andrewcriddle

It's an interesting explanation, but I'm dubious about explaining a passage in the Babylonian Talmud on the basis of the Yerushalmi. Do we have a reference to the 'leprous student' anywhere else ?

(I've checked and it doesn't seem to be in the Tosefta Chagigah.)

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
I think you'll find this article from the Drashi informative:

http://www.kosherjudaism.com/vsan98names.pdf

If you can read Hebrew you'll see that the Drashi uses the literal Hebrew word for "leprosy" yet translates it as "afflicted". In Biblical Hebrew leprosy was the general illustration of "afflicted" and can have a general meaning. If you look at the related Talmudic passages you'll see that they are heavily afflicted with the inter-changeability of "afflicted" and "leprous". This is my main point. If the two words were largely sinonymous to "The Rabbis" what motivation would they have for preferring one over the other? On the other hand of God, for a Christian who thinks it refers to Jesus, which would they prefer, "leprous" or "afflicted"?

You can also see that Rashi stated it referred to the leper scholar well before Martini (or R. Schulman).

As the Drashi explains the offending verse is not original anyway but added after Yehudah HaNasi's time. If you know who this was then you'll know it wasn't part of the original Midrash.

As Arte Johnson used to say, I think you'll find this excerpt, "vehy interesting":

This could be a reason not to name the leper scholar. As the Greeks say, it would "gammo" up the Acronym.

I'll leave it to you to let Fishbane know about all of this.

Martini's question about what was the earliest source for the Talmud reminds me too much of my statement that the earliest manuscripts for "On The Apostolic Preaching" were after Erasmus and those funny old jokes like, "When was the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar?" or "Grant me, who's buried in Jesus' tomb?".



Joseph

"Ya gotta have skin, it helps keep your insides in." - Allen Sherman


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

andrewcriddle

I'm probably going to try to make a proper response to Joseph's interesting post, when I've looked some stuff up.

However I did find something interesting which appears to support Joseph's argument about the association with leprosy.

The Vulgate renders Isaiah 53:4 as The reference to Leprosy here seems to be due to Jerome and may possibly be based on some rabbinic tradition known to Jerome.

Andrew Criddle

Notsri

Hi, Joseph. Without entering the fray more fully, I wanted to offer this small objection:

The entirety of this midrash, as borne out by the authorities named within it, had to have been composed after the time of Yehudah HaNasi (d. 219 CE). Shila, for example, was a 3rd-century Amora; Yannai an Amora from the 2nd-3rd c.; and the expression "some say" (translated "there are those who say" by "the Drashi") typically refers to an Amora from the 3rd c., Nathan ben Rav. So there's no reason, at least on the basis suggested by the Drashi, for rejecting the authenticity of the passage to the midrash.

Regards,
Notsri

andrewcriddle

Thinking about it there seem to be two issues.

a/ Was 'afflicted' in Isaiah 53:4 understood in early Rabbinic tradition to refer to leprosy ?

Yes, probably from at least the time of Jerome's Vulgate.
This is probably how the passage in the Babylonian Talmud about the Messiah asociated with the House of Rabbi, was generally understood from the time of its composition.

b/ What was the original text of the passage in tractate Sanhedrin ? ie did it read (ch)ivra (literally bleached/whitened ie leper) or (ch)ulya (literally afflicted one probably implying leper) ?

We have ancient though questionable testimony (Martini etc) to (ch)ulya compared to the (later) Talmudic manuscripts which read (ch)ivra.

Rashi clearly understood the passage as meaning 'leper' however his Talmudic text could have read either.

In fact given the influence of Rashi's commentary on the later textual history of the Babylonian Talmud, it would seem possible that under this influence the Talmudic manuscripts have been modified to connect more closely the text with Rashi's interpretation of it.

In conclusion, I am at the moment tentatively in agreement with Joseph that 'afflicted' in Isaiah 53:4 and related Midrash was generally regarded in Rabbinic tradition as referring to leprosy. However I still regard Martini's version of the Sanhedrin text (as distinct from its meaning in context) as probably closer to the original than existing manuscripts of the Talmud.

Andrew Criddle

martini

well, his riposte was that i look up Jonathan ben Uzziel (traditionally second century) as well as Arnold Fruchtenbaum (contemporary) and Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (16th century).

from what i have seen, what is attributed to Uzziel (the Meg 3a) is only a traditional authorship. source here.

THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN (YONATHAN)

The Targum to the Prophets (priores, historical books; posteriores, the actual Prophets) now in existence is ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, who is said on the authority of the Babylonian Megillah, 3a, to have formulated it orally, in accordance with the instructions of Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi. This assertion probably means that in his exposition he gives the traditional interpretation that had been handed down from one generation to another since early times. According to the Babylonian Sukkah (28a = baba bathra 134a), he was the most noted pupil of the elder Hillel, and is therefore assigned to the first Christian century. The Babylonian Talmud in quoting passages from this Targum ascribes them to Rab Joseph bar Hiya (d. 333), the head of the school at Pumbaditha. Rab Joseph was regarded as a great authority on the tradition of the Targum and his judgment on the translation of many individual passages was eagerly listened to; he may perhaps be considered as the editor of this Targum. For Jonathan as for Onkelos the final settlement of the written form did not occur until the fifth Christian century.

it appears that this is traditionally attributed to him i would imagine in the same way that Luke wrote his Gospel...

any merit to this earlier reference? i cannot find this text on-line, so i cannot even be sure that there is any mention for or against leprosy.

thanks.


mike

Notsri

There is, as far as I can tell, no reference to leprosy in the Targum. For what it's worth, here's an excerpt (English only; don't have the Aramaic) of the relevant verse from the Targum, 53:4: It's worth mention as well that, the Targum Jonathan does appear to contain some very ancient traditions, though some are also the product of later generations, as the website you've quoted seems to imply. The reason I mention this is that, some scholars of targumic literature (e.g. Bruce Chilton) are inclined to situate the composition of the Targum Jonathan to Isaiah 53 in the Tannaitic Period (ca. 70-220 CE), probably even late 1st-early 2nd c. CE. So your friend may be correct in dating Targum Jonathan to the 2nd c., at least as far as ch. 53 and the verse in question, v. 4, are concerned; he may be partially right, though perhaps for the wrong reasons (as Jonathan ben Uzziel likely did not contribute to the Targum, IIUC).



Incidentally and probably of less interest to your inquiry, some targumic scholars do consider that Rab Joseph may have been the (an) editor of the Targum Jonathan, but it's by no means certain, as the website insinuated. To clarify one point, however, the Talmud does not, to my knowledge, attribute targumic texts from the prophets to Rab Joseph. Rather, he's on occasion found quoting the Targum, which is to say, he apparently possessed an already-existing targum text. One good example would be Moed Katan 28b, from the Babylonian Talmud: And then he quotes the Targum Jonathan to Zechariah 12:11.

Joseph's apparent predilection for the Targum, since he more than any other rabbi, to my knowledge, is found quoting the Targum in the Talmud, may, according to one opinion, be explained by his blindness, and the rabbinic prohibition (b. Gittin 60b) against orally transmitting doctrine that was initially written material. Of course, since he was blind, Joseph's instruction was always given by way of oral transmission. And since the Aramaic targums were initially oral not written materials, in contradistinction to the Hebrew text of the Torah (as far as religious Jews were concerned), Joseph could recite the targumic texts, without any transgression of the law.

Regards,
Notsri