Novel Syntheses

By: Jonathan Seidel

Lieberman scholarship: diachronic vs synchronic

Saul Lieberman produced a rather impeccable resume. His works primarily in Greco-Roman influences in rabbinic literature and a myriad of commentaries on the Tosefta. As a rabbinic scholar he was faithful to tradition and as a critical scholar he warped in techniques to harmonize the Tosefta.

Lieberman’s scholarship maintained both sides of contemporary rabbinic scholarship—rabbinic and academic—to cultivate a fascinating picture of rabbinic Jewry. The Hellenistic influences orchestrated their background and interests while the Tosefta was a primary expositor of the Mishnah. In his scholarship there exists two axis. While there is undoubtedly influence from either work on the other, one is historical and the other legal. It is essential to distinguish between the two even when the comparison is truly a masterpiece. Mending the academic discipline with classical rabbinic work. Taming his image in the critical center of scholarship with a strong classical work. In contrast to Halivni, his rabbinic work didn’t transfer as cleanly into his commentary. He kept both worlds separate. He was a lamdan and a researcher. 

Like to some of predecessors specifically in the biblical sphere mustering critical subsistence into their commentaries, Lieberman strictly saw them as intersecting worlds. Unwilling to taint his rabbinic magnum opus with historical possibilities but willing to detail his analysis with philological plausibilities. He recognised the importance of such historical and philological aspects and in his composition of rabbinic criteria applied the Hellenist landscape when it referred to the commentarial arena. While maintaining  an honourable association to rabbinic literature, the academic researcher couldn’t be separated entirely. He didn’t seek to reshape rabbinic discourse but rather to a few notes of cultural wisdom.

Lieberman wasn’t the first commentator of the Tosefta. His effort succeeded R Prado, R Abramski and the Vilna Gaon’s notes. Lieberman differed since he applied his literary techniques. Why assimilating a traditional commentary he indicated aspects unbecoming in traditional styles. His use of philology was not a classic technique and yet was performance enhancing. His commentary had critical components but it was more a harmonizing figure. His philology while novel connected the Tosefta to other braitot as well as examining the text itself. Not only that but quoted traditional commentators to bolster his point. His voice is akin to Tosfot dialectics. Finding familiarity with various linkage in rabbinic literature and its prudent secondary voice to the Mishnah. Lieberman finds the connections and harmonizes them further. 

Taking a look at the commentary in full provides a perceptive deduction. Using Bava Metzia 1:5 as an indicator of the immense scholarship commenting sentences at a time. Like other scholars decoding the rabbinic text by sequences. This phrase means x and this phrase means y. An elaborated Rashi on the Tosefta but unlike Rashi his Tosfot like harmonization is apparent. In the first phrase he notes that this is parcel of a larger braita found in the Gemara—which on its own is fascinating why the Tosefta shrinks braitot/chooses shorter ones or parts to catalogue. Moreover to find the full version or a fuller version in the Gemara as there are no other manuscripts that collect oral law—inferring that despite the Tosefta’s absent remark it is implicit where the braita is explicit. Already in the first comment he has noted the affinity between varying braitot. These are narrowly similar thus where one continues and the other stops the stopper is akin to the continuer.  

On this point alone, Tosfot’s calculated insinuations are put forth. Yet what differs here to some degree is his reliance on symmetry. It is far more linguistic than logical. The logic seeps in as an intuitive reaction to a short versus long line. Why did the Tosefta omit or forget to mention is not really clear it could be a different tradition or wasn’t integral to the context. Nevertheless the similarities demonstrate association even if brought by varying scholars at varying times. In finishing his first comment he notes the linkage to the Mishnah which doesn’t mention returning to the creditor explicitly in the entire chapter. Noting that this diverts to which I would argue is the point of the commentary. Meaning that according to his words two different braitot are symmetrical because one is implicit the same can be said of the Mishnah’s implicit regard for creditors as it presumably obvious who it is returned to with which the Tosefta adds some paraphrases for fluid explanation. The Tosefta as an elucidation of the Mishnah effectively adds in the necessary details signified but omitted.

In his second comment, he pulls a Rashi by analyzing the discrepancy. Instead of what is bothering Rashi we have what is bothering the Grash (Lieberman). The Grash remarks that this phrase is used even if seemingly superfluous for an important purpose and if it wasn’t explicit wouldn’t know otherwise. This phrase has much symbolism behind it as it ensures there is no fear of furthering issues from the other side. This explanation recognizes the cumbersome phrase that while fits into the sentence seems out of place except that helps avoid other issues. To which his third comment returns to the parallels in other Talmudic texts both the Bavli and Yerushalmi. It is this phrase that cultivates issues for the talmudim. Noting the Yerushalmi’s version is distorted but then despite its attempted restoration the distorted has a leg to stand on with another sugya in Yerushalmi Ketubot. Complimenting it with Tosfot’s position on the Bavli. Grash explains this possibility in light of R Meir’s opinion in the Mishnah with similar texts elsewhere to then utilize Tosfot for cohesion. He pulls a Tosfot to then slam dunk with Tosfot.

Finally to the last comment the longest by far firstly notes that the Bavli omitted or was omitted due to similarities. He seeks linguistic linkage between the Mishnah and the Yerushalmi to bolster his point. While R Eliezer in the Yerushalmi is clear about returning to the creditor, our braita is not thus brought to challenge him since R Eliezer is not worried while our braita is. While almost wholeheartedly relying on the Yerushalmi he finds support of its mention in the Bavli as well. R Eliezer in the Yerushalmi says thus and then it is hinted in the Bavli before our braita is brought in full force to challenge. The Yerushalmi acts not only as the origin but as the debatable partner. R Eliezer’s opinion in the Bavli can only be fully appreciated in its Yerushalmi format that needs its full Bavli response. In this light, Grash uses the Yerushalmi as the backbone of Talmudic dialogue. Unlike Tosfot who remained in the Bavli, Grash uses Bavli references to Yerushalmi as integral to understanding the Bavli. 

All this investigation leads to his conclusion. According to Grash, earlier Amoriam were not concerned and upon admission return which contradicts our braita. There are other braitot in the Bavli that contradict the Tosefta and Mishnah to which the Gemara seeks to harmonize so all is fluid for halakha. Since the Yerushalmi does not bring our braita it is a Babylonian one which would insinuate that it derives from Babylonian heritage or was heard differently. In his final analysis, Grash demonstrates the evidence of his findings. Here is the data and conclusion to the points brought above. He makes brief remarks in each comment to be collected into the final data point in a worthy explanation to then be rationalized for this evidence. Grash goes a step further than Tosfot in this regard as well. Tosfot harmonizes with a quick poignant solution to his structured diagnosis. Like a good academic he brings the arguments analyses the data and advances a confusion.

This seems to be a typical formulation though not all of his comments are identical. While the themes and style are consistent 1:7 demonstrates a uniqueness prevailing in his commentary. This narration highlights similarities to Cassuto rather than Tosfot. It is a blending of academia and Torah. In his second comment while quoting Rashba on Tosfot he makes a fateful addition that re-characterizes his methodology. He begins with Tosfot like emendation of the textual accuracy before launching into a philological exercise. First quoting Jastrow’s lexicon as a source for the Greek counterpart harmonizing the phonetic arrangement. Demonstrating a knack for history and intertwining the text with the sociocultural presence of Palestine and Babylon. Grash recognizes the overlap between the two but adds that the quality is not certain. The parallel drawn diachronically of shared methodology does not align the details necessarily. Here Grash while ambitiously connecting Athens and Jerusalem, leaves the data that is not present out of the picture instead of postulating a possibility that has no evidence.   

Lieberman’s commentary is incredible. It is classic but unique. Quoting classic commentators but bringing a unique methodology. A methodology similar to Tosfot but stretched to other braitot mentioned elsewhere. If Tosfot unifies the Talmudic corpus, Lieberman unifies the braitot. For him the similarities between the varied tannaitic sayings are professed on a horizontal axis to be calculated and analyzed. Yet he also extends beyond rabbinic literature into the diachronic realm utilizing philology to bolster his deductions. For many, it will not bother but this incorporation of Greek letters may be off putting. Nevertheless, quoting Rashba next to a Yerushalmi and a Greek word is a holistic picture of the rabbinic portrait. The tannaitic statements have their context and their prowess and to color in the picture as clearly as possible is truly a marvel.