On How and How Not to Read The Talmud (IV) Sanh. 97a-98b
On How and How Not to Read The Talmud (IV) Sanh. 97a-98b
Where we encounter intertextuality, and the compositional history of Mishnah Sotah 9:15
Welcome back to this series on historical and text-critical perspectives on the Talmud Bavli.
Previous parts are available here (which should probably be read prior to this):
The next citation (98b) comes after the introduction of a new Mishnah (or parallel material to a Mishnah, perhaps earlier) – and a Mishnah that is not the primary Mishnah from Sanhedrin, but one from another tractate altogether. That is in this Gemara on 97a:
It is taught [note that this is the formula introducing a Baraita, an “outside” teaching] [that] Rabbi Nehorai says: During the generation in which the son of David comes the youth will shame the face of elders, elders will stand before minors. A daughter will rise up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, and a son will not be ashamed before his father.
[…]
It is taught [that] Rabbi Neḥemya says: During the generation that the son of David comes, arrogance will increase and the cost will corrupt. The vine will give its fruit, [but] the wine will be costly. And all the Kingdom will turn to heresy [מינות], and there will be no rebuke. [This] supports Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The son of David will not come until all the kingdom turns to heresy. Rava says: This is what is read: “all is turned white; he is [ritually] pure” (Leviticus 13:13)
These words are also found in Mishnah Sotah 9:15 (though with the order of these statements reversed, and parts are paraphrased). This is one of the most famous passages in Mishnah, and, to my knowledge, universally accepted to be one of the latest, as “the Kingdom turning to Heresy” is taken as a reflection of the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. The reasoning, if not obvious, is basically the same as dating Daniel by its description of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, cemented by the word used for heresy here, minut (מינות), which is very often used to refer to Christianity, from early in the Rabbinic tradition. This means it is 4th Century at the earliest, and anything dependent on it will, naturally, be later. These statements are also missing from part of the manuscript tradition of Mishnah, attesting to their lateness.1
Thus, we have a reference to Christianity in the discussion that Carrier asserts contains no mention of Christianity, nor even sign of polemic, in a Gemara that is commenting on the primary Sanhedrin Mishnah that describes apostates who read forbidden books. This 2nd Mishnah is also polemical, as it is saying that, prior to the coming of the son of David (i.e. the Davidic Messiah), the Roman Empire will convert to heresy, a heresy which is explicitly based on the claim that the Davidic Messiah has already come.
Also note the Leviticus citation in response to this, about the laws of skin diseases, including leprosy.2 This will be important later.
Following very close after that is Carrier’s next citation, 98b. The passage in question reads as follows, regarding the Messiah:
What is his name? The school of Rabbi Sheilah says: Shiloh is his name, as it is said: “Until when Shiloh shall come” (Genesis 49:10). The school of Rabbi Yannai says: Yinnon is his name, as it is said: “May his name endure forever; may his name continue [yinnon] as long as the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The school of Rabbi Ḥanina says: Ḥanina is his name, as it is said: “For I will give to you no favor [ḥanina]” (Jeremiah 16:13). And it is said Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is said: “Because the comforter [menaḥem] that should relieve my soul is far from me” (Lamentations 1:16). And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi [i.e. Yehudah Hanasi] is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted”
Again, this question is introduced by the Stam. And indeed, this passage is reading Isa. 53 as about the Messiah (incidentally, this appears to be the only citation of this verse anywhere in the Rabbinic literature). However, notice what is missing. There is no mention here of the Messiah who is described by that passage from Isaiah as dying, nor of any atonement through his suffering. And it is only one opinion of the five that are presented in this single paragraph. And all the options presented are different, and most are incongruous with each other demonstrated particularly by their attribution to various rival schools, as everyone wants a claim to association with the potential Messiah, so puns on the name of their teacher. The Rabbis are venerating their leader, Yehuda Hanasi (mostly simply called “Rabbi”, as here), and saying the same, which makes sense as, according to tradition, he was himself of the Davidic line. Thus they claim that the Messiah will be part of his household. And, as Dr Kipp Davis pointed out, puns on the verb נשא (nasa, carries) and the title נשיא (Nasi, Prince, Patriarch or Leader, that of Yehudah Hanasi). This is the reason this verse is brought – because it connects to the leader, the Nasi, following the same pattern of the other verses that pun on the names of their teachers. This also links back to the verse from Leviticus quoted following the Sotah quotation, which is about the evaluation of skin diseases like leprosy by the high priest. The Aramaic word used here, translated as “leper” is used in the Targum of those passages from Leviticus (13:38, the quoted verse uses a different form, but from the same root). As this is so clearly linked in multiple ways (the נשא/נשיא pun and leprosy, which is also derived from the Isaiah verse's use of נגוע, used commonly in the biblical literature for being “stricken” with leprosy or other disease) to the context of this broader discussion. The passage continues however:
Rav Naḥman says: If among the living he [is] such as me, as it is said: “And his [that is, Jacob’s, i.e. Israel’s] lord shall be of his own, and his governor shall proceed from his midst” (Jeremiah 30:21). Rav says: If among the living he is such as our holy Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi]. If among the dead he is such as Daniel, the precious man.
The hagiography of Yehudah Hanasi continues here. But, again, the potential is increased, and we have different options including those alive and dead – all of these are pointing to some kind of idea of a messiah, but it is neither homogenous, nor are all the parts congruent with each other – often they are mutually incompatible alternatives. And, if among the dead, he died in Babylonia at the time of Cyrus, not Jerusalem circa 30CE.
Finally we get this conclusion to this part of the Gemara (though the next Mishna is not introduced for quite some time, the subject changes after this).
Rav Yehudah says Rav says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, will establish another David as it is stated: “And they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will establish for them” (Jeremiah 30:9). It is not stated: I established, but “I will establish”. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t it written: “And my servant David shall be their ruler forever” (Ezekiel 37:25)?, [The answer:] like an emperor and a viceroy [literally: like a Caesar and a half-Caesar]
Here we have a quotation by a student (Yehudah) of a student (Rav) of Yehudah Hanasi, asserting the legacy and continuity of the house of David, through the line that will produce the Messiah, which is the house of Yehudah Hanasi. There is also a further allusion to him, as the word in the Ezekiel verse, here translated as ruler, is nasi, the title of Yehudah Hanasi. This further cements the position of the Davidic Messiah in the future, not the past. Rav Pappa posits an objection – but what about this verse? To which the reply is, the Davidic Messiah brings about the resurrection of the dead (see the initial Mishnah, Sanh. 10:1, that started this discussion), thus both David and the Messiah can reign, eliminating the contradiction, and use of the word “Caesar” echoes the Sotah description of Rome. Here we have a motion from an open, various presentation of disparate messianic ideas (including the Isa 53 citation) into a concrete reaffirmation of the coming Davidic, Kingly Messiah, who is a temporal, worldly ruler and will bring about the resurrection of the dead – in accordance with the initial Mishnah this Gemara is commenting on, and against apostates (אפיקורוסים, epikorosim). This also further bolsters the authority of the Rabbis, whose tradition was established through Yehudah Hanasi, by way of this messianic theology. Compare this to the explanation of the structure of Gemara that I presented at the beginning. If there is any kind of doctrinal unity in the Gemara (which is arguable, but here I’d suggest it points toward one) it is in this final paragraph, not the previous one – and this doctrinal unity is most likely to be the work of the redactors (compare with the analogy I gave to the Deuteronomic History). This could also potentially be read as a polemic against other angelic, priestly or prophetic messianic ideas evidenced in earlier, pre-Rabbinic tradition, and against other claims to Davidic ancestry.3
There are so many different moving parts to this very long discussion, but the overarching theme maintains a high level of coherence – and, from that previous citation of Mishnah Sotah through to here, there are many allusions back to that Mishnah (the entirety of that Mishnah, not just the quoted section, see in particular from 98a on) – and this is in keeping with that as well, given the suffering in the footsteps of the Messiah, the mention of Rome, and the verse from Leviticus quoted in its introduction by Rava about leprosy. The entire discourse is conceptually diverse but, despite that, curated toward a thematic conclusion, and so it is clear this cannot be assumed to simply depository of previously held ideas, much less pre-Rabbinic ones. And the Stammaic framing of this Gemara is dependent on two different Mishnayot, the first of which likely contain allusions to Christianity, and the second which does with near certainty (again, like Daniel), and thus dates from after Constantine’s conversion. Parts included could be earlier but there is no good reason to assume that without corroborating evidence, particularly for those that exhibit the clear relationship to the citation of Mishnah Sotah. And, if one is to claim it, one must demonstrate it very clearly, particularly given the context for the discussion is also clearly oriented around the 2nd Century Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and his legacy, including a statement from a student of a student of his. Every Rabbi whose name appears here is Amoraic, except for Rabbi Ḥanina, and the mention here is only of his school. Thus, this passage may well not date back even that far, but that appears the earliest dating that could be asserted.4
Further consideration should be taken of the Gemara on the next Mishnah of Sanhedrin, which covers the various wicked who have no place in the World to Come, particularly those who have led Israel astray. Jesus appears here, on Sanh. 103a (this is missing from the standard Vilna edition, subject to censorship, but present in Bomberg and other earlier versions, including manuscripts, thus included in the Sefaria version in square brackets).5 Here Jesus is identified by name, including the appellation Hanotzri (הנוצרי “the Nazarene”), which becomes the adjective for “Christian” very late in the rabbinic period (the only Talmudic mention of “Christians,” Notzrim, נוצרים is in Avodah Zarah 6a). In this passage from Sanhedrin he is disqualified from the presence of the divine, which, given the wider context of historical sinners, implies exclusion from the world to come.6 Thus, the editors/compilers/redactors of this section and/or the broader tractate are in no way unaware of Christianity. Arguing for a pre-Christian date of any arbitrarily selected part from a broad digest of eschatological ideas containing direct reference to Jesus, specifically in commentary on two Mishnayot, the first of which is likely reacting to Christian claims and the second of which is almost certainly a direct response to the conversion of Constantine requires significant evidence.
But how would one go about proving that it did? The most obvious sign would be if something were reflected in any of the pre-Bavli sources, that is the Mishnah itself, the Baraitot – the Tosefta, roughly contemporary to Mishnah, and possibly early Midrash (though much of that is not conclusively datable as prior to the Bavli and some sections clearly date later, they are aggregate, heavily redacted texts with multiple layers that are added to across long periods of time), or preserved in the independent Gemara of Yerushalmi.7 However, looking at the Gemara of Yerushalmi on Sanhedrin 10:1, there is no discussion of the Messiah at all, nor in the Tosefta. One may consider that the discussion in Yerushalmi might instead be on Mishnah Sotah 9:15 and thus not embedded in Sanhedrin in this way, but there the only occurrence of the word “Messiah” is in the Mishnah itself (and the Gemara there only records comments up to this point). This weighs the scales against asserting these specific passages being pre-Bavli, let alone pre-Rabbinic. The assertion of that requires evidence, and everything present here seems to weigh in the opposite direction. This verse also appears to be cited nowhere else in any of the pre-Medieval Rabbinic literature, and all other citations from the entire servant song are non-messianic, the majority focusing on 53:10, in the same vein as this passage from Berakhot 5a. This somewhat tempers the already qualified statements of Boyarin on Jewish readings of the servant song being predominantly messianic.8 This is as much a result of the wide historical window of his statement, covering “until the modern period.” As we can see, both readings stand alongside one another.
next post:
Bibliography
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.
———. The Jewish Gospels : The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: The New Press, 2012.
Cohen, Shaye. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014.
The Oxford Annotated Mishnah : A New Translation of the Mishnah with Introductions and Notes. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg and Hayim Lapin. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.
Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007.
The eschatological coda here is an addition, with the section originally ending with the death of Yehudah Hanasi. See commentary on this passage in The Oxford annotated Mishnah : a new translation of the Mishnah with introductions and notes, 3 vols., ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg, and Hayim Lapin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), Vol 2, 256-8. “K”, Kaufman (c.10th-11th-C), is the oldest MS that survives, and does include these passages, but other early MSS like “P”, Parma (dated 11th C), do not. This most likely attests to a manuscript tradition that P had access to that did not include these passages, while that of other MSS such as K did. This kind of evidence will be familiar to anyone with a background knowledge in New Testament textual criticism. The attestation of this material in the substantially earlier Bavli means it can’t be original to the 10th-11th C MSS that do include it. Further, the Gemara of the Yerushalmi doesn’t seem to be aware of the entire Mishnah, though it does extend beyond the death of Rabbi. The Bavli could be the earlier attestation of this material, as it is quoted as Baraita, not Mishnah, and, to my knowledge, absent from the Tosefta. However even if this were the case, the dating of these passages would still be the same for the reasons provided. Note also that this also refutes all opinions that Baraitot must be Tannaitic. The fact that the Rabbis in whose name it is given here are post-Temple Tannaim (5th Generation) demonstrates the difficulty of accepting these attributions as prima facie historical.
The translation of this word as “leprosy” is contentious, but I will not address this problem as it gets deep into the weeds of the history of both language and the spread of the disease now commonly referred to by that name.
Compare to the analysis of the Yavneh tradition in the reading of BT Chag. presented in Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, 157-60.
See previous citation of Michal Bar-Asher Siegal dating a story featuring him to the 4th C, which, incidentally, is after this section of Mishnah Sotah was written. Cf. Daniel Boyarin’s assertion that the mythology of Yavneh as a product of the Stammaitic period, ibid. 155-7, 174.
There is an extensive appendix on censorship of Talmudic passages about Jesus in Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007). 103-115. This passage is included there.
This is the same conclusion as in the other (im)famous Aggadah about Onkelos in Gittin 57a. There are additional references to Jesus in Sanhedrin 43a-b, relatively distinct; and 107b, the latter having additional parallel material in Sotah 47a. The Sanhedrin material refers to a “Yeshu” who may or may not be Jesus of Nazareth, he is positively identified as such in Sotah, but not in Sanhedrin, indicating that Sotah may be a later gloss on this passage. For a brief and accessible overview of early Rabbinic depictions of Christianity, see Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 231-58. For a substantial treatment of Rabbinic material on Jesus, See Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud.
This is what Daniel Boyarin does to support his controversial claim that Tractate Chagigah preserves some kind of continuity with the pre-Rabbinic apocalyptic tradition. Even so, many do not accept this argument. A lecture series by him on the subject can be found here. The nuance and qualifications provided for his claims are valuable for our purposes:
1)
2)
3)
Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels : the story of the Jewish Christ, 153.