The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by Secret Alias »

As an outgrowth of another thread it is interesting that Philo, Marqe, Ishmael the DSS all just deal with Scripture. They don't tend to cite other opinions about Scripture. There is just scripture and the proper exegesis of Scripture (which of course they know and expound). All of a sudden things change. I don't know when this occurred but Akiva is as good a place to start as any (at least as preserved in the rabbinic tradition). Suddenly there is this notion of 'many opinions' and where there isn't as absolutely correct a notion of what the right exegesis is. Odd the way things change. R Blahblahblah in the name of R Flahflahflah said ... What caused the wind to get knocked out of the sails of orthodoxy? I am always reminded of the "sages didn't know what to do when Passover falls on a Sabbath." How could they not have known what to do? It's as if the entire tradition restarted at some point in the late first or mid-second century.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by John2 »

I would guess that it goes back to at least the time of the Maccabees because of what Josephus says in Ant. 13.10.6:
What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.
This is what Pharisaism is, the written Torah plus "the tradition of our forefathers." And Josephus goes on to say that these unwritten Pharisaic traditions were accepted by the majority of Jews.
And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.


So while the vast majority of Tannaim cited in the Mishnah are post-70 CE (i.e., your 'restart'), the practice of citing post-biblical "forefathers" appears to go back to at least the time of the Maccabees.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by Secret Alias »

But surely the Sadducees, Samaritans, Karaites all thought that their tradition 'came from their forefathers.' That's not the question here. In fact, IF they were really citing an ancient tradition you wouldn't expect this plurality of waffle "Rabbi X says Y, Rabbi V says W, Rabbi T says U ...' You only need to cite what recent people said because you aren't following a tradition from Moses, Aaron and the original fathers because the truth is lost. Indeed when you read Philo or Marqeh - even Ishmael in theory - the DSS you get the sense that there is only one tradition, the tradition of the fathers which the writer is following. Why then care for all this multiplicity of distractions? If my mom made the best lasagna I always make the lasagna the right way, her way, the way lasagna has always been made. But - getting back to the Jewish tradition - it is because no one any longer knows what the original tradition is that we start caring about a variety of opinions. It's like if you've lost your car keys and everyone in your house has a theory where it might be. It's like the silly story about the Passover falling on a Sabbath.

Even that Ishmael is made to cite the plain meaning of the text implies he's lost sight, lost touch with the truth. You only need to look at what the text says because the right interpretation isn't at hand any more. But maybe Ishmael wasn't stressing the plain meaning at all. Maybe his tradition was recalibrated that way to fit into the tweedle dee tweedle dum consortium that emerged among the rabbis. Read Philo or Marqeh and you get the sense that they are citing a tradition that dates back to Moses. Read the Mishnah and later and you get this 'let's find the truth by committee' approach which only means the car keys are lost and no one knows where they could be any more.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by Secret Alias »

You know what it is like? I don't know if anyone here has read any Heidegger but Heidegger has a whole thing about the carpenter not being aware of the hammer unless it isn't working.
Thus, while engaged in trouble-free hammering, the skilled carpenter has no conscious recognition of the hammer, the nails, or the work-bench, in the way that one would if one simply stood back and thought about them. Tools-in-use become phenomenologically transparent. Moreover, Heidegger claims, not only are the hammer, nails, and work-bench in this way not part of the engaged carpenter's phenomenal world, neither, in a sense, is the carpenter. The carpenter becomes absorbed in his activity in such a way that he has no awareness of himself as a subject over and against a world of objects. Crucially, it does not follow from this analysis that Dasein's behaviour in such contexts is automatic, in the sense of there being no awareness present at all, but rather that the awareness that is present (what Heidegger calls circumspection) is non-subject-object in form. Phenomenologically speaking, then, there are no subjects and no objects; there is only the experience of the ongoing task (e.g., hammering).
If you are part of a continuous tradition you'd just expect - to follow the analogy of the hammer - that the tradition just says what the proper interpretation is. If you bring your car to the repair shop and you're out in the lobby seeing your car raised on a gurney through a window and all the mechanics are gathered under the engine in busy discussion for hours, you don't need to be told that the bill is going to be expensive. You already know because their talking ABOUT THE CAR rather than doing their job. By contrast when you bring the car in and the guy comes back with a smile after 5 minutes and your key you know its not going to cost much. In short: all this banter and consultation only means the authorities don't know the answer.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by John2 »

But Josephus says the Sadducees used the Torah and did not "observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers":
... the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.
What difference would there be then between Sadducees and Pharisees if the Sadducees had elevated their traditions to the level of the Torah? Would they not have been essentially just another school of the Pharisees, like the Shammaites? And Josephus says "our" forefathers, so what other forefathers could there be in this context?

Regarding the Karaites, while they have inherited traditions too, as the Wikpedia page notes, "The disagreement arises over the Rabbinic tradition's raising of the Talmud and the other writings of the Rabbis above the Torah. The Karaites believe this has led to traditions and customs being kept under Rabbinic law that contradict what is written in the Torah," and "newly admitted converts to Karaite Judaism can choose to accept or reject Sevel HaYerushah."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism

As this Karaite site says regarding Sevel HaYerushah:
So we see that the burden of the inheritance ... are just logical reasons on a topic by a Sage and thus are the opinion of that Sage. As Karaites we are to study the scriptures and where an opinion is not supported in the scripture it is a preference and should not be seen as binding.

http://www.karaitejudaism.org/talks/Pla ... nalogy.htm
I would suppose then that the Sadducees had a similar view. They would have had opinions and traditions, of course, but they did not elevate them to the status of the Torah (or impose them on everyone else) like the Pharisees did.

You wrote:
You only need to cite what recent people said because you aren't following a tradition from Moses, Aaron and the original fathers because the truth is lost.


My understanding is that the Pharisees believed that the unwritten Torah came from Moses.

Avot 1:1:
Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua, and Yehoshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples and make a fence for the Torah.

https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1?lang=bi
As this book notes, this passage is:
... a bold claim for the divine authority of the post-biblical "Oral Torah" ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=brmjm ... ot&f=false


And Eruvin 13b says the differing opinions of the Shammaites and Hillelites were both "the words of the living God":
Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

https://www.sefaria.org/Eruvin.13b.10?l ... l&lang2=en
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by Secret Alias »

But Josephus says the Sadducees used the Torah and did not "observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers"
And what tradition did Josephus belong to again? Come on this isn't that hard.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by John2 »

Right, but I take it in the broader sense that he uses it in Against Apion (though here he refers to the OT):
But now as to our forefathers, that they took no less care about writing such records, (for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of,) and that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own times with the utmost accuracy.
There may be better examples (or I may be wrong), but I'm out of internet time and this was all I can find.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by Secret Alias »

But that isn't the issue again. What you're doing is ignoring that you accept uncritically the identification of the rabbinic tradition with or as a continuation of the Pharisaic tradition which simply isn't true. If the rabbinic tradition was the Pharisaic tradition they wouldn't have bothered including Elisha ben Abuyah or R Meir/Meisha. In point of fact the Pharisaic tradition can't be equated with the rabbinic tradition for dozens of reasons. Let's accept for argument's sake that the Pharisees did in fact have an unbroken tradition dating back to Aaron (I don't accept it of course but let's go along with it). What does any of this have to do with the rabbinic tradition?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by Secret Alias »

Seth Schwartz's reconstruction is instructive if only because he acknowledges no one has any firm idea how the rabbinic tradition developed. https://books.google.com/books?id=4dYzI ... es&f=false He seems to point to Judah ha Nasi as the time the tradition began coalescing.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition

Post by Secret Alias »

But again back to my original point. If my tradition really is the original tradition you don't see 'R. Ding Dong says X' 'R. Sing Song says Y.' It would look like Philo or Marqeh - in other words 'this is what this means' 'this is what that means.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply