Adapt or Perish

By: Jonathan Seidel

Hermeneutical tools, Babylonian Jewry Judaic logic: Ezra, Hillel and the Bavli 

Every morning just before reciting Psukei Dizimra a section from R Yishmael’s braita is read issuing his thirteen hermeneutical principles. Accordingly, these are the exegetical principles to derive halakha. What is of interest is not their origin nor their applicability but rather their utility. Thematically, they are a parcel if not the core of halakhic logic. Yet what is more impressive is less the list and more the frequent practitioners of esteemed Judaic logic.

Moses may be perceived as the first innovator in Deuteronomy but it is not so clear this is his own doing. If it is, then Moses enters a prestigious bunch who reflect similar characteristics. The next innovator of sorts thought more conservatively and stringently is Ezra upon returning from Babylon. Ezra’s reforms sought to reinvigorate profound interest in the Torah. Unlike Josiah’s reformation, this wasn't re-empowering observance alone. There are actual extensions to the original law for the sake of this time period. The next noticeable innovator is Hillel. While the talmudic discussion perplexes the situation of his debate with Bnei Betera, it is plausible to interpret the decision as a reform. The reform is connected to the innovative style of Shemaya and Avtalyon. R Yehoshua is perceived as an innovator against the strident R Eliezer with their students R Akiva and R Yishmael extending in their own directions. Pointing out these figures is important to reckon with a certain thematic concern for progress and logic. 

Ezra’s reforms begin the style, with Hillel’s actions enacted on his logical premises. While R Yishmael brings thirteen hermeneutical principles, Hillel brought seven from Babylon. While he admits he learned from Shemaya and Avtalyon their heritage is not Judaic. R Yehoshua as a worldly traveller and communicator with Roman authorities had extensive interest in innovation as his students both R Akiva and R Yishmael in their midrashic texts sought extensive extensions. R Akiva spurned on different words infusing incredible meaning while R Yishmael played more to the full sentences and their logical imprint. The necessity of logic comes at heals of preferring it over received tradition. Ezra’s reforms are his own and Hillel’s actions while attempting to align with Shemaya and Avatalyon is itself bearing logical symbolism given they were converts themselves. R Yehoshua was R Eliezer’s counterpart. He was the innovator to R Eliezer’s traditionalism and even an innovator to Rabban Gamliel’s traditional hierarchy. It was only fitting that his students would be the clear innovators. Neither was traditional both sought to expand and extend. For both their midrashic accounts further surveyed the depths of religious comprehension and interpretation. 

A quick bibliographic view shines an interesting light on each of these characters. Ezra and Hillel were both Babylonian, R Akiva was a convert and R Yishmael was formally jailed in Rome. While R Yehoshau was a native Israelite without any extenuating circumstances he was well versed in philosophical wisdom and a worthy confidant. Ironically though R Akiva refers to Nachum Ish Gamzo and R Yishmael to R Nechunia ben HaKanah for their exegetical strains. Despite R Yehoshua assistance in their rise to stardom and his logical-exegetical influence neither of his students praise him as their influence. Nevertheless, the picture painted thus far concerning these specific characters is against the grain. The use of innovation whether conservatively or liberally is carefully constructed by one outside the normative fold. Even R Yehoshua who was a star pupil of R Yochanon ben Zakkai was an ambassador who cleverly outwitted superiorly ranking individuals. The nature of the innovator is one who is not in the received traditional realm. Either a seeker of novelty or bound to it. Novelty is the tool of the outsider. It is the outsider who sees the fuller picture. He is not overly engrossed in the event unable to see the faulty gears unhinging, rather he notices and repairs the damage. 

It is not only these specified characters but a genre in the Bavli. R Yehoshua’s logical program morphs into the back and forth shakla vetarya gracing every inch of the tractate. The Bavli is longer than the Yerushalmi because if this technique. The Yerushalmi is brief while the Bavli takes great pains to analyse each detail. In its own irony both ideals of R Akiva and R Yishmael are utilised. While not every hermeneutical device is implemented, the style of logical procedure harping on various words and argumentation is seamlessly exported from their frameworks. The Yerushalmi has its share of logic and back and forth argumentation. R Yochanon (bar Nafcha), the architect of the Yerushalmi, on one occasion brought dozens of proofs and on another reported that learning wasn’t worth anything without Reish Lakish countering his every step. For R Yochanon logic and such argumentation is central to talmudic learning. Yet in the talmudic extrapolation of the Mishnah, the Yerushalmi rarely dives into an escapade in the breath of the Bavli. The Yerushalmi explains the law and moves on to the next Mishnah. The Bavli is different. The Bavli studies and harmonises at every step of the way. Bringing different traditions to challenge and debate no matter the case nor at times even the timeline. All logical inferences in their religiously backed verses have a say in the discussion.

There is a positive inference to the use of logic by the outsider. The outsider who recognises the fuller picture. Yet the outsider also remains on the outskirts ignorant of the policies and day to day activities. He may see something that seems to be a certain why but misinterpret because he doesn’t understand or is applying his old life to his new one. Whether that person is an immigrant, an ambassador, a convert or a prisoner of war. Sometimes one’s actions are duly noted and necessary. Yet in other cases the actions are biased. The bias does not undercut their ingenuity only their methodology. In a sense, that their bias of correctness is forced to act subversive to the current reality. Ezra’s reforms were counter to the lifestyle of those remaining in the land. These reforms were intended to rectify the wrongheaded actions but they were intense, beyond the requisite halakhic instruction. Hillel’s actions merited their own personal flavour. The received tradition was insufficient thus he acted on his account. Whether this was common in his birthplace is unknown. Introducing a law that was of his own decree for the sake of the people that were bound by the existing trifling legislation was heroic even if perplexing to those listening.

R Akiva and R Yishmael were the clear head innovators. Receiving the fire of R Yehoshua and placing it forward not only in their midrashic statements but in their halakhic associations. It is R Akiva who is noted to have expanded the law to which Moses couldn’t understand. It is R Yishmael who insists one must work at a profession in addition to learning. R Akiva innovated on the legislative level while R Yishmael did so on the social level. The law was the core but how that was practiced and lived by differed. The use of traditions to back up their claims is rather absent. These were their seeming innovative personas. All tracing back R Yehoshua who challenged both R Eliezer and R Gamliel. R Eliezer brings all the miracles in his favour but according to R Yehoshua the law is not in heaven and therefore majority prevails and with R Gamliel he disagreed with the patriarchate to the point where R Gamliel was eventually deposed for his harsh reactions to R Yehoshua. Knowing the result he acted again against his fellow. For R Yehoshua integrity and honesty were of the most sacred qualities. He lived by his belief and pushed forward what he believed to be true. His two heirs added a multitude of wisdom to their students in the frame of gems to learn. Transforming the Torah into a mechanically functioning system of grace. The use of passion and logic to overcome the odds.

This fire passed on to the Babylonian Amoriam but not to the Israelite Amoriam. While R Yochanon and his fellow Israeli sages cherished such capability and character, it wasn’t the prime use for practical implications. Law was in accordance with received tradition and such statements were encoded while logic took a backseat. In the Bavli, received traditions are not ignored in favour of logic but logic is the tool to prioritise certain traditions. It is this difference that becomes quite interesting. Introducing reforms, wisdom or novelty differs from legal rulings. It could be argued that for all these innovative qualities they were restricted to non-ruling matters. The fact that while the Bavli’s structure is inherently dialectical, it is built on the better received tradition. The Yerushalmi agrees with the aforementioned examples of logical implementation which is why R Yochanon praised it and was saddened without Reish Lakish. Yet concerning legislation such exegesis was unbecoming. The law is according to the tradition received. This divergence represents a second fault in the outsider’s mentality. The outsider doesn’t understand the language or the culture. The outsider is forced to guess in many instances. The use of logic is a clever method of estimating the true legislative nature. Yet it is inherently weaker than a transmitted teaching. Hillel’s prime example was a one-off victory but was not heavily received nor was it consistent. 

For Ezra’s part, he took extreme measures due to the situation. It was about absolute rectification. As the leader. Logically this would effect but change in such drastic application. For R Yehoshua, his actions were not against received traditions but rather in light of Judaic principles. His novelty was for the sake of Torah. An innovation but not one against received legislation. Leading to both R Akiva and R Ishmael who posited some incredible innovative points but were more guided to the non-legislative aspect. A way of understanding Torah deeper and expanding one’s priorities in their life. Living in the land abled to accumulate and achieve an understanding of the halakhic climate. The same cannot be said of the Babylonian Amoriam. This is not a knock at their prestige nor their expertise. Only that due to their isolation from Israel and varied cultural atmosphere they were unable to resort to the methods of the Yerushalmi. The use of shakla votarya may reflect hellenistic influences but it also may represent exilic influences. Lacking knowledge of the homeland and its basic language makes interpreting that much more difficult. Essentially as an Aramaic speaker commenting on the Hebrew Mishnah makes commentary a little more difficult. Not only is the teaching not heard directly from the Sage that being Rebbe himself but the linguistic variance leads to all sorts of perplexity and potential misguidance. 

In order to avoid possible pitfalls the use of logic is employed to compensate. Overcoming difficulty by arranging an assortment of statements lacking a hierarchy or chronology. The more information the easier to assess the credibility and coherence of the interpretation. The back and forth is to clarify the foreign law needing simplification. Such a daring struggle was not problematic to Israelites since R Yochanon not only heard the law straight from Rebbe but his students spoke the Mishnaic lingo. They understood the intent and translation of the law. As with many braitot authored in Israel could be easily interpreted within the bounds of conversation. There is disagreement in the Yerushalmi but it is greatly limited given the array of simplicity and straight answers. A reason for the Bavli’s uncertainty and lacking resolute answers boils down to its insecurity concerning their perfected exegesis. It couldn’t be known for certain and thus were left with an estimate. The logic employed by the Bavli is particularly shrewd. Sharp-witted detailed explanations. With such logic comes responsibility. The dialectical format for razor-sharp conclusions unifies the interpreted text into a singular unit thus needing to reconcile every corner to ensure symmetry. A difficult but rewarding task. Yet in doing so may lead to arrogance and teasing despite at times noting they were subordinate to their Israeli counterparts.   

The supremacy of the Bavli rests on the historical fallout and unforeseen ramification of Israeli life in the mid century with the eventual downfall of the Empire. Pogroms and inability to fully edit and finalise the text. The Bavli while not in superb conditions went through a century long editing process that was then passed onto the ensuing generations of the Saboriam and Geonim to continue the legacy. The parts of the published Yerushalmi did make their way to the west, it didn’t have the same aptitude nor crystallisation as the Bavli. In a surprising historical repetition, the Bavli remained liturgical for the hosted communities of the Geonim and their successors out west. Yet for the growing communities in Europe, the barrier re-emerged under a new banner. Instead of incompetence in Hebrew it was of Aramaic. The French Jews didn’t speak the language and were thus forced to use logic. It is easy to glean from both Rashi and Tosfot the extent of logic attributed. Rashi’s guesswork has some linguistic legacy involved but Tosfot like the Babylonian Amoriam prior relied on unifying the entire text to figure a correct solution. Logic would aid by clarifying through dialectical argumentation. Yet instead of received traditions to choose from, hard logic would be preferred. Patterns and conceptual hints would be the score of adequate conclusions. 

Just as their predecessors Tosfot was stuck. Unlike their western counterparts who mimicked the Geonim with a few novel extensions in Rif and Maimonides works. The shift from R Chananel and R Nissim’s clarifying commentaries to Rif and Maimonides rulebooks varied in style but aligned in purpose. It was merely the next step in actualisation. Tosfot did not share this privilege. Their knowledge rested on figuring the talmudic discussion through the paragraph’s syntax or familiar phrasing elsewhere. Back and forth was not between scholars but between tractates. Yet like the Babylonian Amoriam once this process began it had to be continued. Harmonisation must not escape a single crevasse. The logical style prevailed once again. As more scholars lost touch with Aramaic jargon, understanding the text became second fiddle. Relying entirely on Rashi or Tosfot for a transition of the text rather than the words themselves. Even if the words can be translated literally, the scope of the intended meaning is lacking since the conversational comprehension is absent. This linguistic gap leads to the logical introduction. Logic is inferior to linguistics except to Tosfot. The Amoriam noted their subservience to their colleagues out west but not so students of Tosfot. It is them, the logicians who are superior. Their conclusions are more relatable since their language is universal. As communities spread out the logic could be followed even if the language could not.     

While replete with logical workings, the Babylonian community remained insistent on its methodology. Though the logical state may be less a novelty of Rav or Rava but more a later modification but R Ashi or Saboriam. Once the talmud was being compiled together far away from the homeland’s normative jargon, the editors had no choice but to use a system that was comprehensible. The formulation was effective even if difficult to master. This is why years later the Bavli is easier to understand than the Yerushalmi not only because the Bavli had an effective editing process but because the methodology relied upon a universal moniker that everyone could tune into it. Tosfot themselves extended upon the dialectical framework already inherent in the Bavli. The opposition from the Spanish world was not the use of logic but the use of logic as post-talmudic sages to draw artificial analogies and amend texts. The argument wasn’t that the methodology was problematic but that those who were doing it were problematic. Only Talmudic rabbis can perform dialectical argumentation. Leading early post-talmudic rabbis to clarify confusing phrases in the text. Yet what the Spanish didn’t realise is the reason for such action by Tosfot is similar to the Amoriam. It was a model of connection to a text that couldn’t be readily understood under the simpler classier methods. 

From Ezra down to the Amoriam to Tosfot and now contemporary scholars, the badge of exile rings loudly in the ears. A separation from the land and the holy tongue There is little evidence to their continued existence in the diaspora but given the gap between Ezra and Hillel, the community persisted. Yet it persisted as any exilic community. One bound by outside forces and incoherence to the former tradition. Trying to keep up they cultivated a novelty in the Babylon. A road from the prophetic age to the rabbinic age. One that preferred logic and legal observance as viable credentials. For the all the outsiders, it is the diaspora individuals who provide the deepest sense of innovative qualities. R Akiva engaged in the mystically layered propositions and R Yishmael targeted the plain philosophical reading. Finding mean from different avenues. Pulling from diverse wisdom. Yet despite their atypical upbringings they remained affixed to the text as it was. R Yehoshua was innovative was applying his worldly mind to the situation. It was his individualism that put him in hot water. For the members to Rashi and Tosfot struggled with the cryptic text and readiness to examine the work properly. Finding logic to be a source of adequate exploration. Beginning in Babylon and continuing in Israel today. It is the discipline of the ignorant and intercalate. A method as old as the rabbinic age and counting.   

Logic doesn’t approve nor vindicate a position. It is merely a strategy used by outsiders to advance an approach to an insider framework. Whether it is reforms, decrees or wisdom. A profound framework to harmonise and interpret. It is an exilic potion to illuminate the cryptic foreign lingo. A method of connection and clarity.