AW: What does the field of “academic Talmud” encompass?

ShSc:

It depends on what you have in mind. I guess one of the broadest definitions, the one I like the most, is that academic Talmud encompasses all of the various disciplinary critical settings in which rabbinic literature is studied. This includes, first and foremost, the scientific tools used to study the actual text such as manuscript work, textual criticism, source criticism and redactional criticism. This also includes literary theoretical tools used to understand Rabbinic story, for instance; legal frameworks to understand the development of talmudic halakha; political and cultural history; history of religions and comparative religion which interfaces with the religion(s) reflected in rabbinic literature and so on and so forth. Still, I do think that the center of academic Talmud are those disciplines interested in reading and understanding the text – which can then be used by historians, literary scholars and others.

One of the interesting things that happens when you hold such a wide view of academic Talmud is that the line between academic and traditional learning diminishes. Some academics and traditional Talmudists don’t like this, but I find the blurring of boundaries interesting and invigorating. I would only emphasize that when an academic studies the Talmud, the only God in the room is the God of understanding the text. As such, the word “critical” (not necessarily in the “negative” sense; rather in the sense of distance between text and reader necessary for achieving a certain rationally based understanding) is crucial. Interestingly, I more or less first learned to be a critic in yeshiva, and the idea remains current in some traditional settings as well – especially in certain heirs to the Slobodka tradition.

The entire interview can be found here.

The New Jerusalem Talmud is an interesting attempt to merge both the multi-vocality and graphic of the Talmud with modern technology and issues.

The NYT has an article about a new index to the Talmud. (hat tip) It is available in either English or Hebrew and is published by Feldheim.  There is a website for the book that includes some sample pages and it looks very good.  I would be interested to know if anybody has used it.

Florence II-I-7: איני והא’ רב אידי בר אבין א’ רב יצחק בר אשייאן אדר וניסן לח

London – BL Add. 25717 402: איני והא’ (רבא ידי)[רב אידי] בר אבין א’ רב יצחק בר אשי אין אדר וניסן לח

Munich 95: איני והא’ רב אידי בר אבין א”ר יצחק אדר וניסן לח

Vatican 119: איני והתני רב אידי בר אבין אמ’ רב יצחק בר אשיין אדר וניסן לח

Vatican 120: איני והאמ’ רב אידי בר אבין אמ’ רב יצחק בר אשיין אדר וניסן לח

Venice 1522: איני והתניא והא רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיין אדר וניסן לח

Vilna: איני והתניא והא רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן אדר וניסן לח

I checked a few other printed editions and they all followed the Venice 1522 edition. I can’t think of any explanation other than a simple mistake to explain the version found in MS Vatican 119 that includes the word “והתני” that eventually morphed into “והתניא”. The error was clearly recognized by some commentators (see e.g. Shita Mekubbetz on the daf), yet it is still on the page of most printed editions.

והא אמר אבוה דשמואל: אסור לאדם שיעשה שותפות עם הגוי, שמא יתחייב לו שבועה, ונשבע לו בשם עבודת כוכבים שלו, והתורה אמרה: (שמות כג) לא ישמע על פיך!

Has not the father of Shemuel said: One must not form a partnership with a heathen lest he [the heathen] will be bound to take an oath to him and he will swear in the name of his idol and the Torah says: [And make no mention of the name of other gods.] neither let it be heard out of thy mouth? (Exodus 23:23)

On this statement of Shemuel’s father is found one of the most important comments by the Tosafot about Christianity.

עוד פר”ת בזמן הזה כולן נשבעים בקדשים ואין תופסין בהם אלהות ואע”פ שמזכירין [עמהם] שם שמים וכוונתם [לד"א] [מ"מ] אין זה [שם] עבודת כוכבים כי דעתם לשם עושה שמים וארץ ואע”ג שמשתתף ש”ש ודבר אחר אין כאן לפני עור לא תתן מכשול דבני נח לא הוזהרו על כך ולדידן לא אשכחן איסור בגרם שיתוף

This Tosafot addresses the status of shittuf, “association” (other translations: “co-sovereignty” or “co-divinity”). A Jew is prohibited from causing someone else to perform a forbidden act, and this Tosafot discussed whether a Jew causing a Gentile to take a oath that includes shittuf, was prohibited.

Professor David Berger, and before him Professor Jacob Katz [see Exclusive and Tolerance, p. 163], has written and spoken about this and related Tosafot. You can read a short discussion of his here, or you can listen to a lecture by him here. Also see the comments by Marc Shapiro about the “historical truth” of this Tosafot, i.e. what it may really mean, and the “halakhic truth,” i.e. how it has been (mis)understood by some poskim here. Lastly, see this helpful source sheet by Rabbi Simon Wolf’s Daf Yomi site (recommended).

We further read [in the article], “It is well known that the Talmud favors a strong ‘safety net’ for taking care of the poor.” It also favors bloodletting and incantations to demons. We do not appeal to outdated Talmudic medicine or superstition or science, says Maimonides, so why should we appeal to outdated economics? I don’t get it. The same people who reject the Talmud’s advocacy of bloodletting and astrology, suddenly consider it the apogee of economic science.