Did the babylonian sages regard the Ammei-ha'Aretz as subhuman?
The current scholarly consensus that the later Babylonian sages held ammei-ha'aretz in contempt is based on the sugya in Bavli Pesaḥim 49a-b, which contains many harsh and dehumanizing statements about the ammei-ha'aretz . The historical interpretation that treats this sugya as composed of...
| Published in: | Hebrew Union College annual |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
HUC
2016
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Judaism
/ Fremdvölkerdarstellung
/ Talmûd bavlî. Pesaḥim
/ Talmûd yerûšalmî
|
| IxTheo Classification: | BH Judaism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The current scholarly consensus that the later Babylonian sages held ammei-ha'aretz in contempt is based on the sugya in Bavli Pesaḥim 49a-b, which contains many harsh and dehumanizing statements about the ammei-ha'aretz . The historical interpretation that treats this sugya as composed of late Babylonian material is based on two claims: (1) since this material is found only in the Babylonian Talmud, and Palestinian sources are uniformly positive about the ammei-ha'aretz , the teachings in this sugya are likely to be Babylonian pseudepigraphy and (2) the sugya in Bavli Pesaḥim shows signs of the intervention of the editors of the Babylonian Talmud. This view is mistaken. The attributions in this sugya - all to Palestinian rabbis - should be taken at face value. A number of considerations support the conclusion that this is a Palestinian sugya: (1) There is no case in the Babylonian Talmud in which a Babylonian Amora or the Talmud's anonymous voice expresses hostility toward ammei-ha'aretz . (2) There are several passages in the Babylonian Talmud aside from the sugya in Pesaḥim in which Palestinian sages express hostility toward ammei-ha'aretz . (3) Palestinian rabbinic literature is not as unequivocally positive toward ammei-ha'aretz as is generally thought. Instead, it contains several passages in which hostile statements about ammei-ha'aretz have been softened by their redactional contexts. (4) The many positive statements about ammei-ha'aretz found in Palestinian rabbinic literature are hyperbolically positive and sound polemical. This suggests that there was a negative Palestinian view of the ammei-ha'aretz with which these sources are arguing. (5) In many cases, we can identify the views against which the sages in Palestinian rabbinic literature are arguing with views expressed by Palestinian sages in the sugya in Bavli Pesaḥim. (6) The currently accepted analysis which detects signs of editorial intervention in this sugya is flawed. Reassigning the Pesaḥim sugya to the Palestinian context improves our historical understanding of relations between rabbis and non-rabbis in both Palestine and Babylonia. This analysis also serves as a caution against the prevalent assumption that purportedly Palestinian material found only in the Babylonian Talmud was created by Babylonian editors. This article joins several recent studies in identifying originally Palestinian material that was preserved exclusively in the Babylonian Talmud. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.15650/hebruniocollannu.87.2016.0115 |