t life reflects. T h e i r worldview is their picture of the w a y things, 111 sheer actuality, are, their c o n c e p t of n a t u r e , of self, of society. It c o n t a i n s their most c o m p r e h e n s i v e ideas of o r d e r . Religious belief a n d ritual c o n f r o n t a n d mutually c o n f i r m o n e a n o t h e r ; the ethos is m a d e intellectually r e a s o n a b l e by b e i n g s h o w n to represent a way of life implied by the actual state of affairs w h i c h the worldview describes, a n d the worldview is m a d e e m o t i o n a l l y a c c e p t a b l e by b e i n g p r e s e n t e d as a n i m a g e of the actual state of affairs of w h i c h such a way of life is a n a u t h e n t i c expression. T h i s d e m o n s t r a t i o n of a m e a n i n g f u l relation between the values a people holds a n d the general o r d e r of existence within which it finds itself is a n essential e l e m e n t in all religions, h o w e v e r those values or that o r d e r be conceived. W h a t e v e r else religion m a y be, it is in p a r t a n a t t e m p t (of a n implicit a n d d i r e c d y felt r a t h e r t h a n explicit a n d c o n sciously t h o u g h t a b o u t sort) to conserve the f u n d of general m e a n i n g s in t e r m s of w h i c h each individual interprets his experience a n d organizes his c o n d u c t . . . S a c r e d symbols thus relate a n ontology a n d a cosmology to a n aesthetics a n d a morality: their peculiar p o w e r c o m e s f r o m their p r e s u m e d ability to identify fact with value at the m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l level, to give to w h a t is otherwise merely actual, a c o m p r e h e n s i v e , n o r mative i m p o r t . T h e n u m b e r of such synthesizing symbols is limited in a n y culture, a n d t h o u g h in t h e o r y we m i g h t think t h a t a people could c o n s t r u c t a wholly a u t o n o m o u s value system i n d e p e n d e n t of any m e t a physical referent, an ethics without ontology, we d o not in fact seem to h a v e f o u n d such a people. T h e t e n d e n c y to synthesize world view a n d

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

243

ethos at s o m e level, if not logically necessary, is at least empirically coercive; if it is not philosophically justified, it is at least pragmatically universal ... It is a cluster of sacred symbols, woven into s o m e sort of o r d e r e d whole, which m a k e s u p a religious system . . . For those w h o are c o m m i t t e d to it, such a religious system seems to m e d i a t e g e n u i n e knowledge, k n o w l e d g e of the essential conditions in t e r m s of which life must, of necessity, be lived . . . Religion s u p p o r t s p r o p e r c o n d u c t by picturing a world in which such c o n d u c t is only c o m m o n sense. It is only c o m m o n sense b e c a u s e between ethos a n d worldview between the a p p r o v e d style of life a n d the a s s u m e d structure of reality, there is conceived to be a simple a n d f u n d a m e n t a l c o n g r u e n c e such that they c o m p l e t e o n e a n o t h e r a n d lend o n e a n o t h e r m e a n i n g .

I have cited G e e r t z at length because he serves to complete the present discussion. W h a t I have tried to show is that intrinsic a n d essential to the ethos of that life represented a n d f o r m e d by the M i s h n a h is a n aesthetic that also is a n ontology, a n aesthetic that contains within itself a p r o f o u n d a n d implicit, but never articulated, world view. T h e r e is a perfect c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between w h a t the M i s h n a h proposes to say a n d the way in which it says it. An essential p a r t of the ethos of M i s h n a i c culture is its f o r m a l a n d formulaic sentence, the m e a n s by which it makes its cognitive statements a n d so expresses its world view. N o t only does ethos c o r r e s p o n d to worldview, b u t worldview is expressed in style as m u c h as in substance. In the case of Mishnaic f o r m , the ethos a n d worldview c o m e together 111 the very elements of g r a m m a t i c a l formalization, which, never m a d e articulate, express the p e r m a n e n c e a n d p a r a m o u n t c h a r a c t e r of relationship, the revelatory relativity of context a n d circumstance. Life attains f o r m in structure. It is structure that is most vivid in life. T h e m e d i u m for the expression of the worldview is the ethos. But for the M i s h n a h , ethos neither appeals to, nor, so far as I can see, expresses, e m o t i o n . J u s t as there is n o r o o m for n u a n c e in general in the severe a n d b a l a n c e d sentences of the M i s h n a h , so there is n o place for the nua n c e of e m o t i o n or ' c o m m i t m e n t ' in general. T h e rhetoric of o u r d o c u m e n t makes n o appeal to e m o t i o n or to obedience, describing, not invoking, the compelling a n d ineluctable g r o u n d s for assent. T h i s claim that things are such a n d so, relate in such a n d such a way, without regard or appeal to h o w we w a n t t h e m to be, is unyielding. Law is law, despite the accidents of w o r k a d a y life, a n d facts are facts. T h e b e a r e r of facts a n d the m a k e r of law is the relationship, the p a t t e r n by which diverse things are set into juxtaposition with o n e

244

CHAPTER T H R E E

a n o t h e r , w h e t h e r subject a n d predicate, or d e a d creeping thing a n d loaf of Heave-offering. W h a t is definitive is not the t h i n g b u t the context a n d the circumstance, the time, the condition, the intention of the actor. 111 all, all things are relative to relative things. T h e bridge f r o m ethos to worldview is the f o r m a n d c h a r a c t e r of the sentence that t r a n s f o r m s the o n e into the other. T h e declarative sentence t h r o u g h p a t t e r n e d language takes attitude a n d turns it into cognition. M i s h n a i c "religion" not only speaks of values. Its m o d e of speech is testimony to its highest a n d most e n d u r i n g , distinctive value. T h i s language does not speak of sacred symbols but of pots a n d p a n s , of m e n s t r u a t i o n a n d d e a d creeping things, of o r d i n a r y w a t e r that, because of the c i r c u m s t a n c e of its collection a n d location, possesses e x t r a o r d i n a r y p o w e r , of the c o m m o n p l a c e corpse a n d the ubiquitous diseased person, of genitalia a n d e x c r e m e n t , toilet-seats a n d the flux of penises, of stems of p o m e g r a n a t e s a n d stalks of leeks, of rain a n d e a r t h a n d clay ovens, w o o d , metal, lass, a n d hide. T h i s language is f 1 lied with w o r d s for neutral things of h u m b l e existence. It does n o t speak of holy things a n d is not symbolic in its substance. It speaks of o r d i n a r y things, of w o r k a d a y things that everyone must have k n o w n . But because of the peculiar a n d particular w a y in which it is f o r m e d a n d formalized, this s a m e language not only a d h e r e s to a n aesthetic theory b u t expresses a deeply e m b e d d e d ontology a n d m e t h o d o l o g y of the sacred, specifically of the sacred within the secular, a n d of the capacity for regulation, therefore for sanctification, within the ordinary. T o conclude: Worldview a n d ethos are synthesized in language. T h e synthesis is expressed in g r a m m a t i c a l a n d syntactical regularities. W h a t is woven into s o m e sort of o r d e r e d whole is n o t a cluster of sacred symbols. T h e religious system is not discerned within symbols at all. K n o w l e d g e of the conditions of life is i m p a r t e d principally t h r o u g h the description of the c o m m o n p l a c e facts of life, which symbolize, stand for, n o t h i n g b e y o n d themselves a n d their conseq u e n c e s for the clean a n d the unclean. T h a t description is effected t h r o u g h the construction of units of m e a n i n g , i n t e r m e d i a t e divisions c o m p o s e d of cognitive elements. T h e whole is balanced, explicit in detail, but reticent a b o u t the whole, b a l a n c e d in detail but d u m b a b o u t the c h a r a c t e r of the balance. W h a t is not said is w h a t is eloq u e n t a n d compelling as m u c h as w h a t is said. Accordingly, that simple a n d f u n d a m e n t a l c o n g r u e n c e between ethos a n d world view is to begin with, for the M i s h n a h , the very l a n g u a g e by which the o n e

245

FORM AND MEANING IN T H E MISHNAH

is given cognitive expression in the other. T h e m e d i u m of p a t t e r n e d speech conveys the m e a n i n g of w h a t is said.

Abbreviations

C h o m s k y , Language C h o m s k y , Ref ections C h o m s k y , Structures F a r b , Word

Play

‫׳‬- N o a m C h o m s k y , Language and. Mind (N.Y., 1972) N o a m C h o m s k y , Reflections on Language (N.Y., 1975) : N o a m C h o m s k y , Syntactic Structures (The H a g u e , 1957) :

P e t e r F a r b , Word Play.

What

Happens

When

People Talk ( N . Y . , 1 9 7 4 )

Fishman

:

J o s h u a A. F i s h m a n , The Sociology of Language. An

Interdisciplinary

Language

Geertz, Ethos

:

Geertz, Religion

Review

1957,

:

:

L i e b e r m a n , Publication

Scott

to the Study

Green

Volume

II,

(Missoula,

E i n a r H a u g e n , The Ecology of Language (Stanford, 1972) Saul E i e b e r m a n , " T h e Publication of the M i s h n a h , " i n h i s Hellenism

:

Mellinkoff, Law

Approaches

to Ancient Judaism

ed. By William 1977). :

17:421-437

of Religion. Edited by Michael B a n t o n (Lond o n , 1966), pp. 1-46. William Scott G r e e n , " W h a t ' s in a N a m e ? T h e P r o b l e m a t i c of R a b b i n i c ' B i o g r a p h y , ' " i n Approaches

Haugen

to

Clifford Geertz, "Religion as a Cultural S y s t e m , " Anthropological

G r e e n , Biography

Science Approach

Clifford G e e r t z , "Ethos, World-View, a n d the Analysis of Sacred Symbols," The Antioch

:

Social

in Society ( R o s l e y , 1 9 7 2 )

in Jewish

Palestine

(N.Y., 1950) p p . 83-99 David Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law (Boston, 1963)

INDEX Abba Yose b. Hanan, essentials of the laws. 169 M. Abodah Zarah eating fruit from young trees, 43-46 idolatry, 41-46 Agriculture, comingling diverse species of plants and animals 130-32 Alms, Peah, sharing crops with the poor, 55-56 Aqiba, 214-15 M. Arakhin, consecration of holy things, 46-47 Atonement for collective sins, 3-4 Day of Atonement, 12-14

Damages and responsibility, 63-68 Day of Atonement, 12-14 M. Demai, tithing 26-28 Divorce, writs of, 96-100 Eden, land of Israel restoring, 154, 205-7 M. Erubin, Sabbath meals to be eaten at home, 93-96 Feast of booths and tabernacles, 11-12 Firstfruits, fruit of the first three years prohibited, 132-35 presentation on Pentecost, 48-49 status of parts of fruits and vegetables 32-34 Firsdings, redeeming consecrated subject, 47-48

M. Baba Qamma-Baba-Mesia-Baba Batra. Civil Law and preservation of social order, 62-66 M. Bekhorot, redeeming consecrated things, 47-48 M. Besah aka Yom Tob festival, preparation of food for the festival day, 91-92

Geertz, Clifford, 242-43 Gentiles, idolatry in Land of Israel, 43-44 M. Gittin, writs of divorce, 96-100 Green, William Scott, 219

Charity, Peah and sharing crops with the poor, 55-56 Civil Law the "Babas" of Mishnah and preservation of social order, 62-66 Classes of offerings, 8-9 Cleanness and uncleanness cleanliness of priests, 142-47 corpse uncleanness, 111-15 Doubtfully-tithed produce, 26-28 menstruating women, 147-54 purification from corpse uncleanness, 115-18 purities, 29-32 status of parts of fruits and vegetables, 32-34 susceptibility of produce to uncleanness, 109-11 uncleanness unto death, 128-30 water, classification of, 77-79, 89 Collective Sin and atonement, 3-4

M. Hagigah, pilgrim festivals and offerings, 68-70, 87 Halakhah between wars of 66-70 and 132-35, 187-93 early Halakhah, 183-87 formative history of, 180-83 formed by alignment of Mishnah amd scripture, 1-3 judicial system, fines and penalties, 79-82 methodological foundations, 161-65 of mid-second century, 193-205 Rabbinic Judaism in Second Temple times, 165-210 stages of category formations, 157-210 Halevy, Y. I., history of Halakhah, 162-63 M. Hallah, dough-offering to priest, 100-2

248

INDEX

M. Horayot, collective sin and atonement, 3-4 M. Hullin, slaughtering for meat to be used in the household, 102-5 Idolatry, gentiles in the Land of Israel, 43-44 ‫י‬ Inadvertance and intentionality, 49-50, 127-28 man's attitude to sanctify the secular, 154-55 Israelites, family name maintained by levirate marriage, 58-59 M. Kelim, cleanness and uncleanness, 70-75 M. Keritot, violation of the T o r a h by intentional or inadvertent action, 49-50 M. Ketubot, marriage contract, 34-36 M. Kilayim, comingling diverse species of plants and animals, 130-32 Land of Israel assigning Sabbatical year for the Land, 57-58 restoring Eden, 154 Leprosy and purification rite, 4-6 Levirate marriage 58-59 Lieberman, Saul, 212-14 M. Maaserot, liability of produce to tithes, 107-9 M. Maaser Sheni, second tithes, 51-52 M. Makhshirin, susceptibility of produce to uncleanness, 109-11 Marriage contracts, 34-38 levirate marriage, 58-59 Meal offerings, 54-55 Meat, slaughtering for household use, 102-5 M. Megillah, observing Purim, 75-76 Meilah, sacrilege, in use of animal designated as an offering, 52-53 M. Menahot, grains for offerings, 54-55 M. Miqvaot, classification of water regarding its cleanness and uncleanness, 77-79 Mishnah identifying spirit of the Written T o r a h , 59-61

systematizing the Written T o r a h , 42-43 transmission by reciters, 211-16 M. Moed Q a t a n , activiy permitted or prohibited on the intermediate days of Passover and of the Festival of Tabernacles, 105-7 M. Nedarim-Nazir, vow of Nazirite, 55 M. Negaim purification rite for leprosy, 4-6 New Year, celebration of, 56-57 Offerings animal offerings and priestly code, 82-86 classes of offerings, 8-9 dough-offering to priest, 100-2 festival-offerings, 68-70 grains for offerings, 54-55 peace-offering, 68 use of animal designated as an offering, 52-53 M. Ohalot, corpse uncleanness, 111-15 Oral T o r a h quesrioning Written T o r a h , 90-125 rationality of, 86-90 M. Orlah Fruit of the first three years prohibited, 132-35 M. Parah, purification from corpse uncleanness, 115-18 Passover observance, 6-8 M. Peah, portions of crops shared with poor, 55-56 Pentecost, presentation of firstfruits, 48-49 M. Pesahim, Passover observance, 6-8 Purification rite and leprosy, 4-6 Tebul Yom, 135-38 Purim declamation of the T o r a h 75-76 Qiddushin, the marriage contract, 34-38 M. Rosh Hashanah, celebrating the New Year, 56-57

249

INDEX

Sabbath assigning a Sabbatical year for the Land, 57-58 defining private and public domain, 118-25 meals to be eaten at home, 93-96 domains and acts of labor, 127 Sacrilege, use of an animal designated as an offering, 52-53 M. Sanhedrin-Makkot, Halakhah, administration of courts; fines and penallies, 79-82 Scripture and Mishnah forming Halakhah, 1-154 M. Shabbat, Sabbath observance, defining private and public domain, 11825 M. Shebi'it, assigning Sabbatical year to the Land, 57-58 M. Shebuot, classes of offerings, 8-9 Sin classes of, 8-9 collective sin and atonement 3-4 intentional or inadvertent violation of the T o r a h , 49-50 Social order Civil Law, the Babas of Mishnah, 62-66 collective sin and atonement, 3-4 judicial system, fines and penalties, 79-82 M. Sotah, unfaithfulness of woman, 9-10 M. Sukkah, feast of tabernacles, 11-12

Tebul Yom, purification rite, 135-38 M. T e m u r a h , substitution for sanctified Holy Tilings, 138-39 M. Terumot, and heave offering, 139-42 Theology in formulation of law, 1 -3 Tithing, doubtfully-tithed produce, 26-28 second tithe, status of 51-52 M. Tohorot, Oral T o r a h recognizing Written T o r a h , 61 purities, cleanness and uncleanness, 29-32 M. Uqsin, status of parts of fruits and vegetables, 32-34 Water, classifiction of cleanness and uncleanness, 89 Woman marriage contracts, 34-36 uncleanness of menstruating woman, 147-54 faithfulness of, 9-10 M. Yadayim, cleanliness of priests, 142-47 M. Yebamot, levirate marriage, 58-59 M. Yoma, Day of Atonement, 12-14 M. Zabim and Niddah, uncleanness of menstruating women, 147-54 M . Zebahim, animal offerings, 82-86,

222

HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK Abt. I: D E R N A H E U N D M I T T L E R E

OSTEN

ISSN 0169-9423

Recent volumes:

B a n d 30 Sharon, M. Corpus Insmptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP). Vol. 1: A. 1997. ISBN 90 04 010745 2 Vol.1: B. 1999. ISBN 90 04 1 10836 B a n d 31 Török, L. The Kingdom of Kush. Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization. 1997. ISBN 90 04 010448 8 B a n d 32 Muraoka, T. and Porten, B. /1 Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10499 2 B a n d 33 Gessel, B.H.L. van. Onomasticon of the Hitlite Pantheon. 1998. ISBN Set (2 parts) 90 04 10809 2 Band 34 Klengel, H. Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches 1998. ISBN 90 04 10201 9 Band 35 Hachlili, R. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora 1998. ISBN 90 04 10878 5 B a n d 36 Westendorf, W. Handbuch der altägyptischen Medizin. 1999. ISBN Set (2 Bände) 90 04 10319 8 B a n d 37 Civil, M. Mesopolamian Uxicography. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11007 0 Band 3 8 Siegelovà, J. and Soucek. V. Systematische Bibliographie der Hethitologie. 1999. ISBN Set (3 Bände) 90 04 1 '1205 7 Band 39 Watson, W.G.E. and Wyatt, N. Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. 1999. ISBN 90 04 10988 9 ' B a n d 40 Neusner, J . Judaism in Ute Antiquity, 111,1. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11186 7 B a n d 41 Neusner, J . Judaism in Late Antiquity, 111,2. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11282 0 Band 42 Drijvers, H.J.W, and Healey, J.F. The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11284 7 B a n d 43 Daiber, H. Bibliography of Philosophical Thought in Islam. 2 Volumes. ISBN Set (2 Volumes) 90 04 11347 9 Volume I. Alphabetical List of Publications 1999. ISBN 90 04 09648 5 Volume II. Index of Names, Terms and Topics. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11348 7 Band 44 Hunger, H and Pingree, D. Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia. 1999. ISBN 90 04 10127 6