Was Age the Decisive Criterion of Subordination Among the Amoraim?
The present study will argue that, throughout the Babylonian Talmud, the age of a scholar was the major factor determining the hierarchical relationship between two amoraim. The younger scholar always conducted himself as subordinate to the older, bowing to his halakhic authority, even if the younge...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Penn Press
2002
|
| In: |
The Jewish quarterly review
Year: 2002, Volume: 92, Issue: 3, Pages: 279-313 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The present study will argue that, throughout the Babylonian Talmud, the age of a scholar was the major factor determining the hierarchical relationship between two amoraim. The younger scholar always conducted himself as subordinate to the older, bowing to his halakhic authority, even if the younger scholar held a higher position, such as head of an academy. The talmudic sources do not reveal the ages of amoraim in general, not to speak of the age of a specific amora engaged in debate with a subordinate amora. To support my thesis, therefore, it was necessary to rely on cumulative evidence (including circumstantial and statistical evidence). In such arguments, the weight of each datum is not necessarily decisive, but the combination of all data presented possesses cumulative, probabilistic weight, leading to a single conclusion. At any rate, it appears that no factor other than age can convincingly explain my findings. The article will also briefly address the possibility suggested recently by some scholars that the facts described in the Talmud—in particular with regard to the present subject—are not historical but rather fictitious. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1553-0604 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The Jewish quarterly review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2002.0002 |