Mishnah’s Rhetoric and the Social Formation of the Early

Guild

Jack N. Lightstone

The Formation Early Rabbinic Guild—Why does it Matter?

• Almost all forms of Judaism from the Middles Ages until today find their foundation in the early rabbis’ transformation of Judaism, effected between the late 2nd C CE and the late 6th C CE.

• Before modernity, only one other (previous) party’s reformation of Judaism– that party associated with the late biblical figures, Ezra and Nehemiah—attained equally normative and authoritative position..

From ancient synagogue, Sepphoriswww.hum.huji.ac.il/archaeology/zippori/mosaic.htm#The%20Orpheus%20Mosaic

The Formation Early Rabbinic Guild—Why does it Matter?

• The “Ezra-Nehemiah Party”—one God, one Torah and one Temple altar (both under the authority of a priestly caste), one people, one agent of God’s revelation, Moses

• The early rabbinic guild enshrined rabbinic (as opposed to priestly) authority and rabbinic halakah (the “way,” i.e., rabbinic law pertaining to all aspects of the religious, social, family, economic life), grounded in the notion of an oral Torah (which is the complement and completion of the written Torah of Moses) of which early rabbinic literature (Mishnah and Talmud) are an authoritative but only partial representation; every rabbi the embodiment of oral Torah

Questions which have occupied me for 30 years.

• “WHAT” QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EARLY RABBIS

• What were the earliest rabbis?

• What can we know of the formation of the early rabbinic guild?

• How, when and where did the earliest rabbis and/or their guild come to exercise authority?

“Mona Lisa” of Sepphoris(early 3rd C CE), Floor of Private Villawww.hum.huji.ac.il/archaeology/zippori/mosaic.htm#The%20Orpheus%20Mosaic

Questions which have occupied me for 30 years.

• “HOW” QUESTIONS ABOUT AMASSING AND USING EVIDENCE

• What is the available reliable evidence to answer any of the above?

• How do we make that evidence speak to us in a manner which is methodologically and theoretically sound?

Panel from mosaic floor, Roman basilica at Sepphoriswww.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/9554/images.html

The Problem of Evidence• We are “awash” in early rabbinic literature dating from

near 200 to 600 CE…, but …• Rabbinic literature contains no sustained biographies/

hagiographies of its founders, only some relatively late, hagiographic and anachronistic “aggadot” (morally edifying stories) of those remembered as the rabbinic guilds’ founding figures …compare Gospels and Hellenistic aretalogies, such as, Philotratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana.

• The early rabbis have not produced any (even apologetic) “histories” of the early rabbinic guild … until 10th C Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, … compare NT’s Book of Acts or Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesia

• Nor does the early rabbinic guild get any press from Roman historians.

How can early rabbinic literature shed light on the formation of the rabbinic guild?

• The Questions of Socio-Rhetorical Analysis…

• What (professional) values/expertise are “modeled” in the way in which a rabbinic text goes about its business?

• In the social, political, economic context of the texts authors and intended users, where would such an expertise fit? Who would buy and pay for such professional expertise? Where would it most likely have come from?

Floor, Bet-Alpha Synagogue, 6th C CE

www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go-visual.asp?MFAJ091t0

Socio-rhetorical study of Mishnah, Why?• Earliest text of the nascent

rabbinic guild, c. 200 CE.• Promulgated as the text

the study and mastery of which marked one as a rabbi.

• Study of M. remained central to becoming a rabbi until promulgation of the Babylonian Talmud (6th C).

• Authorship of M. almost immediately attributed by the rabbis to (Rabbi) Judah the Patriarch, the head of Roman-authorized Jewish self-government in the Roman “Palestina.”

Mishnah, standard printed editionwww.acs.ucalgary.ca/elsegal/TalmudMap/Mishnah.html

What is Mishnah, on the surface?• A legal “study” of Jewish

Temple-centred state of which Jerusalem is the religious, political and judicial capital.

• Sub-divided into 6 major “orders” (themes of orders: Agriculture, Holy days, Women and family, Damages and judicial proceedings, Sacrifices, Purity/uncleanness).

• “Orders” comprise 62 thematic tractates (excluding Abot), each comprised of topically-defined “chapters.”

• Consistent style/rhetoric, using a limited array of literary techniques, throughout (Abotaside)

• Not a commentary on Pentateuchal law; does not routinely cite scriptural law, although assumes the authority of scriptural law.

Jerusalem in Madaba mosaic (565CE)http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00zf0

A glance at Mishnah’s rhetorical style

Mishnah Gittin 1:1. One who brings a writ from a Mediterranean province–it is required that he should say: In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed [by the witnesses]. R. Gamaliel says: Also one who brings [a writ] from Rekem and from Heger [must be able to so declare]. R. Eliezer says: Even [one who brings a writ] from Kefar Luddim to Lud [must be able to so declare]. And sages say: It is not required that he should say: In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed [by the witnesses]--except him who brings [a writ] from a Mediterranean province and him who takes [a writ to a Mediterranean province].And one who brings [a writ] from province to province in the Mediterranean provinces--it is required that he should say: In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed [by thewitnesses]. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Even from district to district [within a single Mediteranean province must make such a declaration].

A glance at Mishnah’s rhetorical styleMishnah Gittin 2:1One who brings a writ from Mediterranean province, and one said: In my presence it was written, however not in my presence was it signed [by the witnesses];in my presence it was signed [by the witnesses], however not in my presence was it written; in my presence it was written in its entirety, and in my presence it was signed in part; in my presence it was written in part, and in my presence it was signed in its entirety --[the writ] is unfit. One says:In my presence it was written, and one [i.e., another] says: In my presence it was signed--[the writ] is unfit. Two [bring writ and] say: In our presence it was written, and one says: In my presence it was signed--[the writ] is unfit. And R. Judah declares fit. One says: In my presence it was written, and two [i.e., both] say: In our presence it was signed--[the writ] is fit.

A glance at Mishnah’s rhetorical styleMishnah Gittin 2:2

It [the writ] was written in the daytime and was signed in the daytime,

[or was written] in the night time and was signed in the night time,

[or was written] in the night time and was signed in the day time]-[the writ] is fit.

[The writ was written] in the daytime and was signed in the night time--[the writ] is unfit.

R. Simeon declares [such a writ] fit,

for R. Simeon used to say: All writs that were written in the daytime and were signed in the night time are unfit,

except for writs [of divorce] of women.

Mishnah with Maimonides’ Commentary, editio princeps, Naples 1492, Jacob M. Lowy Collection, National Library of Canada

A glance at Mishnah’s rhetorical styleis required to say: in my presence it was written;in my presence it was signed.

cannot say: in my presence it was written;in my presence it was signed.

said: in my presence it was written;not in my presence it was signed.

said: in my presence it was signed;not in my presence it was written.

in its entirety, in part; in part,in its entirety

one, one; two, one; one, two

day, day; night, night; night, day; day, night

Mishnah, seder qodashim, title page, Lemberg, 1875. Jacob M. Lowy Collection, National Library of Canada.

A glance at Mishnah’s rhetorical styleMishnah Bekhorot 1:2a cow which gave birth [to an offspring] like [one] from an ass:an ass which gave birth [to an offspring] like [one] from a horse:which gives birth is an ass and that which is born is an ass;a clean animal which gave birth [to an offspring] like [one] from an unclean animal;an unclean animal which gave birth [to an offspring] like [one] from a clean animalan unclean fish which swallowed a clean fish;a clean fish which swallowed an unclean fish;1:3aan ass which had not given birth to any offspring and it gave birth totwo males;a male and a female;

Mishnah Bekhorot (with Maimonides’ commentary) from Babylonian Talmud, editioprinceps, Venice 1522. Jacob M. Lowy Collection, National Library of Canada

A glance at Mishnah’s rhetorical style1:3btwo asses which had not given birth to any offspring ,and they gave birth totwo males;a male and a female;or two males and a female;two females and one male;or two males and two females;

1:4aone [ass] had given birth to offspring, and one [i.e., another ass] which had not given birth to any offspring, and they gave birth totwo males;a male and female

Rambam’s commentary on Avot, printed Soncino, Italy, 1485

U. of Penn., Ctr. For Jewish Studies (http://165.123.252.47/Archive/1/Law&Lore.htm)

Literary/Rhetorical Mishnah’s Features

– Mishnah Tractates: • a series of coherent mini-”studies”of topics

(“chapters”) on a given legal subject area (“tractates” e.g., writs of divorce)

– Tractates’ chapters: • Appear to be a fairly exhaustive, logically

autonomous treatment of a unified topic in which • the treatment of the subject matter is done in a

literary unit displaying a tight, coherent set of literary and rhetorical “markers”

• Same set of literary-rhetorical features/methods used throughout almost all of Mishnah

Mishnah’s Literary/Rhetorical Features

• “chapters” give the literary “appearance” of– exhaustiveness, comprehensiveness and closure on

the chapter’s “topic,” – How?– via the repetition of phrases to the end of the treatment

of the topic & recursive permutation of words & phrases to appear to cover all possible circumstances

Mishnah’s Literary/Rhetorical Features

• chapters” give the literary “appearance” of– autonomous, independent legal reasoning as

parallel/complementary authority to the Pentateuch, – How?– via relative lack of scriptural citations, and ordering of

subject matter unrelated to the ordering of matters in the Pentateuch--not ordered as scriptural commentary

Mishnah’s Subject Matter

– Mishnah’s content almost entirely legal– represents and/or prescribes a “world” in which a single

Temple in Jerusalem is the religious, administrative and judicial centre as the single legitimate system

– makes reference to the existence of other institutions such as synagogues, but clearly sees them as alongside, subservient to, and operating within the Temple state.

– therefore, M. contains laws (e.g., marriage and divorce) which can operate without a Temple, but clearly places them “in context” of Temple state.

What Mishnah is not.• M. is not a law code, nor does

M. define a Judaic world in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple-state.

• Nor is it a compendium for the preservation of antecedent legal traditions.

• not a law code, since:– it is not nearly

comprehensive enough.– rhetorical features drive M.

to deal often with cases that are highly theoretical, hypothetical, and improbable, or sometimes overly obvious

– often registers more than one legal view

– deals with a “world” which cannot be constructed in reality in 200 CE –utopia.

Jerusalem Talmud, editio princeps, Venice, 1523. Jacob M. Lowy Collection, National Library of Canada

What is Mishnah, and what professional expertise dies M. models/demand?

– a theoretical legal “study.”– demands mastery of a body of background legal

knowledge and demands the penetration and independent mastery of the type the reasoning behind the rulings—again, demands a master.

– models/instills the expertise to “classify” ever more specific “cases” with respect to whether one ruling or another applies--educates into precise and detailed “high-grid” “world-mapping,” as a professional expertise.