Golden Doves With Silver Dots: Semiotics and Textuality in Rabbinic Tradition (Jewish Literature and Culture) [1 ed.] 0253326001, 9780253326003

Citation preview

Notes to Pa ges 98 -10

188

0

S hedrin B9a. Accordingly, the rabbis warned again t 9· f oral Law ('al yishne) to an improper student (Ho/ _s teaching th textdo t ould interrupt his studies before grasping the m. eazn· 133a). Such e stuenc . d "h n1ngf a explain them not m accor ance wit their origi·n 1 . 0 the fo mulas an d a 1ntenti rabove, section 1, note 9· on; cf. 10. ISG, PP· 10- 11 · 11. Ibid., PP· 5, 27- 29· . 12 _ Cf. Mabo le-Nosa/J ha-!'-ftshna, pp. 673-674. 13 AdRN, XVIII, P· XXXIV. 14: See below, pp. 14:2-143_. Cf. S~eqalim V, 1, 14b; Gitt' 6 _19 . and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, p. 95. .zn 7b; ISG, PP· 18 M"h 6 15 . See Mabo le-Nosa/J ha- is na, pp. 73-674. 16. ISG, pp. 26-29. 17. Ibid., p. 30; cf. p. 19. 18. Ibid., p. 47• 19. Cf. Mishna 'Ohalot XVI, 1. 20. ISG, pp. 21-22. 2 1. See Studies in the Mishne Tora, p. 33. 22• ISG, p. 50. For the designation halakhot to the Mishna, see PT Ji m, 7, 48c. orayot 23. Ibid., p. 7. .: 24. Ibid., p. 36. Similarly, the Ge'onim had "mishnayot" contain· gadic material; see "Mishnat Shir ha-Shirim," p. 122, note 23 . mg ag25. Shabbat 1o6a. 26. See a~ve, the introd~ction to this ch~~ter, note 5; cf. Riban, Mak/rot 20b, s.v. halch1 garsenan. For instance, a tanna1tic tradition transmitted und the ~eading ta~ (cf. above, sec~on 1, note 83), was of little authori;~ Consider the ~~ute between Rish Laqqish and R. Yo):ianan, where the latter reports his Vie'"'. under t?e heading tane (Makkot 14b). Significantly, the ~alm~d states_that Rish Laqq1sh appears to be correct (bishlama) in not cons1dermg the View of R. Yo):ianan; furthermore, it asks why R. Yohanan did ?ot ~ccept the view of Rish Laqqish. On the other hand, in the Shi'iltot de R. _111.ta,, ed. R. Samuel Mirsky, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Sura Institute, 1959), p. 116, 15 f?und the t~rrrl: tanya heading an amoraitic tradition, probably in the sense of_ an authontative statement.' Likewise, Baba Batra 107b (cf. Diqduqe Sofenm, ad Joe., note 30). For additional sources, see Louis Ginzberg, Ginze Schechter, vol. 2 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1929), pp. 148--149. 27• See R. l:Ianan'el on Shabbat 106a 28 · See 'Iyye ha-Yam, 108a. · 2 . 9· ISG, P· 47- Accordingly, there were some who permitted the ritually impure to ·t · th kn reo e it; see Berakhot 22a. Other tannaitic collections, such as s~i~t 1 2~ns 0ass~khtot Qetannot, fall into this c~tegory. Cf. Tosa~ot, tive o 5th' · · Ad, in fine, that considers Massekhet Semahot not authonta. n e status d ti · 'En Zokher, "S," # 1. an I?e of ~ompilation of these collections,_ see 3 (Izmir, 5598'18 ' ~- l:Iayyim Beniamm Pontremoli, Peta/J ha-Debir, vol.. 1 8 5 Qohelet Rabba c-d, an~ ~he sources cited in these works. However, in contained · th 77b), exphot mention was made of some of the tractates lion 3, not~n28 _ese collections as "given to Moses in Sinai"; cf. below, sec30. Sanhedrin X 1 8 . R H 11 ism in Jewish Pal:sti~: a, m · Duran Mag~n 'Abot (36b) as quoted in e e;; ' p. 103, no~e 55. Lieberman, however, prefers t

::e

I

°

J k(

Notes to Pages

100-103

189

rinted text be-'Iggeret "in a letter._" This is probably an emendation on the basis of TP Berakhot IV, 3, 8a. This expression means "to read it [with the intonation usua!ly employed in r_eading] a l~tter" (cf. above, chapter I, notes 50 _52), som~thmg that makes little sense m the context of our quotation from Sanhedrin . Section 3: "Written" and "Oral" Texts

1. Hellenism in Jewish _P~lestine, p.84. 2. Temura 14b; cf. G1ttin 6ob. For such a correspondence between the Holy Land and Babylonia, see Lieberman, Introduction and Commentary, p. 147· T b D ba . This pomt · was fu rther analyzed by 3 . Tosafot emura 14 , s.v. e rim . R. Joseph I;Iazzan, l;Iiqre Leb, 'Ora/J l;Iayyim (Salonika, 5547'1787), #12- 14, 1ob- 16d; #41, 71b-c; #5~-57, _99b-102b. 4. Megilla 23a; cf;, ~a1?10~1des, Tefilla X!Il, 17. For~ ?etaile~ an_alysis of this subject, see my ~m Al1yat ~--Qafan L1qro ba-Tora, m Studies m Memory of the Rishon le-Zion R. Y. N1ss1m, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Harab Nissim, 5745/1985), PP· 1~3--: 133· . . 5. Mishna Ta amt IV, 3; Mtshne Tora , Kele ha-Miqdash, VI, 4 and Mishna Yoma VII, 1. 6. See Midrash Tan/:luma , Vayyera VI, pp. 87-88, and the parallels indicated by the editor. 7. For the traditional explanations of these terms, see R. Refael Encaoua, Qarne Re'em (Jerusalem, 5670'1910), #249, 238c-23gc. 8. See below, p. 135; Maimonides, Tefilla, XII, 5; Sefer Tora, VII, 11; and Studies in the Mishne Tora , pp. 178-179. 9. 'Iyye ha-Yam 93b; see 'Erubin 62b, and cf. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, p. 86. 10. See below, pp. 108-110, where a text that was only "published" but not yet a "book" could be cited but not "expounded." Cf. above, p. 100. 11. 'Iyee ha-Yam Boa. For a more or less similar view, see Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 83 ff. 12. Gitfin 6oa; Massekhet Soferim XVII, 1. This expression does not appear in the printed text of Temura 14b. However, there is little doubt that there were other versions (cf. Studies in the Mishne Tora, p. 178, note 11), and that the text underwent scribal "corrections." The fact that this expression occurs in Shitta Mequbbe~et, ad Joe., may be indicative of its presence in other versions. 13. 'Jyye ha Yam, 111b-112b. The Talmud (Ketubbot 19b) distinguishes between a moda'a 'notification' which 'was consigned for writing' (nittan likateb [= lehikkateb]), and a shetar 'amana 'document [drawn] in trust' which 'was not consigned for writing' ('eno nittan likateb [= lehikkateb]). Concerning the ~atter, PT Ketubbot II, 3, 26b, reports in the name of Rab that witnesses may m fact sign a shetar 'amama; they cannot however validate their signature. According to this tradition there is no prohibition against writing a "document in trust" (cf. Mishna Baba Batra X, 4; Maimonides, Malve ve-love, XXIII, 5, in opposition to Tosafot Ketubbot 19a s.v. 'A-'Avla), but only against validating the signatures, as this would allow the holder to pass it for a genuine document. Ketubbot 19a-b reports a different tradition in the name of Rab, namely, that the witnesses are actually forbidden even to sign such a document as this involves bearing false testimony; see Maimonides, 'Edut, III, 7. Concerning the reason why the witnesses are permittted to sign the bill of

Notes to Pages

190

103-107

tr nsaction executed under duress, Maimonides maint . sale ~f: K~ef Mishne, ad Joe.) that since the notifi~ation (moda'atns CEdut 8 Ill, , c · . t r [that he was selling under duress] 1s considered issued by th~ prolpkantebo) there is the legal possibility of invalidating the bill afs Written (mttan ' e ' . ·t s· ·1 I th G , o sale therefore the witnesses may s1g!1 I .d f1m1 ar Yti'. ,~ . onim maintain tahnd since the notification "was cons1gi:1e or ~n ng it is considered a at ·tt and reoistered although m fact 1t was never written · s duly wn en o· bbo (H 7: h b t) Cf , see 'O ha-Ge'onim, v~I. 8, _Ketu t . a- es u o , pp. 75, 7_7· . a~ove, pp. 8 - $ar See Maimonides, Zekhiya wu-Mattana, VI, 17, and Yabzn Shem , 7 88. }'!.;,m Mo'ed Qatan 18b it is evident that, as Maimonides maint/ a, 6ob~ocuments were in effect written down; see Migdal 'Oz, ad Joe. ms, such 15. Yoma 29a. 16. Megilla 7a. . 17. Tosafot, ibid., s.v. Ne'emara. The solution offered by the Tosafot 18 unclear; see however the comments of R. Jacob Berab in R. Solom0 h Kohen She'elot wu-Tshubot Meharshakh, vol. 2 (Salonika, 535 211592) ; aMe-Ha;ere Nemerim (Venice, 5348/t588), 16b; and R. l;iiyya Rofe 'Ma~ 1?; l;{iyya (Fiirth, 5487/1727), 11a-13c. ' ase 18. Megilla 1~.. It should be noted that in Tosafot, Megilla a Ne'emara and in Aggadat Ester, ed. Salomon Buber (Cracow 56 118 7 )' s.v. 57 97 4 this view is quoted in the name of R. Yo]:i.anan; see editor's note. ' oa, 19. Rishba's Commentary, ad Joe. 20. Sanhedrin 101a. Yemenites recite this scroll without chanting; seep. 10 above. 21. Megilla I, 1, 70a. 22. Cf. above, section 1, note 29. 23. a. R. Emanuel l;lasin, in Me-Harere Nemerim, 5b. . ~- See Midrash Shemu'e/, chap. 15, p. 92, where on the basis of this verse it IS declared that the act of mesira 'delivery' of a scroll must be executed 'standing up' (be-'amida). Surely this alludes to an official ceremony. PT Rosh ha~Shana I, _3, 5~b recoun!s that a King would 'deliver' to his son precious obj,ects dunng_ his coronation 'when his son stood up.' Similarly, sons 'stood up _w~en their father 'delivered' to them the tools of his profession, thus certifying ~t they were competent and in charge of the trade. Da2~· See Mzshne Tora, Sefer Tora, X, 6, 8; for an analysis of this law, see R. vid Pardo, l;lasde David, part IV, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 5730/1970). Cf. the val~bl~ i:iote o~ Ch. Albeck, Shishsha Sidre Mishna, vol. 6 (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute and Dvir Co., 1959), pp. 6o8-6o9. 26. Cf. below, p. 119 . 27. Megi//a 7a. 28 th · ~bba IV, 5 (33d). This view is connected with the view expresse~ at t_e scroll of Esther "was from Sinai," in the sense that when it cal t:~ c~rtifiPTedMeby_ the proper authorities, it acquired the status of a canoni, C . gil/a I, 7, 70d. 2 9- Rut Rabba IV, 5 (33 d.) 30. See below, p. 143 . 31. Se~ ~low, notes 33-34. 32· This 1s implicit · th I·d d d" to the peo I . be m e ea of a text as a legal document "surren ere P e, see low pp 22 1 33- See Megilla th ' : ~ - 24• (d ca. 356) who rov~~ e op1mons of R. Joseph and R. Na]:i.man bar Isaac ... th e ~croll of Esther was written by the Holy Spit on the basis