Papers by Yuval Blankovsky
Reading Talmudic Sources as Arguments, 2020
Review of Rabbinic Judaism
By discussing a short sugya, this paper demonstrates how to read the components of a typical Talm... more By discussing a short sugya, this paper demonstrates how to read the components of a typical Talmudic discussion – Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi and Bavli – as arguments. In contrast to widely used academic approaches, I show that it is possible to ascribe disagreement to parallel sources without passing judgment either on their chronological order or on whether one of the sources is a direct response to the other. The appendix offers a new theoretical model for approaching the synoptic problem in rabbinic literature.
Rabbinic Literature, Apr 22, 2022
The Babylonian Talmud (BT) attributes the idea of committing a transgression for the sake of God ... more The Babylonian Talmud (BT) attributes the idea of committing a transgression for the sake of God to R. Nahman b. Isaac (RNBI). RNBI's statement appears in two parallel sugyot in the BT (Nazir 23a; Horayot 10a). Each sugya has four textual witnesses. By comparing these textual witnesses, this paper will attempt to reconstruct the sugya's earlier (or, what some might term, original) dialectical form, from which the two familiar versions of the text in Nazir and Horayot evolved. This article reveals the specific ways in which, value-laden conceptualizations have a major impact on the Talmud's formulation, as we know it today.
Review of Rabbinic Judaism, 2015
This article offers a detailed description of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s commentary on the Talmudic... more This article offers a detailed description of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s commentary on the Talmudic discussions about the requirement for proper intention when making Jewish ritual objects, i.e., Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, etc., and a comparison to the academic commentary on that issue. It describes the relationship between the two genres of commentary, academic and rabbinic, and illustrates the differences and similarities between the commentaries of these two parallel interpretive communities. In this way, the paper sheds new light on the character of R. Hayyim as a Talmudic commentator.
Jewish Quarterly Review
This paper, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the first sugy... more This paper, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the first sugya of tractate Baba Kama, a well-known Talmudic passage about the four fathers of damages – four categories of torts; and their offspring -- derivative torts. The examination of this Talmudic passage by previous scholars has resulted in the thus-far undisputed estimation that explicating the amoraic statement of R. Papa (4th CE) is the central goal of this Talmudic passage. I suggest putting forward additional interpretive question: ‘what is the author of this passage doing by composing this passage in this particular way?’ which is related to Quentin Skinner’s methodological writings. This interpretive question results in the appreciation that explicating R. Papa’s statement is merely a marginal goal of the sugya’s narrator, who is, at the same time, doing something else: negating the Mishnaic criterion for liability of torts by offering an alternative one. The author of the Talmudic passage does so by rephrasing the Mishnaic criterion ten times in the Talmudic discussion. This paper demonstrates the benefits of adding an interpretive question focused on the dimension of linguistic action as well as the techniques for answering it.
Review of Rabbinic Judaism
This paper explores the common ground and differences between academic and rabbinic Talmudic herm... more This paper explores the common ground and differences between academic and rabbinic Talmudic hermeneutics. It does this by situating R. Elhanan Bunem Wasserman’s (1874–1941) inquiry pertaining to the much beloved Talmudic debate over “Two Hold a Cloak” within the context of the critical academic commentary on that Talmudic discourse.
AJS Review, 2014
The Babylonian Talmud (BT) attributes the idea of committing a transgression for the sake of God ... more The Babylonian Talmud (BT) attributes the idea of committing a transgression for the sake of God to R. Naḥman b. Isaac (RNBI). RNBI's statement appears in two parallel sugyot in the BT (Nazir 23a; Horayot 10a). Each sugya has four textual witnesses. By comparing these textual witnesses, this paper will attempt to reconstruct the sugya's earlier (or, what some might term, original) dialectical form, from which the two familiar versions of the text in Nazir and Horayot evolved. This article reveals the specific ways in which, value-laden conceptualizations have a major impact on the Talmud's formulation, as we know it today.
Journal for the Study of Judaism
This article, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the Talmudic... more This article, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the Talmudic discussion about the decapitation penalty. This short Talmudic passage has been commented upon by many prominent scholars. However, this article suggests a different reading, one based upon posing an additional interpretive question: “what is the author doing in composing the passage in this particular way?” The valuable insights of past scholars are not dismissed by my reading, but they are placed in a different context and hence possess different meanings. At the heart of my analysis is my ambition to articulate the central issue of the particular discourse in which these Talmudic sources participate. I add an explanation of the parallel Talmudic sources that explicate why each of the source’s authors chooses to present the shared tradition in his own particular way. I demonstrate the benefits of adding this interpretive question and the techniques for answering it.
Journal for the Study of Judaism
This article, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the Talmudic... more This article, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the Talmudic discussion about the decapitation penalty. This short Talmudic passage has been commented upon by many prominent scholars. However, this article suggests a different reading, one based upon posing an additional interpretive question: “what is the author doing in composing the passage in this particular way?” The valuable insights of past scholars are not dismissed by my reading, but they are placed in a different context and hence possess different meanings. At the heart of my analysis is my ambition to articulate the central issue of the particular discourse in which these Talmudic sources participate. I add an explanation of the parallel Talmudic sources that explicate why each of the source’s authors chooses to present the shared tradition in his own particular way. I demonstrate the benefits of adding this interpretive question and the techniques for answering it.
In manchen Kommentaren der Weisen zu verschiedenen biblischen Verführungsgeschichten findet sich ... more In manchen Kommentaren der Weisen zu verschiedenen biblischen Verführungsgeschichten findet sich ein überraschendes Interpretationsmuster. In den betreffenden Fällen neigt der rabbinische Kommentar dazu, die (meist ausländischen) Frauen in den Geschichten positiv zu bewerten und ihnen eine gute Absicht zu unterstellen, während die Männer von den Rabbinen verurteilt werden. Dieses bislang unerforschte Muster ist einmalig in der rabbinischen Literatur 1 und in anderen, nicht-rabbinischen Werken derselben Zeit nicht nachweisbar; so finden wir beispielsweise keine nicht-rabbinischen Kommentare, die Lots Töchter loben und Lot, der mit seinen Töchtern geschlafen hat, verurteilen. Und ebenso wenig finden wir Kommentare, die Tamar dafür loben, dass sie Juda verführt hat, und Juda im Gegenzug verurteilen, wie es in Teilen der rabbinischen Literatur der Fall ist. Demgegenüber finden wir im Testament Judas und im Jubiläenbuch die Botschaft, dass Juda unschuldig sei, während Ersteres Tamar und Letzteres Judas Frau, der Tochter Schuas, die Schuld gibt. 2 Und schließlich finden wir -und das ist äußerst erstaunlich -in der rabbinischen Literatur sogar einen Kommentar, der die Frau des Potifar lobt und erklärt, sie habe Josef um des Himmels willen verführen wollen. Auch dies ist eine Vorstellung, die meines Wissens in nicht-rabbinischen Kommentaren derselben Zeit nicht nachweisbar ist.
An unsuitable path into the Talmud, 2020
An article about Daf Yomi
Journal for the Study of Judaism , 2019
This paper discusses a Talmudic sugya which has been analyzed in detail by Aharon Shemesh z”l, B... more This paper discusses a Talmudic sugya which has been analyzed in detail by Aharon Shemesh z”l, Beth Berkowitz and Yair Lorberbaum. Despite the significant commentary of these prominent scholars, I claim that achieving a comprehensive understanding of these sources requires addressing the argumentative dimension of the Talmudic sources. I maintain that one should read these sources as op-eds instead of news articles.
This beautiful miniature Talmudic passage contains some of the most fundamental literary phenomena of classic rabbinic literature: parallels of Mishnah and Tosefta, parallels of Yerushalmi versus Bavli, different attribution between the Tosefta and the Bavli and so on. I suggest that former scholars implicitly ascribe to the Sages a firm perception of tradition, and I show that this approach does not succeed in explaining the sources and their internal relationships.
I maintain that the rabbis had a flexible perception of traditions. In the Sages discourse culture, there is great importance in using early traditions for presenting a stance. Early rabbinic traditions are used in Talmudic culture and not followed or dismissed. According to my view, the Talmudic sugya should be often read like an argument in the realm of early traditions and early formulations. This case study exemplifies the way in which early rabbinic traditions function in Talmudic discourse.
JQR 109, 2019
This paper, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the first sugy... more This paper, following a short methodological introduction, presents an analysis of the first sugya of tractate Baba Kama, a well-known Talmudic passage about the four fathers of damages – four categories of torts; and their offspring -- derivative torts. The examination of this Talmudic passage by previous scholars has resulted in the thus-far undisputed estimation that explicating the amoraic statement of R. Papa (4th CE) is the central goal of this Talmudic passage. I suggest putting forward additional interpretive question: ‘what is the author of this passage doing by composing this passage in this particular way?’ which is related to Quentin Skinner’s methodological writings. This interpretive question results in the appreciation that explicating R. Papa’s statement is merely a marginal goal of the sugya’s narrator, who is, at the same time, doing something else: negating the Mishnaic criterion for liability of torts by offering an alternative one. The author of the Talmudic passage does so by rephrasing the Mishnaic criterion ten times in the Talmudic discussion. This paper demonstrates the benefits of adding an interpretive question focused on the dimension of linguistic action as well as the techniques for answering it.
The Review of Rabbinic Judaism , 2018
This paper explores the common ground and differences between academic and rab-binic Talmudic her... more This paper explores the common ground and differences between academic and rab-binic Talmudic hermeneutics. It does this by situating R. Elhanan Bunem Wasserman's (1874–1941) inquiry pertaining to the much beloved Talmudic debate over " Two Hold a Cloak " within the context of the critical academic commentary on that Talmudic discourse.
המאמר מתמקד בהתפתחות דין לשמה בהכנת תשמישי קודשה בלבד, דהיינו ציצית, תפילין, מזוזה וספר תורה. ליב... more המאמר מתמקד בהתפתחות דין לשמה בהכנת תשמישי קודשה בלבד, דהיינו ציצית, תפילין, מזוזה וספר תורה. ליבת המאמר היא ניתוח הברייתא הבבלית שממנה מסיק התלמוד הבבלי כי לשיטת רשב"ג יש לעבד את עור התפילין "לשמה". השאלה העומדת על הפרק היא האותנטיות של הברייתא: האם הברייתא משקפת עמדה תנאית הסוברת שיש דין "לשמה" בהכנת תשמישי קדושה והיא משתלבת בתמונה שמצייר ליברמן לפיה בני א"י החמירו בדין "לשמה" יותר מבני בבל, או שמא יש לקבל את דברי גינצבורג שברייתא זו אינה משקפת את ספרות חז"ל הא"י
This article offers a detailed description of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s commentary on
the Talmudi... more This article offers a detailed description of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s commentary on
the Talmudic discussions about the requirement for proper intention when making
Jewish ritual objects, i.e., Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, etc., and a comparison to the academic
commentary on that issue. It describes the relationship between the two genres of
commentary, academic and rabbinic, and illustrates the differences and similarities
between the commentaries of these two parallel interpretive communities. In this way,
the paper sheds new light on the character of R. Hayyim as a Talmudic commentator.
Uploads
Papers by Yuval Blankovsky
This beautiful miniature Talmudic passage contains some of the most fundamental literary phenomena of classic rabbinic literature: parallels of Mishnah and Tosefta, parallels of Yerushalmi versus Bavli, different attribution between the Tosefta and the Bavli and so on. I suggest that former scholars implicitly ascribe to the Sages a firm perception of tradition, and I show that this approach does not succeed in explaining the sources and their internal relationships.
I maintain that the rabbis had a flexible perception of traditions. In the Sages discourse culture, there is great importance in using early traditions for presenting a stance. Early rabbinic traditions are used in Talmudic culture and not followed or dismissed. According to my view, the Talmudic sugya should be often read like an argument in the realm of early traditions and early formulations. This case study exemplifies the way in which early rabbinic traditions function in Talmudic discourse.
the Talmudic discussions about the requirement for proper intention when making
Jewish ritual objects, i.e., Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, etc., and a comparison to the academic
commentary on that issue. It describes the relationship between the two genres of
commentary, academic and rabbinic, and illustrates the differences and similarities
between the commentaries of these two parallel interpretive communities. In this way,
the paper sheds new light on the character of R. Hayyim as a Talmudic commentator.
This beautiful miniature Talmudic passage contains some of the most fundamental literary phenomena of classic rabbinic literature: parallels of Mishnah and Tosefta, parallels of Yerushalmi versus Bavli, different attribution between the Tosefta and the Bavli and so on. I suggest that former scholars implicitly ascribe to the Sages a firm perception of tradition, and I show that this approach does not succeed in explaining the sources and their internal relationships.
I maintain that the rabbis had a flexible perception of traditions. In the Sages discourse culture, there is great importance in using early traditions for presenting a stance. Early rabbinic traditions are used in Talmudic culture and not followed or dismissed. According to my view, the Talmudic sugya should be often read like an argument in the realm of early traditions and early formulations. This case study exemplifies the way in which early rabbinic traditions function in Talmudic discourse.
the Talmudic discussions about the requirement for proper intention when making
Jewish ritual objects, i.e., Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, etc., and a comparison to the academic
commentary on that issue. It describes the relationship between the two genres of
commentary, academic and rabbinic, and illustrates the differences and similarities
between the commentaries of these two parallel interpretive communities. In this way,
the paper sheds new light on the character of R. Hayyim as a Talmudic commentator.
For the entire book please send a request.
במושב פרשנות התלמוד הבבלי בימינו
בו השתתפו פרו' ירחמיאל ברודי, פרו' מרדכי סבתו ופרו' אהרון עמית