The Legal Methodology of Late

Nehardean Sages

in Sasanian Babylonia

The Brill Reference Library of Judaism

Editors

Alan J. Avery-Peck (College of the Holy Cross)William Scott Green (University of Miami)

Editorial Board

David Aaron (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati)

Herbert Basser (Queens University)Bruce D. Chilton (Bard College)

Jos Faur (Netanya College)Neil Gillman ( Jewish Theological Seminary of America)Mayer I. Gruber (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)

Ithamar Gruenwald (Tel Aviv University)Maurice-Ruben Hayoun (University of Geneva)

Arkady Kovelman (Moscow State University)David Kraemer ( Jewish Theological Seminary of America)

Baruch A. Levine (New York University)Alan Nadler (Drew University)Jacob Neusner (Bard College)

Maren Niehoff (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)Gary G. Porton (University of Illinois)

Aviezer Ravitzky (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)Dov Schwartz (Bar Ilan University)

Gnter Stemberger (University of Vienna)Michael E. Stone (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Elliot Wolfson (New York University)

VOLUME 30

The Legal Methodology of LateNehardean Sages

in Sasanian Babylonia

By

Barak S. Cohen

LEIDEN BOSTON2011

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cohen, Barak S. The legal methodology of late Nehardean sages in Sasanian Babylonia / by Barak S. Cohen. p. cm. (The Brill reference library of Judaism ; v. 30) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-90-04-19381-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Jewish lawMethodology. 2. Jewish lawInterpretation and construction. 3. Amoraim. 4. RabbisIraqBabylonia. 5. Nehardea (Extinct city) 6. JudaismHistoryTalmudic period, 10425. I. Title. BM503.6.C64 2011 296.120092235dc22

2010045616

ISSN 1571-5000ISBN 978 90 04 19381 9

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotel Publishers, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgments .................................................... ix

Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................... 1 1. The Origins of Rabbinic Activity in Nehardea ................ 1

1.1. R. Shila ....................................................................... 4 1.2. Samuel ........................................................................ 5

2. Fourth and Fifth Century Nehardean Sages ..................... 7 3. The Legal Methodology of Amemar and the Latter

Nehardeans ......................................................................... 10 3.1. Earlier Scholarship .................................................... 10 3.2. Differences in Legal Methodology .............................. 15 3.3. The Late Nehardean Amoraim .................................. 17

3.3.1. The Nehardeans Say (Chapter Three) ....... 17 3.3.2. R. Zebid of Nehardea (Chapter Five) ............ 18 3.3.3. R. Dimi of Nehardea (Chapter Six) ............... 19 3.3.4. Amemar and R. Hama (Chapter Two

and Four) ......................................................... 20 4. Broader Implications Ensuing from this Study ................. 22

4.1. Deviation from the Halakhic Tradition and Strained Interpretations of Tannaitic Texts ............................ 22

4.2. The Historical Accuracy/Reliability of Amoraic Statements ................................................................... 25

Appendix A: Sages Active in the Environs of Nehardea During the Saboraic Period ............................................ 31 Appendix B: When R. Hoshaya Came from Nehardea,

He Came and He Brought a Tannaitic Teaching with him ......................................................................... 33

Chapter Two: Amemar ............................................................... 37 1. I am of the Elders of Nehardea: The Time and Status of Amemar in Nehardea ......................................... 37

1.1. Dating Amemars Rabbinic Activity .......................... 37 1.1.1. Subordination to Fifth Generation

Amoraim .......................................................... 38

vi contents

1.1.2. The Subordination of Sixth Generation Amoraim to Amemar ...................................... 39

1.1.3. Amemar Died During R. Ashis Lifetime ...... 40 1.1.4. Reassessing Earlier Scholarly Assumptions .... 41

2. Did Amemar Head a Rabbinic Yeshiva? .......................... 43 2.1. R. Ashi was Sitting in Front of Amemar

(Rav Ashi hava yativ kameh de-Amemar) ........................... 47 2.2. Amemar as Judge ...................................................... 48 2.3. [Once When] I was Standing Before Amemar

(hava kaimna kameh de-Amemar) .................................... 49 3. Summary and Conclusions ................................................ 50 4. The Halakhic Methodology of Amemar ........................... 51

4.1. Previous Scholarship: Amemars Conservative Halakhah ..................................................................... 51

4.2. A New Appraisal of Amemars Halakhic Methodology ............................................................... 52

4.3. Analysing His Rulings in Actual Cases ..................... 55 4.4. Analysing His Halakhic Decisions ............................. 67

4.4.1. Amemar said: The halakha is (hilkheta) . . . ..... 67 4.4.2. I am of [The Elders] of Nehardea

[ana (mi-savei de) nehardea ana] ........................... 74 4.5. Rulings Employing the Formula: One who

wishes to . . . ............................................................... 77 4.6. Amemars Interpretation of Tannaitic Sources ........ 82

5. Summary and Conclusions ................................................ 91 5.1. Halakhic Rulings ........................................................ 91 5.2. Interpretations of Tannaitic Sources ......................... 93 5.3. The Source of Amemars Unique Halakhic

Characteristics ............................................................. 96 5.4. Amemars Date and Status ........................................ 97

Chapter Three: The Nehardeans Say ..................................... 99 1. Early Babylonian Halakhic Traditions? ............................. 99 2. A Characterization of Their Halakhic Rulings and

Their Relationship to Earlier Sources ............................... 106 2.1. Halakhic Debates Between the Nehardeans say

and Other Sages ......................................................... 109 2.2. Reactions to Statements by Earlier Sages ................. 115 2.3. Rulings Issued in Concrete/Theoretical Cases ......... 119

3. Summary and Conclusions ................................................ 122

contents vii

Chapter Four: Rav Hama ........................................................... 127 1. Identity and Dating ............................................................ 127

1.1. Previous Scholarship ................................................... 127 1.1.1. How Many Rav Hamas Are in the Babylonian

Talmud? ........................................................... 130 1.1.2. A Reexamination of the Dating of R. Aha

bar Jacob .......................................................... 133 1.1.3. Summary and Conclusions .............................. 136

2. Halakhic Methodology ....................................................... 139 3. Summary and Conclusions ................................................ 149

Chapter Five: Rav Zebid of Nehardea ...................................... 153 1. I Reported the Statement before R. Zebid of Nehardea,

and He Said to Me: The Indirect Reports of R. Zebids Statements ........................................................................... 153

2. Analysing His Responses and Reactions to Earlier Amoraic Statements ............................................................ 156

3. Summary and Conclusions ................................................ 170

Chapter Six: Rav Dimi of Nehardea ......................................... 177 1. His Era and Location ......................................................... 177 2. His Halakhic Methodology ................................................ 178

2.1. Previous Research ....................................................... 178 2.2. A Reevaluation ........................................................... 179 2.3. Analysis of Sugyot ...................................................... 182

3. Summary and Conclusions ................................................ 192

Bibliography ................................................................................. 195

Index of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms ....................................... 211Index of Selected Amoraim/Saboraim ...................................... 213Subject Index ............................................................................... 218Index of Babylonian Talmud Sources ........................................ 220

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book consists of a systematic analysis of the halakhic/legal meth-odology of fourth and fifth century Nehardean amoraim in Babylo-nia. My analysis of this literature expands upon similar studies that I have published elsewhere concerning the methodology of Babylonian amoraim with whom I do not deal directly here. In those articles I described various distinct characteristics present in the halakhic deci-sion making and source interpretation (Bible, Mishnah, baraitot, and early amoraic statements) ascribed to certain outstanding Babylonian amoraim. I documented how certain amoraim can be characterized as portraying consistent interpretive and legal approaches throughout talmudic literature and that this consistency is most evident in the discourse found in the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli).

Uncovering the methodological characteristics that distinguish some amoraim from other amoraim can aid the talmudic interpreter/scholar in clarifying the legal foundations of their rulings, the proofs that they bring within talmudic discourse, as well as their disputes and interpre-tations. This is especially significant in cases where such literature is strained or complicated, presenting difficulty to the traditional scholar and modern interpreter alike. My basic claim is that each statement attributed to an amora must be analyzed not only on a point by point basis, but also in light of that amoras broader methodology. This type of analysis occasionally prevents the necessity of attributing what seems to be a strained statement or interpretation to an interpolation made by a later anonymous editor, a solution often proffered by modern talmudic scholars.

Besides the aid this type of broad analysis provides in interpreting isolated difficult passages, there are other more general benefits as well. For instance, the systematic study of the methodology of the amoraim allows us to better understand the development of the talmudic legal system. Perhaps most significantly, this analysis has considerable con-sequences as to the reliability of the ascription of amoraic statements in the Babylonian Talmud, which has been questioned throughout the history of modern talmudic scholarship. The fact that different amo-raim exhibit distinctive methodological approaches throughout the Talmud, approaches that occasionally sharply contrast with those of

x preface and acknowledgments

their colleagues, strengthens the general reliability of the ascription of statements in the Bavli. It seems quite unlikely that such a high degree of consistency could be the result of statements being written or con-structed by later editors, especially when the distinct dialectics of the amoraim are also documented in traditions ascribed to them in the Palestinian Talmud. Rather, the analysis found in this book strongly suggests that the transmitters of talmudic literature have passed down their traditions in a relatively reliable fashion, even if the level of this reliability does not extend to the very words attributed to the amora.

Turning our attention to the particulars of Nehardea and its sages, our analysis of the methodology of late Nehardean amoraim leads to a reevaluation of some assumptions and theories that have been accepted among modern scholars as to the sources and characteris-tics of the legal literature produced in Nehardea during the fourth and fifth centuries. For instance, systematic analysis of the halakhic traditions ascribed to late Nehardean amoraim does not support the generally accepted theory that the source of this literature is to be found in early Babylonian halakhah from the pre-talmudic period, or slightly thereafter. Another example is the new light this study brings as to the source of the collection of baraitot found in Nehardea that R. Hoshaya, a third generation amora, regularly quoted.

Perhaps of greatest consequence as to our understanding of Nehardea and its sages, our analysis leads us to reject the tendency among mod-ern scholars to perceive Nehardean amoraim throughout the talmudic period as a school with a conservative tendency, tending to rule systematically according to local halakhic traditions which originated with Samuel or R. Nahman. We shall also question the notion that the Nehardean sages can be characterized as focusing more on the inter-pretation of Mishnah and baraita than their counterparts in Sura and Mahoza. These types of claims, and others which have been suggested by talmudic scholars and historians, will be reevaluated based on the findings that emerge from my systematic analysis of late Nehardean halakhic literature and its comparison with contemporary literature produced in both Babylonia and Palestine.

This book further reevaluates the identity and dating of some of the sages who stand at the center of our discussion. Employing recent research into talmudic terminology and the hierarchical relationship between Babylonian amoraim, I have re-examined a series of assump-tions and theories that are found in both medieval geonic chronologies

preface and acknowledgments xi

of the talmudic period and in modern research. This analysis has led to some adjustments in the chronology and identification of a few late Babylonian amoraim.

There are many people to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for their help in writing this book. First and foremost, I wish to thank my father, Professor Avinoam Cohen, for his advice and comments, which have been of inestimable help to me. A special thanks to Professor Yaakov Elman, who read parts of this study and aided me in clarify-ing many central points discussed throughout this book. On questions of Babylonian geography and history I have been assisted throughout my research by Professor Aharon Oppenheimer. Thank you to Profes-sor Leib Moscowitzhead of the Department of Talmud at Bar-Ilan Universityfor his advice and helpfulness, always offered with great patience. Dr. Carla Sulzbach, McGill University, also read and com-mented on a draft of this manuscriptI am thankful for her remarks, references, and pertinent suggestions.

I also wish to express my gratitude to the Taylor-Schechter Geniza Research Unit of Cambridge University for making available to me their collection of Cairo Geniza fragments. I would especially like to thank Dr. Ben Outhwaite and Dr. Friedrich Niessen (") of the Taylor-Schechter Unit for their time and assistance. Throughout my work on this book, I was able to make extensive use of the Geniza fragments found in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. I wish to thank Prof. David Kraemer, Dr. Jay Rovner and Mrs. Sarah Diamant for facilitating my work and making my visit as productive and pleasant as possible.

I wish to thank the staff of The Israel Institute for the Complete Talmud, and especially Rabbi Ephraim Rothman, for providing me with access to Dikdukei Sofrim Hashalem of Yad HaRav Herzog, which is ready for publication. I thank the staff of the Bar-Ilan library, and especially Dr. Ronit Shoshani for her support and advice. Thanks also goes to Rivkah Dagan, administrator of the Bar-Ilan Talmud Department, for her help and support throughout my many years of study and work in the department.

I wish to thank the following foundations for their support in helping with the publishing of this book: The Bet Shalom-Kyoto Foundation (Bar-Ilan University); The Doctoral Fellowships of Excellence Foundation, headed by Motti Mishan, Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to the President of Bar-Ilan University.

xii preface and acknowledgments

I would like to thank my family, including my mother, Miriam, for her help and support throughout the years it has taken me to write this work.

This book is dedicated to my wife, Mali, for her undivided support, and to my children, Afik, Meir Hayim and Gitit.

Cover image: The Yemenite Manuscript (Yad Harav Herzog 1) to Bavli, Sanhedrin 46b. Published with permission of Yad Harav Herzog institute, Jerusalem.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. The Origins of Rabbinic Activity in Nehardea

The origins of a center of rabbinic activity in Nehardea1 have been obscure and in dispute since the very beginning of the writing of rab-binic history, with the writing during the geonic period (ninth-tenth centuries, Babylonia) of the two classic chronologies, Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim and the Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon.2 R. Sherira describes Rav and Samuel as being the sages who originally lead two yeshivot3

(Babylonian academies, schools), one in Nehardea and the other in Sura: and to Rav and Samuel there were two academies (tartin metivaata).4 A similar conception concerning the nature of the centers

1 Nehardea is located on the northern portion of the Euphrates river, near the Malka river. It has been identified with Tal Nihar, found on modern maps of Iraq opposite Ctesiphon on the Tigris, the Sasanian capital. On the geographical location of Nehardea see: Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, 287.

2 On the nature and reliability of the chronological information concerning the talmudic period found in Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim and the Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon see mainly: Beer, The Sources of Rav Sherira Gaons Igeret [Heb.], 181197; Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia [Heb], 239265; Brody, On the Sources [Heb], 9295; A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [Heb.], 181182. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 38, expresses significant doubt concerning the reliability of the talmudic chronologies found in these two works, but in his later work he seems to temper his skepticism. See: Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, 147, n. 63, and 298. Recently, Gafni demonstrated that we must distinguish between chronological information found in the Epistle (and in Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim) which is based on external sources stemming from the amoraic period, and the historiographical narrative which runs through the Epistle, whose source is likely to be R. Sheriras understanding and commentary on the Bavli itself. See: Gafni, On the Talmudic Historiography in the Epistle of Rav Sherira [Heb.], 271296. On our approach as to the reliability of the ascription of amoraic statements found in the Bavli, see below, section 4.2.

3 The terms yeshiva or academy as I shall use them throughout this book des-ignate some type of institutional learning/instruction that existed in Sasanian Baby-lonia. The questions concerning the structure and characteristics of these institutions (see below, footnote 14) are not directly relevant to our discussions throughout the book.

4 R. Sherira Gaon, Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, 81. R. Sherira does not describe their terms as academy heads with the word rule (malakh), as he typically does with other academy heads in Babylonia (see: Gafni, Yeshiva and Metivta [Heb.], 3134; Brody, On the Sources [Heb], 99100). R. Sherira uses the verb malakh only from

2 chapter one

of learning in Babylonian can be found among historiographers of Babylonian amoraim from the geonic period and onward, although these writers do not agree as to the origins of these centers.5

In contrast, the author of Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim notes that Rav and Samuel exercised with authority (nahagu serara) in Nehardea, and ascribes the first actual yeshiva to R. Huna (died in 297),6 and R. Hunas yeshiva was in Nehardea.7 Both traditions8 locate the ori-gins of the first Babylonian academies in the beginning of the amoraic period. They disagree as to the details: whereas R. Sherira claims that such academies existed by the beginning of the third century, during the period of Rav and Samuel, the author of Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim posits a slightly later starting date, at the end of the third century, during the time of R. Huna and R. Hisda.9 The lack of accordance on this matter between the different geonic chronologies and the gap of eighty years between the two dates led Moshe Beer to the following conclusion: Based on these conclusions, it becomes clear that there was no unified tradition during the geonic period as to the beginnings of the Babylonian yeshiva.10

Modern scholars have also debated the question of the origins of rabbinic instruction in Babylonia. There are scholars who claimed that rabbinic instruction existed already during the mishnaic period,11 while there are those who pushed off the origins to the period of Rav and

R. Hunas generation and onward (towards the end of the third century): and after Samuel, R. Huna ruled (malakh) . . . (Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, 83).

5 Concerning the two main theories as to the nature of the yeshivot in Babylonia during the amoraic period see below, n. 14.

6 On the date of R. Hunas death see, Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 5; Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, 85.

7 Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 4. See also the introduction attached to the story of R. Natan HaBavli, of the tenth century in: Neubauer, ed., Seder Olam Zuta, 77. Brody demonstrated that the author of this section based his survey upon the Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, and that it should not therefore be regarded as an independent histori-cal source. See: Brody, On the Sources [Heb], 102104.

8 In addition to these two stances, there is a third, more radical stance, espoused by Pirqoy b. Baboy, who extends the origins of the Babylonian academies to the exile of Jehoiachin and the beginning of the Second Temple period. See: Lewin, Geniza Fragments [Heb.], 395, 402. This claim is obviously polemical and cannot be relied upon as historically accurate. See: Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia [Heb], 182; Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 1415; ibid., The History of Babylonian Academies, 822; Stern, Rabbinic Academies in Late Antiquity, 223224.

9 See also: Goodblatt, The History of Babylonian Academies, 825. 10 Beer, The Emergence of the Talmudic Academy [Heb], 100. 11 See most recently: Oppenheimer, Battei Midrash in Babylonia [Heb], 1929.

introduction 3

Samuel.12 Other scholars posited that rabbinic activity and instruction developed their foundations gradually, beginning during the period of Rav and Samuel and continuing to grow during the second half of the third century, the period of R. Huna and R. Hisda. This position is based, among other factors, on the appearance of certain terms which carry an institutional connotation [such as: academy head (resh metivta/rosh yeshiva), kallah, pirka] in connection with sages of the second half of the third century. According to this view, the existence of these terms strengthens the possibility of some type of development in the formation and solidification of the academies in Sura and Nehardea throughout the third century.13 Other scholars have taken an altogether different approach, and suggested that throughout the talmudic period rabbinic instruction took place in small settings, known as disciple circlesgroups of students centered around one central sage. The structural change that turned these small circles of sages into the acad-emies that clearly existed during the geonic period occurred only during the post-amoraic period, from 500 C.E. and onward.14

12 See Goodblatts survey, The History of Babylonian Academies, 827828. To Goodblatts list, we should add Frankel, Towards an Introduction to the Talmud,106; Hoffman, Mar Samuel, 28. Nineteenth century historians and maskilim tended to push back the development of centers of Torah learning in Babylonia to the begin-ning of the talmudic period. In contrast, historians who identified with the emerg-ing Orthodox movement tended to stake the opposite claim, namely that a center of Torah learning in Babylonia was operative from as early as the Second Temple period, and perhaps even earlier. It is clear that both of these tendencies can be tied to the political and religious leanings of the authors, and to the struggle between those historians and intellectuals who placed themselves in the Haskalah/Reform camp and those from the traditionalist/Orthodox camp. See Gafni, Between Babylonia and the Land of Israel [Heb.], 213242.

13 See: Brody, On the Sources [Heb], 105107 and n. 115; Goodblatt, The History of Babylonian Academies, 837. See also below, in sections 1.11.2

14 Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 263285; Goodblatt, New Developments [Heb], 1425; ibid., The History of Babylonian Academies, 830838; Rubenstein, The Rise of the Babylonian Rabbinic Academy, 5568; ibid., The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 1623, 3538; ibid., Social and Institutional Settings, 6673; Stern, Rab-binic Academies in Late Antiquity, 237238. Concerning the qualitative difference between an educational institution such as a disciple-circle (in the amoraic period) and an academy for the general public (from the post-talmudic period and onwards) Goodblatt writes,

By school I mean an institution which transcends its principals. It has a staff, a curriculum, and, most important, a life of its own, a corporate identity. Students come and go, teachers leave and are replaced, the head of the school dies and a new one is appointedthe institution goes on. A disciple circle, on the other hand, does not transcend its principals. Disciples meet with a master and

4 chapter one

Despite the range of opinions as to the origins of rabbinic activity in the Babylonian academies, all scholars agree that by the first half of the third century some form of instruction took place. However it was organized and whatever its characteristics were it, already existed in Nehardea.15 Indeed, I have found that from the beginning of the amo-raic period there is significant literary testimony as to the existence of a formal learning setting in Nehardea. This testimony centers around two sages who were active during the first half of the third century in NehardeaR. Shila and Samuel.16

1.1. R. Shila

The talmudic terminology used in connection with this sage points to his having headed some kind of educational framework, in Babylonia at the beginning of the amoraic period. This evidence is mostly based on the term of the house of R. Shila (devet rav shila/devei rav shila/bei rav shila)that is the bet midrash/study circle of R. Shilawhich is men-tioned in both talmudim (twenty-five times17). In one tradition found in b. Yoma 20b and in a parallel in y. Sukkah 5:5 (55c) in which R. Shilas place of study is mentioned, Rav is referred to as the amoraone of the official positions in the Babylonian yeshiva during the talmudic period.18 Even Goodblatt, who considered the Babylonian academies

study with assistants. The group may meet in a special building . . . but when . . . the master dies, the disciple circle disbands (Goodbalatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 267).

In contrast, Gafni perceives the yeshivot as academies which consisted of large assemblies of students and were the focal point for the spiritual and religious life of Babylonian Jews in the talmudic period. See mainly: Gafni, Yeshiva and Metivta [Heb.], 1237; ibid., The Babylonian Yeshiva [Heb.], 292301.

15 This consensus is shared by all scholars mentioned above (including Goodblatt, see below near footnote 19). See also: Bacher, Nehardea, 208; Florsheim, The Estab-lishment and Early Development of the Babylonian Academies [Heb.], 190191.

16 There is no literary testimony that Abuha de-Shmuel (Samuels father) served as a rosh yeshiva. Most of the talmudic evidence points to his having acted with some leadership capacity in Nehardea and points to his ties with R. Judah Hanasi (or R. Judah Nesia). See: S. Albeck, Mishpekhot Soferim, 21, 25; Hyman, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 1:13; Weiss, Dor Dor Vedorshav, 3:146; Yaavetz, Toldot Yisrael, 7:22; Yudolow-itz, Nehardea, 3435. In contrast, Halevy, Dorot Harishonim, 5:225228, considered him to have served as an actual rosh yeshiva in Nehardea. However, while the evidence presented by Halevy points to his having had some power within the city, it does not actually prove that he had any institutional position within a yeshiva. As we shall see, such evidence does exist in connection with those amoraim discussed below.

17 See: Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 137141. 18 On the position of amora within the yeshiva framework during the talmu-

dic period Gafni, Babylonian Jewry and Its Institutions [Heb.], 80 writes, this is a posi-

introduction 5

to be small disciple circles, concluded from this evidence that a center of learning existed in Nehardea already in this early period:

Some kind of institution also seems indicated by b (R.) ShilaIn view of my conclusions regarding the b Rav + MR materials, I incline toward assuming that b Shila does refer to a school or disciple circle.19

1.2. Samuel

There are twenty-five instances in the Bavli (including manuscripts) in which the phrase It was taught in the house of Samuel (Tanna/Tannu/Tannei DBei Shmuel ) appears.20 When the Bavli uses the phrase in the house of Rav X (bei rav x) it refers to the bet midrash/study circle at whose head stood Rav X (with the exception of cases in which it is clear that the term refers to a private house21).22 In addition, Samuels bet midrash/study circle is mentioned by two sages, R. Elazar of the second generation (the house of Mar Samuel) and R. Nahman of the third generation (those of the house of Samuel).23 Similarly, there are sages

tion parallel to the Palestinian meturgeman, whose job it was to transmit and make heard the rosh yeshivas lesson to the larger audience of those gathered to learn. For more information on this position see: Rappaport, Erekh Milin, 1:208; Dalman, Aramische-Neuhebrisches Handwrterbuch, 22; Levy, Wrterbuch ber die Talmudim und Midraschim, 1:101; Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1:76; Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 139. Concerning the talmudic evidence as to the formality of this position within the yeshiva framework throughout the talmudic period see: Assaf, Tekufat HaGeonim Vesifrutah, 46; Melamed, An Introduction to Talmudic Literature, 414; Amir, Institutions and Titles [Heb.], 8995; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud [Heb.], 18; Safrai, Amora, 88.

19 Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 137, 141.20 b. Shabbat 12a (Mss.); ibid. 35b (Mss.); ibid. 54a; ibid. 131b; b. Eruvin 70b; ibid. 86a;

ibid. 89b; b. Pesahim 3a; ibid. 39b (3 times); b. Rosh HaShanah 16a (Mss.); b. Yoma 70a; b. Sukkah 56b; b. Betzah 29a; b. Megilah 4b (Mss.); ibid. 23a (Mss.); ibid. 30a; b. Moed Qattan 18b; b. Gittin 24b (Mss.); ibid. 66a (Mss.); ibid. 70b (Mss.); b. Bava Metziah 111b (Mss.).

21 The most notable example of such a case is the phrase X happened upon the house of Y. In the overwhelming majority of these cases the house of Y refers to a private house, and not a bet midrash with a formal learning structure. See: A. Cohen, Towards the Historical Meaning [Heb.], 61, 6364.

22 See mainly: Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 149151; Gafni, Concerning D. Goodblatts Article [Heb.], 54; Rubenstein, The Rise of the Babylonian Rab-binic Academy, 56 n. 6.

23 b. Kiddushin 21b: R. Nahman said to R. Anan: when you were in the house of Mar Samuel you played a game with tokens?! b. Eruvin 70b: Rava asked of R. Nah-man . . . He said to him: I teach . . . but those of the house of Samuel teach (hanei devei shmuel tannu). Ibid. 89b: R. Elazar said: when we were in Babylonia we would say . . . but those of the house of Samuel taught . . . (hanei devei shmuel tannu). In both cases the tannaitic tradition stemming from Samuels bet midrash is cited using the term Those of the House of Samuel [DBei Shmuel] taught [tannu], where the verb tannu appears

6 chapter one

who are described as sitting in front of Samuel, using the technical term yativ.24 The phrase R. X sat in front of R. Y and more com-plicated, such phrases referring to several sages learning while sitting in rows, all describe one or more sages sitting in front of another sage who leads an intellectual discussion. In such cases the sitter is a stu-dent, or at least a younger, subordinate sage, who sits in front of a more senior and authoritative sage.25 The Bavli also mentions reciters (shannanim) who quote baraitot in front of Samuel.26 The shannanim played a role in reciting tannaitic material in front of heads of study circles during the talmudic period and continued to do so throughout the geonic period as well.27

In summary, despite the questions concerning the dating of the formation of rabbinic activity in Babylonia, about which rabbis and scholars have disagreed from the geonic period through modern talmudic historical scholarship, one fact is clear. There is concrete evidence con-cerning R. Shila and Samuel indicating the existence of study sessions already in the beginning of the amoraic period. There is increasing evidence as to the existence of a study circle headed by Rav Sheshet in Nehardea during the second half of the third century.28

after the expression [of] the house of Samuel. This phrase is parallel to the common literary term the house of Samuel taught (Tanna DBei Shmuel ) and it is ascribed only to these two sages. Amoraim of the fourth generation and later who cite the same collection of baraitot use the more common phrase. This implies that the phrase those of the house of Samuel taught (hanei devei shmuel tannu) is first-hand testimony by R. Elazar and R. Nahman concerning the members of their own generation and concerning Samuels yeshiva. For a more expanded treatment of this subject see: B. Cohen, In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions, 279280.

24 b. Shabbat 55a (R. Yehuda); b. Moed Qattan 16b (Mar Ukba); b. Arakhin 16b (R. Huna and Hiyya b. Rav).

25 See mainly: Gwirtzman, Hamunah Yativ Umashmauto, 910; Beer, The Emergence of the Talmudic Academy in Babylonia [Heb.], 99; Abramson, Mavo HaTalmud, 19; Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 224; Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia [Heb.], 200; Kalmin, Collegial Interaction in the Babylonian Talmud, 392 and n. 35; A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [Heb.], 186. The phrase yativ kumi in the Yerushalmi has a similar meaning. See: Hezser, The Social Structure, 209 n. 180.

26 b. Ketubbot 60a; b. Betzah 16b; b. Kiddushin 66a. On Samuels shananim see: Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text [Heb.], 1:212 n. 6.

27 Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud [Heb.], 28 n. 30; Beer, Academies In Babylonia and Erez Israel, 203; Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction, 204214; Gafni, The Jews of Baby-lonia [Heb.], 112 n. 4; A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [Heb.], 151 n. 41; Zuss-man, Torah SheBealpeh, 240245. On this position during the geonic period see mainly: Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text [Heb.], 2:688692; Immanuel, New Responsa of R. Hai Gaon [Heb.], 105126.

28 Concerning evidence connected to Rav Sheshet see mainly: B. Cohen, Local Academies [Heb.], 448458.

introduction 7

2. Fourth and Fifth Century Nehardean Sages

Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim and the Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon both describe the destruction of Nehardea in 259, which was followed by the transfer of the yeshiva to Pumbedita:

And in the year 259 Papa b. Natzer came and destroyed Nehardea. Rabbah bar Abuha, our elder, and R. Nahman went to ekansiv and to ilhe and to Mahoza, where R. Joseph bar Hama father of Rava was located. And the rest of our rabbis [went] to Pumbedita, which from the time of the Second Temple was the main center of the Diaspora.29

This event mentioned by the geonic chroniclers seems to refer to the wars waged by Tadmor (Palmyra),30 who began a campaign against Shapur I, the Sasanian king, which lasted until the capture of Emperor Valerian by the Persian king in the years 259260.31 Scholars have posited several reasons why the Tadmors would have destroyed Nehardea. These include the possibility that the Tadmors perceived of the Jews as an enemy agent loyal to the Sasanian king,32 for strategic reasons, or perhaps even for economic reasons.33

R. Sherira Gaon describes the passage of Rabbah bar Abuha and R. Nahman (bar Jacob) to Mahoza and of the rest of our rabbis to Pumbedita.34 From this point and onward Nehardea is no longer

29 R. Sherira Gaon, Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, French recension, 82. See also: Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 4. This event is also mentioned in Seder Olam Zuta, ed. Grossberg, 36.

30 Epigraphical evidence demonstrates that the appellation Nas[o]r refers to princes of the Tadmorian dynasty (see: Sorek, Who Destroyed Nehardea? [Heb.], 119). The name [Papa] bar Nas[o]r is identified with Odenathus of Palmyra or with another prince of the Tadmorian dynasty, (who also receive this appellation, as a dynastic name). See: Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, 1:7576; ibid., Monumenta Tal-mudica, 296; Berliner, Geographie und Ethnographie Babyloniens, 51; Bacher, Nehardea, 208; Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien, 255 n. 3; Alon, The Jews in Their Land [Heb.], 2:170; Sorek, Who Destroyed Nehardea? [Heb.], 119; Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia [Heb.], 263264. Concerning the dynastic appellation of the Tadmorian princes in light of epigraphical findings, see recently: Sartre, The Arabs and the Desert Peoples, 512.

31 See mainly: Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia [Heb.], 263264. 32 Ibid.33 Sorek, Who Destroyed Nehardea? [Heb.], 118.34 In addition to the testimony of R. Sherira Gaon, who places R. Nahman in

Mahoza (after its destruction), Yaakov Elman has outlined his world view, his halakhic literature, his religious lifestyle and his status, all of which point at the fact that

8 chapter one

mentioned as a center of rabbinic activity in the geonic chronicles until the saboraic period (500689).35 Nevertheless, there is evidence throughout the Bavli documenting the activity of prominent amo-raim in Nehardea throughout the fourth and the beginning of the

R. Nahman was firmly rooted in the social and religious culture of Mahoza, at the end of the third and the beginning of fourth centuries. Many of his halakhic rulings can be understood in light of the religious and social challenges with which he had to cope in Mahoza. See mainly: Elman, A Tale of Two Cities [Heb.], 95102, 118119; ibid., The Socioeconomics, 8586, 109112, 113114, 120122; ibid., Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages, 168169, 171176, 179, 185186, 192193. While there is ample testimony as to the fact that R. Nahman also lived in Nehardea, this does not contradict his being a Mahozan, or even the fact that most of his rabbinic activity was in Mahoza, as Elman has claimed. Later amoraim construe R. Nahman as being a Nehardean. R. Aha son of Rava, who was subordinate to R. Ashi, explicitly testifies in front of R. Ashi that Amemar adopted R. Nahmans opinion because both were Nehardean (the Nehardeans follow their own reasoningb. Bava Batra 124b). From this source, and another also found in the Bavli, Goodblatt concluded, In these two passages there is no doubt as to the identity of the . The latter term denotes Samuel, Nahman, Hama and Amemar, masters who lived at different times in the third and fourth centuries (Goodblatt, Local Traditions, 190). R. Nahman is documented as rendering halakhic decisions in Nehardea (b. Bava Batra 153a; b. Ketubbot 97b; b. Eruvin 6b), he relates to situations that commonly occur in Nehardea (for instance: b. Ketubbot 100b; b. Megilah 27b), and he is even mentioned as sitting with his students in Nehardea (b. Eruvin 34b). It is worth noting that R. Sheshet and Amemar are also documented as being active in both locales (Nehardea and Mahoza); R. Nahman is not, therefore, unusual in this regard. In any case, talmudic evidence which points to R. Nahmans having been in Nehardea, served scholars as a basis for the claim that R. Nahmans Nehardean halakhic outlook is reflected in the statements and thought-processes of later Nehardean amoraim. As we have stated, we have not found any basis for this claim.

It is difficult to assume that all of this activity occurred before the city was destroyed in 259. If R. Nahman died in 320 (according to Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 5), and had been active as a sage in Nehardea already before its destruction, we must assume that R. Nahman lived close to one hundred years, and perhaps even longer. Indeed, Florsheim, The Establishment and Early Development of the Babylonian Academies [Heb.], 192 n. 37, who dates most of R. Nahmans activity to his time in Nehardea before its destruction, was forced to assume that R. Nahman lived for about one hundred years (an assumption that he makes concerning R. Judah and R. Huna as well). The credibility of this exaggerated assumption can be called into question by the knowledge that the Bavli provides concerning the maximum age of the amoraim (see: A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages [Heb.], 105106.) Beer, The Babylonian Exilarchate [Heb.], 9899, also noted this problem. It seems likely that the answer is that Nehardea was restored as a center of rabbinic activity not long after its destruction, as has been claimed by scholars and as can be demonstrated by literature attributed to later Nehardean amoraim (see below). R. Nahman seems to have returned there and resumed his activity there closely following its destruction.

35 For a discussion of the different scholarly theories concerning the dating of the Saboraic period see recently: Cohen, The Saboraic Halakha [Heb.], 161162 n. 1. There are two sages who are known to have been active in the environs of Nehardea during the Saboraic period. See below in appendix A.

introduction 9

fifth centuries.36 This documentation strengthens the claim by scholars, one which has not been thoroughly examined, that the destruction of Nehardea in 259 was only temporary, and that Jewish settlement was restored there by the beginning of the fourth century.37

Modern scholars have had a multiplicity of doubts and opinions concerning the dating and identity of the later Nehardean amoraim who stand at the center of our research. However, a reassessment of the evidence based on a more precise understanding of talmudic ter-minology38 and of the hierarchical relationships that reigned between the amoraim39 can allow us to determine with greater precision in dating and identifying these amoraim. The following is a chart listing the names, places and dates of the Nehardean amoraim upon whom our research focuses:

36 See mainly: Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, 1:132; Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Baby-lonien im Zeitalter des Talmuds und des Gaonats, 255; Bacher, Nehardea, 208; Halevy, Dorot Harishonim, 2:416 n. 3 and 499; Epstein, Mevoot Lesifrut HaAmoraim, 129; Yaavetz, Toldot Yisrael, 8:162163 and n. 68; Yudolowitz, Nehardea, 73; Goodblatt, Local Tra-ditions in the Babylonian Talmud, 204205 n. 40; Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, 290 n. 40; Kahana, Shalosh Makhlokot, 303 n. 4.

37 See above, footnote 36. Possible support for the theory that the Jewish commu-nity in Nehardea was reestablished shortly after its destruction can be brought from our knowledge concerning the military conquests of Emperor Julian in Babylonia in 363, which were described by the fourth century Roman historian, Ammianus Mar-cellinus. Marcellinus describes the destruction of a Jewish city by the Roman army, after the conquest of Pirisabora on their way to Ctesiphon, the Sasanian capitol. See: Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:609611. Marcellinus does not name the Jewish city that was destroyed, but some scholars have posited that this city was none other than Nehardea (see: Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, 290). If this suggestion is correct, then on top of the other evidence we cited above, we have further support for the theory that there was a Jewish presence in Nehardea in the middle of the fourth century. However, the difficulty in precisely determining the identity and location of the cities mentioned by Marcellinus (including Pirisabora) diminishes the reliability of this par-ticular proof. See: Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien, 57; Widengren, The Status of the Jews in the Sasanian Empire, 132; Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 4:1017; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:611.

38 Most of this material is found in several studies which focused on the Babylonian yeshiva during the talmudic period. See mainly: Gafni, The Babylonian Yeshiva [Heb.], 29106; Gafni, Yeshiva and Metivta [Heb.], 1237; ibid., Babylonian Jewry and Its Institutions [Heb.], 113114 n. 24, 27, 28; ibid., The Jews of Babylonia [Heb.], 185236; Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction; ibid., New Developments [Heb], 1438; Rubenstein, The Rise of the Babylonian Rabbinic Academy, 5568; A. Cohen, The Contrastive Term, 4560; ibid., Mar Zutra, 201203. Additional bibliographical references will be discussed below.

39 See: Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors, 8185, 193216; A. Cohen, Ravina and Contemporary Sages, 100; A. Cohen, Was Age the Decisive Criterion of Subordi-nation Among the Amoraim? 279313; B. Cohen, How Many R. Hamnunas, 95113.

10 chapter one

Table One: Nehardean Amoraim of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries

Year Sage

300 R. Sheshet (died ca. 310)40

350

400

The Nehardeans Say(first half of 4th century)

R. Zebid of Nehardea(died before 375)

R. Hama (died 377)

R. Dimi of Nehardea(died 388)

Amemar(died ca. 410)

3. The Legal Methodology of Amemar and the Latter Nehardeans40

3.1. Earlier Scholarship

Historians and scholars of talmudic reasoning and logic have pointed out the existence of certain trends and defining characteristics in the argumentation and interpretation of certain Babylonian amoraim. For instance, scholars have noted consistent differences and positions ascribed to amoraim who frequently dispute with one another (for instance: Rav and Samuel,41 R. Nahman and R. Sheshet,42 R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish,43 Rami bar Hama and Rava,44 Abbaye and Rava45). Scholars have also identified cases of distinctive methodology found in

40 See: B. Cohen, Rav Sheshet [Heb.], 3437.41 Gordis, The Exegesis of Mishna and Baraita of Rav and Samuel [Heb.]; Weis,

The Controversies of Rab and Samuel, 288297. 42 B. Cohen, Rav Nahman and Rav Sheshet [Heb.], 1132. 43 Goldberg, The Use of the Tosefta and the Baraita [Heb.], 109116. 44 B. Cohen, Rami bar Hama in Contrast to Rava [Heb.], 149184.45 Henshke, Abbaye and Rava [Heb.], 187193.

introduction 11

connection with certain amoraim (R. Nahman,46 R. Sheshet,47 Rava,48 and Mar bar Rav Ashi49). Sages or groups of sages from a specific yeshiva or geographical location have been described as demonstrating a ten-dency to maintain consistent local halakhic traditions,50 or as having a common approach to interpretation of tannaitic sources, or halakhic rulings.51 Scholars have also pointed out similar such tendencies among Palestinian amoraim.52

In light of these general findings, some scholars have portrayed Nehardean amoraim throughout the talmudic period as a cohesive group whose halakhot reflect an early Babylonian tradition or who present a comprehensive and consistent method of learning. Other scholars specifically claimed that the halakhic statements attributed to the Nehardeans say (who date from the first half of the fourth century) represent early Babylonian traditions, stemming from the

46 For a summary of the scholarship concerning R. Nahman, see: B. Cohen, Rav Nahman and Rav Sheshet [Heb.], 1417.

47 B. Cohen, Rav Sheshet [Heb.] 48 Goldberg, The Use of the Tosefta and the Baraita [Heb.], 144157; Elman,

Rava and Palestinian System of Midrash Halakha [Heb.], 217242.49 A. Cohen, Mar bar Rav Ashi [Heb.], 143258; ibid., On the Non-Chronological

Location of Mar bar Rav Ashis Statements [Heb.], 4966.50 Concerning the tendency of Babylonian amoraim to rule based on local tradition

see mainly: A. Cohen, Al Hitpalgut Hanetiot HaHilkhatiot, 107129; Izhaki, Masorot Shonot BiShivot Sura Upumbeditha, 99106; Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors, 4748; Kahana, Shalosh Makhlokot, 302333; A. Cohen, Mar Zutra [Heb.], 226227; Hidary, Legal Pluralism in the Talmud, 139178.

51 See mainly: Zuri, Toldot Darkhe i HaLimud, 1, 1516, 42, 4445, 69, 73, 7780; Yudolowitz, Yeshivat Pumbeditha, 23; Goldberg, The Use of the Tosefta and the Baraita [Heb.], 144 n. 1; Elman, A Tale of Two Cities [Heb.], 338; ibid., Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages, 165197; ibid., The Socioeconomics of Babylonian Heresy, 80127. Elman demonstrated this phenomenon especially in Mahoza during the fourth century.

52 The division of halakhic tendencies into schools was posited by scholars as a result of certain common terms found in the Yerushalmi: those of the house of R. Yannai, (rabbanan devei rabbi yanai) the sages of Caesarea, (rabbanan dkesarin) the sages of Naveh, (rabbanan dnaveh) and others. These terms are used to cite groups of sages who are concentrated in one local yeshiva, which is identified by the name of the sage who stood at its head and which continued to function even after the sages death. Scholars have pointed out that these groups of sages also represent a uni-fied halakhic tradition, one that sometimes lasted for several generations. For several significant studies which have demonstrated this phenomenon see: Bacher, Die Gelehrten von Caesarea, 298310; Lieberman, The Talmud of Caesarea [Heb.], 18; Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule, 9597; Zussman, Veshuv LiRushalmi Nezikin, 83; Oppenheimer, Batei Midrash in Eretz-Israel [Heb.], 81; ibid., Those of the School of Rabbi Yannai [Heb.], 137145; Beer, About the Hevraya in the Talmudim [Heb.], 7695, and especially 8182; Hezser, The Social Structure, 180184; Miller, Sages and Commoners, 456.

12 chapter one

pre-talmudic era.53 According to another theory, in the fourth century Nehardea served as a source of tannaitic traditions which were un-known to other Babylonian amoraim.54 A different suggestion conceived of traditions ascribed to late Nehardean amoraim as reflecting a sin-gular and consistent halakhic approach whose source was Samuel,55 who according to R. Sherira Gaon was the founder of the Nehard-ean yeshiva (until his death in 254).56 Finally, yet another approach claimed that throughout the talmudic period the Nehardean method of learning consistently differed from that adopted by the sages in Sura, in that the former engaged intensely in the interpretation of tannaitic sources.57

One of the main contributions of this book is to question the appli-cability of these theories with regard to the sages of Nehardea. To begin in answering this question, I first examined literature ascribed to late Nehardean amoraim to determine whether early halakhic tradi-tions from Nehardea served as the basis for their halakhic rulings and interpretations. Is there evidence, direct or indirect, that indicate the existence of local halakhic traditions in Nehardea throughout the tal-mudic period? Before I present my findings on this question, I should first explain what I mean by local halakhic traditions. When I use this term my intention is early halakhahfrom the mishnaic period or in the generations which followedwhose source is Babylonian, and which has a direct connection to the yeshiva or geographical location of the sage who issued the ruling. Babylonian amoraim tend to distinguish between two types of early halakhic traditions that exist outside of the Mishnah and are used as a source for halakhah: matnitatannaitic halakhic traditions found in baraitot,58 and shmaata/shmaatetaearly amoraic traditions found in amoraic statements.59 Furthermore, amoraim tend to clearly distinguish between these types of sources

53 Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, 1:IV n. 2.54 Bacher, Nehardea, 208; Yudolowitz, Nehardea, 73. For an analysis of these

sources see below, appendix B.55 See: Yaavetz, Toldot Yisrael, 8:162163; Zuri, Rav Ashi, 15. 56 See above, near footnote 4. Concerning the date of Samuels death see: Seder

Tannaim ve-Amoraim, 4; Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, 82. 57 See: Zuri, Darkhei HaLimud, 77, 83, 98.58 See mainly: Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text [Heb.], 2:813; Albeck, Mekhkarim

Babaraita, 1; ibid., Introduction to the Talmud [Heb.], 19. 59 On the use of the terms shmua or shmuata see mainly: Bacher, Die Exegetische

Terminologie, 222224; Urbach, Ha-Halakha, 103; Rosenthal, Torah Shealpeh Ve-Torah Misinai, 456 n. 33; Zussman, Torah Shebealpeh, 262 n. 15.

introduction 13

when it comes to the level of their halakhic authority. Jacob Zussman has described this phenomenon:

The tradition itself is termed shmua already in the tannaitic period . . . And in the amoraic period the [sages] distinguish between tannaitic and amoraic traditions (matnita/shmua) and tend to prefer the tannaitic tradition (. . . and they distinguish between: matnita/shmaata . . .). In conclusion, the term shmua or shmaata is reserved for reference to amoraic traditions, specifically in the field of halakhah.60

As stated above, scholars have demonstrated a tendency among Babylonian amoraim to issue halakhic rulings based on local tradi-tions ascribed to other amoraim from the same geographical location. So too, scholars have attempted to show examples of halakhic rulings or interpretations which are based on early Babylonian halakhah from the mishnaic period.61 A manifestation of such a theory can be found in the widespread scholarly claim that the source of halakhah reflected in tannaitic collections transmitted in Nehardea during the first generation of amoraimit was taught (tanna) in the House of Samuel/Samuel taught (tanni )/the teaching (matnita) of Samuelis an early Babylonian tradition, in essence a Babylonian Mish-nah (mattniata debavlaei ).62 Recently, I have examined this claim, not only in connection with the baraitot ascribed to the House of Samuel (Tanna DBei Shmuel ) but also with baraitot ascribed to the tanna of the House of Levi (Tanna Dbei Levi) and the halakhic rulings issued by Samuels father (Abuha Dshmuel ). In each of these cases, I have found no evidence that these halakhot are based on some type of Babylonian Mishnah or any other early Babylonian halakhic tradition.63 A similar claim was put forth by scholars in

60 Zussman, Torah Shebealpeh, 262 n. 15. See also: Urbach, Ha-Halakha, 103.61 It should be noted that during the Sasanian period, the Christian schools in

Edessa and Nisibis preserved Biblical commentary in the form of local oral traditions (in addition to written sources). The existence of such sources, whose precise nature is not fully determinable, is mentioned by Barhadbabba during the second half of the sixth century, in his composition, The Cause of the Foundation of the Schools, 382383. See mainly: Rompay, The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation, 632633; Becker, Sources for the Study of the Schools of Nisibis, 149150.

62 The term mattniata debavlaei is mentioned by R. Sherira Gaon, Epistle of R. Sherira Gaon, 41. For a survey of scholarship on this term, and a new evaluation of its implications, see: Cohen, In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions, 271303.

63 See: Cohen, In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions, 271303. See also: Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia, 90-91; Goodblatt, The Jews in Babylonia, 83.

14 chapter one

connection with baraitot that R. Hoshaya (third generation) learned in Nehardea. I have not found any basis for this claim either.64

A systematic analysis of the halakhic methodology which underlies the halakhic rulings, instructions, derashot, customs and interpretations of late Nehardean amoraim (around 350 halakhic traditions) do not support the notion that this literature is reflective of early Babylonian tradition. In reality, the opposite is true. A large portion of Nehard-ean halakhah and interpretation throughout the fourth and the begin-ning of the fifth generations is based on a given sages reasoning or on considerations which tend to change from situation to situation, and not on earlier sources. This phenomenon is especially notice-able in the halakhic rulings and other such literature attributed to two fourth century Nehardean sagesR. Hama and Amemar. The halakhic rulings of these two sages are characterized by a flexible approach to halakhah, an approach which takes into account the circumstances of the situation at hand, even if this at times causes the sage to deviate from the accepted tannaitic or early amoraic halakhah. On occasion these deviations from normative halakhah are so obvious that expressions of surprise or criticism are raised in the Talmud itself. Even in cases where we do find Nehardean halakhah to be connected with earlier traditions, these traditions are tannaitic sources parallel to those found in the Mishnah, Tosefta or Yerushalmi, or are parallel to earlier amoraic sources. In other words, they exhibit no special connection to the halakhic traditions of earlier Nehardean amoraim or early Babylonian halakhah.

Furthermore, we have found a significant number of cases in which the rulings of late Nehardean amoraim contradict, occasionally even systematically, the earlier Nehardean traditions attributed to Samuel and R. Nahman. The proofs that earlier scholars presented to sup-port their theories regarding this matter turn out to be insufficient. Many of these proofs were based on general impressions arising from the literature, or at times on guesswork, and not on any systematic analysis of all of the literature attributed in the Bavli to late Nehard-ean amoraim, or a comparison of this literature with that attributed to their contemporaries (or with Palestinian halakhic traditions).65 At

64 See below, appendix B. 65 See for instance the sole proof which served Funk as the basis for his claim as

to the existence of a Babylonian Mishnah connected with the Nehardeans say (b. Betzah 6a), below, chapter three, section 4.1., pp. 5152. Similarly, see the sole source

introduction 15

other times, the evidence upon which scholarly claims rest is basedupon unnecessary interpretation of sources, or on a priori assumptions.66 These claims and their faults will be examined throughout the chapters of this book.

3.2. Differences in Legal Methodology

This book presents a systematic analysis of the entire halakhic corpus ascribed to each late Nehardean sage mentioned in the Bavli (includ-ing ascriptions found only in manuscripts) and a comparison of these findings with other contemporary sages. This comparison, an approach used by scholars in their research into Babylonian amoraim, allows us to better understand the nature and distinct features of the halakhic methodology which characterizes these late Nehardean amoraim. This analysis includes an examination of the following genres of statements attributed to these amoraim: halakhic decisionsin both concrete and academic cases,67 logical conclusions and analogies, proofs brought from earlier sources, interpretations, as well as a few other genres of literature.68 Due attention will also be paid to the legal basis upon which their disputes are based.

that served Yaavetz and Zuri in their characterization of late Nehardean amoraim, below, chapter two, section 2.1.

66 See for instance the evidence muered by Bacher and Yudelowitz, below appen-dix B or the proofs brought by Zuri and Yaavetz as to the connection between late Nehardean halakhah and the halakhot of Samuel and R. Nahman, below, chap-ter two, section 1, pp. 104106. Another example is Zevielis confusion between the meaning of the term the Nehardean say (amrei nehardeei) and the term the Nehard-eans go according to their own reasoning (nehardeei letaamayhu). Based on this identi-fication, Zevieli concluded that R. Hama was the collator of all literature ascribed to the Nehardeans say. For a critique see below, chapter three, section 4.1., p. 51.

67 It is customary for scholars to distinguish between halakhic statements and deci-sions made by amoraim in the framework of an academic discussion of a theoretical issue, and rulings issued by them in court cases or actual questions brought before them for a decision. See for instance: Guttman, Sheelot Akademiot BaTalmud, 43; Ben-Menahem, Judicial Deviation, 34. Nevertheless, research into the study and halakhic decisions made by Babylonian amoraim has not brought evidence to support such a distinction. Our findings have indicated that the patterns of thought and learning among amoraim were consistent and did not depend upon the venue in which the question posed arose: theoretical or actual. See for instance: B. Cohen, Rav Nahman and Rav Sheshet [Heb.], 31. See also below, chapter two, sections 4.3., pp. 5566; chapter three, section 2.3., pp. 119122.

68 In certain cases I have analyzed the methods of Nehardean amoraim in light of similar phenomena described in general legal studies. Of course, due caution must be exhibited in comparisons of this nature (see: Moscovitz, Talmudic Reasoning, 34). On the contribution and application of these legal disciplines to the study of rabbinic

16 chapter one

Our analysis has led us to conclude, that in contrast to a commonly held assumption among talmudic scholars and historians, we cannot speak of any Nehardean school which coalesced around a local halakhic tradition stemming from the pre-talmudic period or thereafter. Moreover, in our opinion we cannot even speak of late Nehardean amoraim as having any homogeneous style of learning or decision making. Indeed, the opposite is true. Despite the fact that they operated in the same geographical region and during the same historical period, late Nehardean amoraim differ from each other in the methods through which they make halakhic decisions and in the halakhic think-ing that underlies their rulings. In truth, it seems that in many cases a sages rulings depended more on his personal leanings, and perhaps on other external factors, and less on his inherited halakhic tradition from Nehardea or elsewhere. It turns out therefore that we must relate to Nehardean amoraim as a heterogeneous group, distinct one from the other in terms of legal thought and its application, much in the same way that amoraim from different geographical regions differ from each other.

Uncovering the methodological approaches that characterize a given amoras statements often affords a better scientific understanding of the passage in which the statement is embedded. This tends to be especially true in passages that have some difficulty or lack of clarity. Analysis of isolated passages is not always sufficient because at times it is possible to provide a more accurate understanding of a sages spe-cific statement by understanding it in light of statements made by the same sage in other places. A broad description of a sages methodology occasionally opens the possibility for an alternative understanding of one of his specific statements. Thus we can avoid a common problem in the scholarly study of rabbinic literaturethe unnecessary emen-dation of a rabbinic statement, or the ascription of part of the state-ment to interpolations by later editors. This is often a tool used by the modern scholar in order to solve certain difficulties.69 Through better

methodology, see mainly: Halbertal, Interpretive Revolutions [Heb.], 168203; Mosco-vitz, Talmudic Reasoning, 3337; Elman, Hercules and the Halakhic Tradition, 741; Hayes, Legal Truth, 73121 and n. 73; B. Cohen, Rami bar Hama in Contrast to Rava [Heb.], 149184; Ben-Menahem, Talmudic Law: A Jurisprudential Perspec-tive, 877898.

69 On difficult passages as a sign of later editing see for instance: Halivni, Sources and Traditions [Heb.], 4:8 (strained interpretations are an ouststanding sign . . . that the sources have not been presented to us in their original formulation); Feldblum,

introduction 17

understanding of the methods of these amoraim, we can solve these difficulties in other ways. There are other important consequences to our findings which we shall describe as we proceed.

3.3. The Late Nehardean Amoraim

We shall now proceed with a brief introduction to the late Nehardean amoraim which this work describes in depth. The main attributes, distinguishing characteristics, literary phenomena etc. associated with each of these sages (or in one case, with a group of sages) are briefly outlined here. Support for these descriptions, bibliographical references and in general greater depth of analysis can be found in each of the chapters devoted to these figures.70

3.3.1. The Nehardeans Say (Chapter Three)The halakhot ascribed to the Nehardeans say, present a unified and coherent halakhic approach, focusing mainly on concrete issues of daily halakhah. They are mostly concerned with financial matters, and less occupied with matters of religious prohibitions. As far as the literary setting of these statements, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the Nehardeans say respond to the statements of earlier amoraim with whom they essentially agree. In such cases they expand the applica-bility of the earlier halakhah, find support for it from the Mishnah, explain the halakhah, use it in decision making, or find exceptions to its applicability. Even in their halakhic disputes with other amoraim, they basically agree with the previously stated halakhah. What seems to be a disagreement with the earlier opinion can in actuality be under-stood as an extension of the applicability of that halakhah. Put sharply, the Nehardeans say almost always react to earlier statements and very rarely initiate their own literature. This phenomenon is manifested in the very wording of their statements. In nearly every case in which they dispute an earlier opinion, their opinion cannot be understood outside of the context of the previous statement. In other words, since

Mishnah Yetera, 14 (In general, it is possible to say that the sign of a late pas-sage or late material is that the difficulties raised are weak and the resolutions are strained).

70 Throughout this book, my analysis of late Nehardean amoraim does not follow chronological order, but rather the amoras literary contribution and halakhic impact. In each chapter I reexamine the dating of the amora discussed. For a table that sum-marizes the chronology of these amoraim see above, section 1.2., p. 10.

18 chapter one

they usually expand the applicability of the previous opinion (with phrases such as even in case X or even because of X), one must know the previous opinion in order to even understand what the Nehardeans are speaking about. In three cases a halakhic ruling issued in a concrete case is ascribed to them, but this ruling is nothing but the application of a halakhah found in the Mishnah. Even fewer are the cases in which the Nehardeans statement is stated apodictically. Nehardeans say statements almost never open a discussion, nor are they based on reasoning and logic alone. These characteristics exist in sharp contrast with statements attributed to R. Hama and Amemar, other Nehardean amoraim who were active during the second half of the fourth century.

3.3.2. R. Zebid of Nehardea (Chapter Five)Evidence points to R. Zebid of Nehardea as having been rosh yeshiva in the local yeshiva in Nehardea and to have died before 375/376. The literature attributed to R. Zebid of Nehardea has certain charac-teristics which distinguish him from other late Nehardean amoraim.

First, R. Zebid of Nehardeas literary contributions in the Bavli are not documented in a direct manner. Rather, his statements are always transmitted by one of two amoraim who were subordinate to himR. Kahana of Pum Nahara or Amemar. The report of R. Zebid of Nehardeas responses to other amoraim is nearly always stated in a retroactive fashion, in first person, using the expression, I stated my tradition in front of R. Zebid of Nehardea and he said [to me]. This expression is usually used in the Bavli to describe a student reporting a ruling, halakhah or opinion in front of his master (or another elder sage) in order to receive his teachers opinion.

Second, the content of R. Zebid of Nehardeas statements differs from those ascribed to other late Nehardean amoraim. (1) R. Zebid of Nehardea typically responds to an amoraic tradition recited in front of him by providing an alternative version of the tradition. In all of these cases the statement is ascribed to Nehardean amoraim (Sam-uel, R. Nahman or R. Hama). R. Zebid of Nehardeas responses are usually worded in the following manner: You (pl.) recite it that way, we recite it this way. Deeper analysis of these passages demonstrates that the versions of amoraic statements put forth by R. Zebid of Nehardea oppose the versions found among his contemporaries in Babylonia. This phenomenon is most noteworthy on b. Kiddushin 72b where Amemar stands in front of R. Ashi and insists upon the correct-

introduction 19

ness of the version of a statement attributed to Samuel which he heard from R. Zebid of Nehardea, despite the fact that this version disagrees with the version of the statement taught in the house of R. Kahana, the house of R. Papa, and the house of R. Zebid. It seems that as a Nehardean, R. Zebid of Nehardea had access to alternative versions of statements made by his predecessors in Nehardea, and especially by those of sages who lived slightly before his time. This could explain the special respect which Amemar accorded these statements.

Third, R. Zebid of Nehardea tends to critique or reject interpreta-tions, opinions or halakhic rulings that do not accord with the context or halakhah found in the tannaitic source. In other words, his halakhic opinions tend to stay close to those found or reflected in tannaitic sources. His approach to interpretation stems from an assumption, described by modern legal scholars, that a judge or interpreter is subject to the law found in sanctioned sources. In this way R. Zebid of Nehardea differs sharply from other late Nehardean amoraim especially R. Hama and Amemar.

3.3.3. R. Dimi of Nehardea (Chapter Six)R. Dimi of Nehardea was a fifth generation Babylonia amora, who according to geonic chronicles stood at the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita for three years, until his death in 388. Most of his contri-butions to the talmudic record are in areas of halakhah which would occur within the framework of daily life. In almost all of the literature attributed to him (70%) R. Dimi of Nehardea disputes amoraim who preceded him, including Nehardean amoraim (Rav and Samuel, R. Yohanan, R. Nahman, Abbaye, Rava and R. Papa). Analysis of these passages demonstrates that he disputes with the previously presented opinion based on his own reasoning, and not based on traditional sources or even on local traditions. In addition, in a few cases R. Dimi of Nehardea disagrees with a halakhah stated by an earlier amora, and presents the opposite tradition, using the term teaches the opposite (matni ipkha). This predisposition stands in stark contrast with that detected in the Nehardeans say traditions, in which the Nehard-eans tend to expand the application of the earlier opinion. Disputing earlier opinions based on logic is also characteristic of R. Hama and Amemar. Nevertheless, in the case of R. Dimi of Nehardea, there is no indication that his reasoning contradicts tannaitic traditions, as is the case with R. Hama and Amemar.

20 chapter one

3.3.4. Amemar and R. Hama (Chapters Two and Four)R. Hama was active in Nehardea during the fifth generation of amo-raim and died in 377. Amemar was active during the second half of the fourth century; the date of his death is estimated to the beginning of the fifth century. Amemar was clearly the dominant halakhic figure among late Nehardean amoraim (he appears in the Bavli about 200 times), and his activity and halakhic influence seems to have extended beyond the borders of Nehardea to Mahoza and other places as well.

Amemar and R. Hama are documented in the Bavli mainly as judges and legal instructors (appearing in the house of the exilarch, in court cases and in public expositions). Analysis of their corpus of halakhah reveals that they share a similar halakhic methodology, even though this methodology is more noticeable in terms of both quality and quantity with regard to Amemar. Both amoraim exhibit a critical approach to normative sources (tannaitic sources and early amoraic statements). They both employ independent legal reasoning and a keen ability to navigate between different circumstances. This causes them to deviate at times from the accepted tannaitic or amoraic halakhah.71

71 Recently, Elman noted that towards the end of the Sasanian period Zoroastrian law also gave consideration to changing circumstances even if this caused the change of earlier Sasanian law. See Elman, Scripture Versus Contemporary Needs, 159163. From her analysis of Persian legal terminology found in the Bavli, Macuch, Iranian Legal Terminology, 91101, concluded that Babylonian amoraim were aware of the legal processes in Persian courts, and were even influenced by them (ibid., 100). While it is true that halakhic rulings which are adjusted based on circumstances are not necessarily influenced by external legal processes, the fact that the same phenomena existed in the Iranian legal system does support the existence of such tendencies among Babylonian amoraim. As to the comparison between the methods of study employed by Babylonian amoraim and those of the Syrian Christian schools from the end of the fifth century and onwards, it seems that there are not only differences in their interpretive techniques, but also in their areas of interest. Recently, Adam Becker, The Comparative Study of Scholasticism, 103, wrote,

A simple comparison of the content and method of study at the schools points to striking differences. In contrast to the rabbinic academies, there was no legal dimension to the East Syrian study. . . . Apart from church canons, the East Syr-ians composed almost no legal texts and did not seem to have been interested in law, nor is there evidence that they were acquainted with contemporary Jewish law. Similarly, as we know, the rabbis did not produce texts in any of the multiple genres in which the East Syrians composed, nor is there significant evidence that they were aware of East Syrian learned literature, such as East Syrian monastic and theological literature or texts employing Greek philosophical logic.

We can add to Beckers conclusion, that the distinctions between rabbis and Syrian Christians with regard to literary contribution and interpretive methodology also exists when we compare the Christians with the saboraim, who operated in the sixth and seventh centuries. For a discussion concerning the literature of the savoraim see

introduction 21

These characteristics match the approach termed by modern legal scholars, legal realism. Reading their statements, the reader is marked by the impression that the halakhah in Nehardea, under the guidance of R. Hama and Amemar, was more dependent upon the personality and legal methodology of the individual judge than upon the theoretical halakhah contained in the normative sources. This is especially true of Amemar, who at times intentionally rules in opposi-tion to a mishnah, a baraita, an early halakhic tradition (including those issued in the name of Samuel and R. Nahman) or in opposition to the rules of halakhic decision making accepted in his time.

Testimony to this phenomenon can be found in the large number of difficulties that R. Ashi raises against Amemar (about forty cases) and the resolutions provided by Amemar (or the stam on his behalf ) which typically offer strained interpretations of the tannaitic sources used by R. Ashi as refutations. At times Amemar avoids any direct answer to R. Ashi, and rather states, I did not hear of it (that is to say, it is not reasonable to me). Modern scholars have also had dif-ficulty in explaining these phenomena, and have systematically pre-ferred not to accept the ascription of these resolutions to Amemar (or R. Hama). Instead, scholars have ascribed these statements to inter-polations made by late editors. In our opinion, before explaining these statements away as later interpolations, we should take into account the strong possibility that these interpretations stem from Amemars halakhic audacity and the authority which he enjoyed. This boldness and authority is even reflected in Amemars well-known statement, a sage is greater than a prophet (b. Bava Batra 12a).72

In a series of important studies, Yaakov Elman demonstrated that external factors such as the Manichaean polemics in Mahoza in the fourth century (where Amemar was active, beyond his activity in Nehardea), could exert an influence on an Amoras rulings.73 These

mainly: Cohen, The Saboraic Halakhah [Heb.], 161214; Elman, The World of the Saboraim, 383415.

72 See below, chapter two, section 5.3., pp. 9597. The connection between an amoras personality and his literary contribution to the Talmud has been demon-strated elsewhere. See: A. Cohen, Mar bar Rav Ashi [Heb.], 2227; B. Cohen, Rav Nahman and Rav Sheshet [Heb.], 14. It is also a phenomenon well-documented in general legal literature, where the judges personality is often thought to be one of the dominant factors in determining the course of his rulings.

73 See above, footnote 34, and below, chapter two, p. 97 footnote 269. Indeed, a number of sugyot state explicitly that Amemars ruling, which contradicts the tan-naitic tradition, stems from the changing circumstances in his locale. See, for instance, Amemars halakhic rulings in actual cases, below, chapter two, section 4.3. pp. 5565.

22 chapter one

religious polemics centered around the question of the authority of various leaders to interpret their holy scriptures, and to apply them to their daily lives. This understanding finds expression in Manis own writings. Elman demonstrated that the religious atmosphere of the surrounding culture permeated the statements of R. Nahman and Rava. In my opinion, the surrounding religious culture, whose impact was felt by the Jewish community in Mahoza, may have also served as a contributing influence upon the legal thinking and world outlook of Amemar.

4. Broader Implications Ensuing from this Study

4.1. Deviation from the Halakhic Tradition and Strained Interpretations of Tannaitic Texts

Above, I noted a tendency among modern talmudic researchers to resolve difficulties in amoraic statements by ascribing these statements, or at least parts thereof, to later editors. Here, I will focus on how this tendency comes into fruition with some of the strained interpretations found in Amemars statements. In about five percent of Amemars approximate 200 appearances in the Bavli he is portrayed as inter-preting a tannaitic source. In and of itself this paucity of tannaitic interpretation is noteworthy when compared with other amoraim, and even Nehardean amoraim, who more frequently are found interpret-ing tannaitic sources. In all of these cases Amemars interpretations are highly strained. Most of Amemars rulings and halakhic dicta simply do not accord with the halakhah found in tannaitic sources. The dif-ficulties that traditional commentators raised on these statements often led to even more strained resolutions, and in many cases they were forced to limit an interpretation or ruling of Amemar to a narrow cir-cumstance. Needless to say, these interpretations do not tend to accord with simple readings of the sources themselves.

Talmudic researchers have had difficulty in accepting these passages as they are presented, and have tended, as I stated above, to resolve

However, caution must be taken in this approach, see: Hayes, Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, 89. It should be further noted that this study presents a broad picture of the halakhic methodology of Amemar and the later Nehardeans, based on a systematic analysis of their literary contribution. I believe this picture remains true, even if some of the rulings might have been caused by political, social or reli-gious circumstances. See, for instance, below, chapter four, p. 148. Furthermore, these important studies tend to support the findings presented here. See, for instance, below, chapter two, p. 97 footnote 270, and chapter four, p. 148.

introduction 23

Amemars unusual methodology by either emending his statements, or by ascribing them or parts thereof to a later editor. A founda-tional assumption among modern talmudic researchers is that strained interpretations and statements ascribed to amoraim are a sign that the words may not accurately reflect what the amora actually said, and that later interpolations may have crept into his statement. This assumption results in an attempt to reconstruct the original words of the amora. For our purposes, we should note that the multiplicity of attempts to resolve in such a manner the difficulties found in Ame-mars statements attest to how difficult it was for scholars to accept that the source of these passages, as they are in front of us, might have indeed been Amemar himself.

In my opinion this type of solution is often unnecessary in the case of Amemar. The two phenomena that we have noted in con-nection with Amemarthe fact that his rulings contradict tannaitic tradition and the existence of strained interpretations to tannaitic sourcesare interrelated. I shall explain. The main literary contribu-tion of the amoraim was their interpretation of the Mishnah, both as a goal unto itself and as a means to resolve contradictions. This was a multi-faceted activity and it included: interpretations of the Mishnahs words, halakhot and measures, identification of various viewpoints, explanation of the reasons that lay behind the halakhot, deductions from the Mishnahs language, and more. Analysis of the passages in which Amemar is documented as interpreting a tannaitic source reveals that his motivation was not to explain the tannaitic source for its own sake. Rather, Amemars interpretations were a result of his need to resolve the tannaitic source such that it would not contradict his own ruling. In nearly all cases in which Amemar interprets a tan-naitic source, his interpretation comes as a result of a difficulty raised upon him in an encounter with his student, R. Ashi. In other words, Amemars strained interpretations are a result of the circumstances in which they arose.74 A halakhic ruling that contradicted tannaitic or early amoraic tradition caused a difficulty to be raised, usually by R. Ashi, which in turn led Amemar (or at times the anonymous editor, the stam) to suggest a strained interpretation in an attempt to resolve the contradiction.

74 The geonim were already troubled by the strained resolution (shinnuya dekhika) offered by an amora as a result of a difficulty raised on his opinion by another amora. This is an issue that we will discuss in greater depth in chapter two, sections 4.6 (a)(b), pp. 8486.

24 chapter one

This phenomenon explains why it is specifically Amemar who offers such a large number of strained interpretations. The consistency with which Amemar acts throughout a wide variety of situations, including his interactions with his contemporaries, leads to the obvious conclusion that these passages are a reflection of Amemars style of learning. In other words, at times the level of their difficulty indicates that the words of an amora are actually a reliable witness to their amoraic source. As Halivni has stated, the academic approach leaves the dif-ficulty and does not remove it. Rather, it explains the source of such a difficulty and how it arose.75 In sum, there is not always a need to resolve Amemars or other late Nehardean amoraims statements by emending their words or by ascribing parts of their statements to interpolations by later editors; rather it is possible to understand their origins as we have suggested here. Our study into amoraic interpreta-tion, halakhah and discourse reveals that the tendency of an amora to offer a strained interpretation to a tannaitic text, or a tendency to rule in opposition to tannaitic tradition, is an individual matter, and does not characterize all Babylonian amoraim or the entire Babylo-nian Talmud in the same way.

I have not found any basis for Hanina Ben-Menahems claims that Babylonian amoraimin contrast with Palestinian amoraimare characterized by an overall tolerance of deviations from the rulings found in accepted sources.76 Ben-Menahem writes:

The Jerusalem Talmud is usually opposed to judicial deviation from the law and strives to understand and account for early traditions reflecting such deviation . . . . Overall, the Jerusalem Talmud rejects the possibility of judicial deviation from the law. In contrast, the Babylonian Talmud is unconcerned by early traditions reflecting deviation from the law and does not attempt to bring the practice of judicial deviation within the limits of rules . . . Generally speaking, the Babylonian Talmud accepts the possibility of judicial deviation from the law and at times even views such deviation favourably.77

It seems to me that we must, at the least, temper Ben-Menahems broad generalization concerning all Babylonian amoraim and the entire Bavli. Study of the methodology of Babylonian amoraim does not sup-

75 Halivni, Introduction to Sources and Traditions, 33.76 See: Ben-Menahem, The Respective Attitude [Heb.], 113134; ibid., Judicial

Deviation, 181182; ibid., The Judicial Process, 428430. 77 Ben-Menahem, The Judicial Process, 428.

introduction 25

port such broad conclusions. My study of the halakhic methodology and interpretation of Nehardean amoraim shows that the phenome-non of amoraim deviating from accepted halakhic sources is not found consistently even among the yeshiva heads in a single geographical location over a period of over 150 years. There are contradictory tendencies in halakhic rulings and commentary found in Nehardea throughout the talmudic period. We have, for instance, the baraitot of Tanna DBei Shmuel (first half of the third century), and the state-ments of R. Sheshet (second half of third century), the Nehardeans say and R. Zebid of Nehardea (first half of the fourth century) which can all be characterized, each in his own way, by a trend towards halakhic conservatism. These statements all exhibit a high degree of dependence upon tannaitic and early amoraic tradition. In contrast, R. Nahman, R. Hama and Amemar exhibit exact opposite tenden-cies, relying systematically upon logic and indepe