Books by Richard Hidary
Training in rhetoric – the art of persuasion – formed the basis of education in the Roman Empire.... more Training in rhetoric – the art of persuasion – formed the basis of education in the Roman Empire. The classical intellectual world centered on the debate between philosophers, who boasted knowledge of objective reality, and sophists, who could debate both sides of any issue and who attracted large audiences and paying students. The roles of the Talmudic rabbis as public orators, teachers, and jurists parallel those of Roman rhetors. Rabbinic literature adopted and adapted various aspects of the classical rhetorical tradition, as is demonstrated in the Talmudic penchant for arguing both sides of hypothetical cases, the midrashic hermeneutical methods, and the structure of synagogue sermons. At the same time, the rabbis also resisted the extreme epistemological relativism of the sophists, as is evident in their restraint on theoretical argumentation, their depiction of rabbinic and divine court procedure, and their commitment to the biblical prophetic tradition. Richard Hidary demonstrates how the rabbis succeeded in navigating a novel path between Platonic truth and rhetorical relativism.
This book assesses the degree of tolerance held by the rabbis of the Talmud towards diversity ... more This book assesses the degree of tolerance held by the rabbis of the Talmud towards diversity of halakhic practice within the rabbinic community. By comparing dozens of Yerushalmi and Bavli parallel sugyot, we have found that the Yerushalmi generally views diversity of practice negatively, preferring a monistic view of halakha, while the Bavli takes a more pluralistic attitude. Tannaitic sources mostly tend towards a monistic view, but also include some of the most strongly pluralistic statements in rabbinic literature.
One explanation for the split between the two Talmuds is the difference in the distribution of the Jewish population in each country. The rabbis in Babylonia were scattered in various cities and were thus able to maintain independence from each other as they legislated for their local populations. The rabbis in Palestine were concentrated in a few neighboring cities in the north such that different practices in close proximity lead to tension.
A second and more important explanation is rooted in the intellectual culture of the rabbis in each location. The Yerushalmi sees halakha as a mimetic set of static traditions and so it seeks out the one most authentic practice. The Bavli intellectualizes halakha and so recognizes the validity of multiple views and practices that result from rational argumentation. This difference between the Talmuds corresponds to findings of previous scholars regarding the value of multiple opinions and debate.
Though the Talmuds present a range of attitudes toward pluralism, this range is still significantly circumscribed at both ends. Both Talmuds tolerate diversity of practice regarding customs as well as laws that depend on some local reality. On the other hand, no rabbinic sources tolerate people already labeled as minim (heretics) whose practices are invalid and who remain outside the boundaries of rabbinic Judaism. Both Talmuds express a yearning for uniformity and both have some measure of tolerance; the difference between them is only in degree.
The body of the book includes detailed critical and literary analyses of texts on topics such as the difference between law and custom, the prohibition against making factions, rabbis as local authorities, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, the efforts of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh, the rebellious elder, the mistaken court, and the Talmudic endeavor to systematically decide between disputes in the Mishnah. The conclusion summarizes the various rationales and legal mechanisms that the Talmuds use to explain and legislate both the monistic and the pluralistic positions.
Articles by Richard Hidary
Torat Moshe: Essays in Honor of Rabbi Moshe Shamah’s Eightieth Birthday and the Jubilee of Sephardic Institute, 2023
Various parts of Tanakh make explicit reference to the Garden as a point of comparison to such di... more Various parts of Tanakh make explicit reference to the Garden as a point of comparison to such diverse places as Egypt, Sodom, Assyria, and Israel. Considering the important place of the Garden in the minds of various prophets as well as in modern culture, it is worth taking a journey to learn more about it. What is the significance and symbolism of the Garden? Is it a real or mythic place? Can we return to it, and would we want to even if we could?
Mehkere Yerushalaim b-sifrut `Ivrit, 2020
Although the rabbis barred lawyers from their earthly courts, numerous
aggadot nevertheless imagi... more Although the rabbis barred lawyers from their earthly courts, numerous
aggadot nevertheless imagine the divine court as packed with advocates.
This is especially curious considering that the Talmud is suspicious of
adversarial court procedure because it does not promote honesty or lead
to justice. This article argues that the rabbis nevertheless continue and
expand upon Second Temple traditions that describe angelic advocates,
because this system provides a mechanism for tempering the harshness of
divine justice. The rabbis appreciated the power of rhetorical persuasion
and adversarial advocacy and – although wary of them in human courts –
found an important role for them in engendering God’s mercy.
These findings will confirm the complex and nuanced approach of
Talmudic sources towards truth and rhetoric that we have developed in
previous papers. The rabbinic heavenly court contrasts sharply with that
of Plato, who describes a heavenly court without advocates or rhetorical
persuasion but based on absolute naked truth. The rabbis instead promote
a tradition that God wishes to have mercy and therefore permits and
encourages advocacy and rhetoric typical of Roman courts precisely
because of their ability to sway from strict justice toward leniency.
The various sects of the Second Temple period tussled over dozens of legal issues even as they al... more The various sects of the Second Temple period tussled over dozens of legal issues even as they all looked to the biblical books as the basis of their practice. Can we detect any patterns as to how each sect approached the task of exegesis? What were their fundamental assumptions about the nature of the text, the role of the interpreter, and the availability of extra-textual sources in determining their diverse conclusions? What can these insights, in turn, teach us about the identities and worldviews of these groups?
Jewish power, Jewish politics, and the history of Hanukkah.
The relationship between Jews and Christians in late antiquity has occupied scholars for many dec... more The relationship between Jews and Christians in late antiquity has occupied scholars for many decades, and it is not easy to say something new in this field. Yet, Michal Bar-Asher Siegal demonstrates that, if we turn our attention away from Palestine for a moment towards the rabbis of Babylonia, we can enjoy a fresh exploration of how much these two groups of pious thinkers interacted with each other. Away from the pressures of a Christianized Roman Empire, the Jews in Sasanian Persia interacted with their Christian neighbors and adopted some of their traditions and stories from sources that ultimately derive from monastic groups in Egypt. This fascinating perspective not only provides an important context for understanding the Bavli and its culture but also gives insight into the transmission and impact of monastic texts.
mBets 5:2 lists a series of activities prohibited on the Sabbath under the category of shevut (re... more mBets 5:2 lists a series of activities prohibited on the Sabbath under the category of shevut (rest) laws because they are not conducive to the restful Sabbath atmosphere. Second Temple sources already proscribe some of these activities, and tannaitic sources consider them prohibited by biblical mandate. The Bavli, however, reinterprets these laws as rabbinically-enacted safeguards (gezerot) lest one come to violate a biblical law. For example, bBets 36b teaches that one may not swim on the Sabbath lest one come to make a flotation device, and one may not clap lest one come to fix a musical instrument. As the strangeness of these seemingly far-fetched worries suggests, and as earlier sectarian and rabbinic sources confirm, the Bavli’s explanations are not the original reasons for these laws. This prompts us to wonder why the Bavli demoted them to the status of rabbinic laws and resorted to such circuitous reasoning to explain their prohibition. This analysis will help explain the Bavli’s curious explanations for the shevut laws, and also serve as a case study for understanding some of the motivations and mechanisms of rabbinic legislation and interpretation. This example will also shed light on how the rabbis succeeded in imbuing the rabbinic legal system in general with authoritative status.
How we can enhance Tanakh education through the use of paintings, archaeology, structural analysi... more How we can enhance Tanakh education through the use of paintings, archaeology, structural analysis, and contemporary parallels.
This paper traces some of the major approaches to
dealing with such problematic cases expressed b... more This paper traces some of the major approaches to
dealing with such problematic cases expressed by Sephardic poskim from the Rambam until contemporary authorities.
Abstract – The Torah never defines specifically what, melakha, labor, on Shabbat entails, but the... more Abstract – The Torah never defines specifically what, melakha, labor, on Shabbat entails, but the Mishnah already has an exact list of 39 categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat. After summarizing the research of Yizhak Gilat and other scholars on the origin of the Mishnah’s list, I compare the structure of the Yerushalmi and Bavli sugyot that are the loci classici on the topic, adding some original insights along the way.
This article evaluates the reconstruction of 4Q264a offered by Vered Noam and Elisha Qimron. Whil... more This article evaluates the reconstruction of 4Q264a offered by Vered Noam and Elisha Qimron. While those scholars find precedent in this scroll fragment for later rabbinic
and Karaitic Sabbath prohibitions regarding playing musical instruments, using fire, and reading Scripture, the current article argues that this reconstruction is anachronistic
and has insufficient support in the text. Instead, this article supports previous scholars whose reconstructions of this fragment of Sabbath laws include a rule encouraging
singing, a prohibition against using fire for cooking but not for other uses, and a requirement to study Scriptures on the Sabbath.
From biblical times through the second Temple period, the role of Jewish
religious leaders was p... more From biblical times through the second Temple period, the role of Jewish
religious leaders was performed primarily by the priests, who were entrusted
with mediating between God and the people.1 During the first century
CE, however, a significant shift occurred with the transfer of authority
from the priests to the rabbis.2 Since then, rabbis have remained the religious
leaders of all medieval and modern varieties of Judaism. Historians
have analyzed in great detail the political and social factors that brought
about this shift. This chapter will review these historical factors but will
then focus on the internal dynamics of the Talmudic discourse that document
this shift. More specifically, the chapter will trace the rhetoric that the
rabbis of the Talmud used to effect this change and persuade their adherents
of the authenticity of their new position and teaching. Unlike the Jews
during the second Temple period, who had at least some temporal authority
(both that granted to them by the Romans and that derived from the Temple),
the rabbis could gain followers only through persuasion, and in that
sense their rhetoric is one of their defining qualities.
This article will define the terms "halakhah" and "minhag" as used in Rabbinic literature, relate... more This article will define the terms "halakhah" and "minhag" as used in Rabbinic literature, relate these concepts to their equivalents in secular legal theory, and analyze the relationship between the two as presented by the Talmud Yerushalmi and Bavli. The word halakhah refers to a regulation or statement of law formulated by a legislator. i The word minhag, in both its nominal and verbal forms, is used in rabbinic literature primarily to connote a habitual practice of laypeople that is related to but not directly legislated by halakhah. ii This might be translated as "mere custom." Generally, the rabbis recognize
Uploads
Books by Richard Hidary
One explanation for the split between the two Talmuds is the difference in the distribution of the Jewish population in each country. The rabbis in Babylonia were scattered in various cities and were thus able to maintain independence from each other as they legislated for their local populations. The rabbis in Palestine were concentrated in a few neighboring cities in the north such that different practices in close proximity lead to tension.
A second and more important explanation is rooted in the intellectual culture of the rabbis in each location. The Yerushalmi sees halakha as a mimetic set of static traditions and so it seeks out the one most authentic practice. The Bavli intellectualizes halakha and so recognizes the validity of multiple views and practices that result from rational argumentation. This difference between the Talmuds corresponds to findings of previous scholars regarding the value of multiple opinions and debate.
Though the Talmuds present a range of attitudes toward pluralism, this range is still significantly circumscribed at both ends. Both Talmuds tolerate diversity of practice regarding customs as well as laws that depend on some local reality. On the other hand, no rabbinic sources tolerate people already labeled as minim (heretics) whose practices are invalid and who remain outside the boundaries of rabbinic Judaism. Both Talmuds express a yearning for uniformity and both have some measure of tolerance; the difference between them is only in degree.
The body of the book includes detailed critical and literary analyses of texts on topics such as the difference between law and custom, the prohibition against making factions, rabbis as local authorities, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, the efforts of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh, the rebellious elder, the mistaken court, and the Talmudic endeavor to systematically decide between disputes in the Mishnah. The conclusion summarizes the various rationales and legal mechanisms that the Talmuds use to explain and legislate both the monistic and the pluralistic positions.
Articles by Richard Hidary
aggadot nevertheless imagine the divine court as packed with advocates.
This is especially curious considering that the Talmud is suspicious of
adversarial court procedure because it does not promote honesty or lead
to justice. This article argues that the rabbis nevertheless continue and
expand upon Second Temple traditions that describe angelic advocates,
because this system provides a mechanism for tempering the harshness of
divine justice. The rabbis appreciated the power of rhetorical persuasion
and adversarial advocacy and – although wary of them in human courts –
found an important role for them in engendering God’s mercy.
These findings will confirm the complex and nuanced approach of
Talmudic sources towards truth and rhetoric that we have developed in
previous papers. The rabbinic heavenly court contrasts sharply with that
of Plato, who describes a heavenly court without advocates or rhetorical
persuasion but based on absolute naked truth. The rabbis instead promote
a tradition that God wishes to have mercy and therefore permits and
encourages advocacy and rhetoric typical of Roman courts precisely
because of their ability to sway from strict justice toward leniency.
dealing with such problematic cases expressed by Sephardic poskim from the Rambam until contemporary authorities.
and Karaitic Sabbath prohibitions regarding playing musical instruments, using fire, and reading Scripture, the current article argues that this reconstruction is anachronistic
and has insufficient support in the text. Instead, this article supports previous scholars whose reconstructions of this fragment of Sabbath laws include a rule encouraging
singing, a prohibition against using fire for cooking but not for other uses, and a requirement to study Scriptures on the Sabbath.
religious leaders was performed primarily by the priests, who were entrusted
with mediating between God and the people.1 During the first century
CE, however, a significant shift occurred with the transfer of authority
from the priests to the rabbis.2 Since then, rabbis have remained the religious
leaders of all medieval and modern varieties of Judaism. Historians
have analyzed in great detail the political and social factors that brought
about this shift. This chapter will review these historical factors but will
then focus on the internal dynamics of the Talmudic discourse that document
this shift. More specifically, the chapter will trace the rhetoric that the
rabbis of the Talmud used to effect this change and persuade their adherents
of the authenticity of their new position and teaching. Unlike the Jews
during the second Temple period, who had at least some temporal authority
(both that granted to them by the Romans and that derived from the Temple),
the rabbis could gain followers only through persuasion, and in that
sense their rhetoric is one of their defining qualities.
One explanation for the split between the two Talmuds is the difference in the distribution of the Jewish population in each country. The rabbis in Babylonia were scattered in various cities and were thus able to maintain independence from each other as they legislated for their local populations. The rabbis in Palestine were concentrated in a few neighboring cities in the north such that different practices in close proximity lead to tension.
A second and more important explanation is rooted in the intellectual culture of the rabbis in each location. The Yerushalmi sees halakha as a mimetic set of static traditions and so it seeks out the one most authentic practice. The Bavli intellectualizes halakha and so recognizes the validity of multiple views and practices that result from rational argumentation. This difference between the Talmuds corresponds to findings of previous scholars regarding the value of multiple opinions and debate.
Though the Talmuds present a range of attitudes toward pluralism, this range is still significantly circumscribed at both ends. Both Talmuds tolerate diversity of practice regarding customs as well as laws that depend on some local reality. On the other hand, no rabbinic sources tolerate people already labeled as minim (heretics) whose practices are invalid and who remain outside the boundaries of rabbinic Judaism. Both Talmuds express a yearning for uniformity and both have some measure of tolerance; the difference between them is only in degree.
The body of the book includes detailed critical and literary analyses of texts on topics such as the difference between law and custom, the prohibition against making factions, rabbis as local authorities, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, the efforts of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh, the rebellious elder, the mistaken court, and the Talmudic endeavor to systematically decide between disputes in the Mishnah. The conclusion summarizes the various rationales and legal mechanisms that the Talmuds use to explain and legislate both the monistic and the pluralistic positions.
aggadot nevertheless imagine the divine court as packed with advocates.
This is especially curious considering that the Talmud is suspicious of
adversarial court procedure because it does not promote honesty or lead
to justice. This article argues that the rabbis nevertheless continue and
expand upon Second Temple traditions that describe angelic advocates,
because this system provides a mechanism for tempering the harshness of
divine justice. The rabbis appreciated the power of rhetorical persuasion
and adversarial advocacy and – although wary of them in human courts –
found an important role for them in engendering God’s mercy.
These findings will confirm the complex and nuanced approach of
Talmudic sources towards truth and rhetoric that we have developed in
previous papers. The rabbinic heavenly court contrasts sharply with that
of Plato, who describes a heavenly court without advocates or rhetorical
persuasion but based on absolute naked truth. The rabbis instead promote
a tradition that God wishes to have mercy and therefore permits and
encourages advocacy and rhetoric typical of Roman courts precisely
because of their ability to sway from strict justice toward leniency.
dealing with such problematic cases expressed by Sephardic poskim from the Rambam until contemporary authorities.
and Karaitic Sabbath prohibitions regarding playing musical instruments, using fire, and reading Scripture, the current article argues that this reconstruction is anachronistic
and has insufficient support in the text. Instead, this article supports previous scholars whose reconstructions of this fragment of Sabbath laws include a rule encouraging
singing, a prohibition against using fire for cooking but not for other uses, and a requirement to study Scriptures on the Sabbath.
religious leaders was performed primarily by the priests, who were entrusted
with mediating between God and the people.1 During the first century
CE, however, a significant shift occurred with the transfer of authority
from the priests to the rabbis.2 Since then, rabbis have remained the religious
leaders of all medieval and modern varieties of Judaism. Historians
have analyzed in great detail the political and social factors that brought
about this shift. This chapter will review these historical factors but will
then focus on the internal dynamics of the Talmudic discourse that document
this shift. More specifically, the chapter will trace the rhetoric that the
rabbis of the Talmud used to effect this change and persuade their adherents
of the authenticity of their new position and teaching. Unlike the Jews
during the second Temple period, who had at least some temporal authority
(both that granted to them by the Romans and that derived from the Temple),
the rabbis could gain followers only through persuasion, and in that
sense their rhetoric is one of their defining qualities.