Matthew Goldstone
Academy for Jewish Religion
Publications
The Levitical commandment to rebuke (Lev. 19:17) is equivocal. Each clause of the verse presents a key ambiguity that, in the eyes of later interpreters, creates a tension with regard to practical application. Lev. 19:17a opens up the conflict between rebuke as primarily about extinguishing one’s animosity and rebuke as first and foremost about affecting the other party. The middle clause of the verse (Lev. 19:17b) raises the question of whether rebuke is a private interpersonal activity or a public judicial act. The third clause of the verse (Lev. 19:17c) provokes uncertainty as to whether one must rebuke or whether one should refrain from rebuke in order to avoid sin. These various tensions serve as the frame for the chapters that follow.
Part 1 opens with a chapter that examines the competing moral and judicial dimensions of rebuke (Lev. 19:17b) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels. Contrary to previous scholarship that excessively associates the Dead Sea Scrolls with the judicial understanding of rebuke and the Gospels with the moral orientation, both of these corpora actually present a similar spectrum of passages ranging from a more moral to a more judicial take on rebuke. A better distinction between these sources’ approaches to rebuke thus lies in the different strategies they each use to synthesize the moral and judicial sides of rebuke. The subsequent two chapters in Part 1 look to the immediate literary context of Lev. 19:17, exploring how the obligation to love one’s fellow (Lev. 19:18) and the prohibition against gossip (Lev. 19:16) impact interpretation of rebuke. Chapter 2 returns to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels to gauge the influence of Lev. 19:18 on the ways in which these works understand rebuke. The Dead Sea Scrolls mark rebuke as an expression of fraternal love and employ it as a tool for demarcating the boundaries of their sectarian community. By contrast, a hitherto unrecognized interpretation of Lev. 19:17-18 preserved in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke identifies rebuke as opposed to love and rejects rebuke in favor of fraternal love. By recommending loving everyone, even your enemy, these Gospels blur the boundary between friend and foe thereby erasing the type of boundary established in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Chapter 3 turns to works of ethical exhortation (Proverbs, Ben Sira, and the Testament of Gad) to explore the ways in which these works understand rebuke in light of Lev. 19:16 and gossip. Each work adopts a different approach for bringing these activities into dialogue, highlighting additional problematic dimensions in the performance of rebuke.
Part 2 moves to the tannaitic period (c. 70 – c. 200 C.E.) and the danger of falling into sin raised by Lev. 19:17c. Focusing on the earliest rabbinic Midrash on Leviticus, Sifra, in Chapter 4 and the beginning of Sifre Devarim in Chapter 5, these chapters demonstrate how, unlike earlier works that engage with the question of how to rebuke, the tannaitic midrashim look to the higher order question of whether one is actually capable of rebuking. Texts from this period interpret the scriptural commandment as a site of violence and danger, leading a vocal contingent of tannaim to eschew rebuke as an unachievable practice. I suggest that this position correlates with rebuke’s destabilizing impact on interpersonal relationships.
The three chapters in Part 3 return to the opening of Lev. 19:17 and the tension between a self- and an other-orientation. In contrast to the early rabbinic sources in Part 2 that question whether rebuke can be performed, sources in these chapters engage with the more foundational question of whether one should rebuke. Chapter 6 revolves around monastic sources and demonstrates how the early monks reject confrontation of others in favor of humility and a cultivation of the self. The Babylonian Talmud is the subject of Chapter 7, where a key passage in Tractate Arakhin problematizes the act of rebuke by grappling with its obligatory yet dangerous nature, ultimately rejecting rebuke in favor of more introspective practices. A passage from Midrash Tanhuma, the focus of Chapter 8, systematically counters Tractate Arakhin’s arguments and culls evidence from across the Talmud, magnifying the obligation of rebuke to the point where one who fails to rebuke is held culpable for the offender’s sin. While the Bavli’s discomfort with rebuke bears striking resemblance to the rejection of rebuke in monastic sources, I suggest that the strong endorsement of rebuke in Midrash Tanhuma is best understood in light of a growing valuation of confrontation in late rabbinic literature and the obligation to “forbid wrong” in early Islam.
In the conclusion of this work I highlight the Greco-Roman and early Christian practice of parrhesia in order to demonstrate how parrhesia serves as a useful heuristic tool for better understanding some of the particular expressions of, and reactions to, rebuke. I also suggest that my analysis of rebuke may provide insight into the study of parrhesia. Foucault’s genealogy of parrhesia focuses on the “problematization” of the role of truth while assuming a variety of stable elements within this practice, including the dual focus of parrhesia on both the self and another person. However, the question of whether a person should be focused upon oneself or another becomes problematic within rabbinic and some monastic sources on rebuke, conceptually functioning as a different type of problematization of parrhesia. Bringing early Jewish and Christian discussions of rebuke into conversation with parrhesia thus not only aids our understanding of the former, but can shed light on the latter as well.
In 2014 a PhD student in musicology at New York University recognized Hebrew writing on the covers of a 17th century collection of church music. Removed and restored by the staff of the New York University Fales Library, these binding fragments of Babylonian Talmud Tractate Temurah preserve several significant readings unattested in other extant manuscripts of this tractate. Most importantly, these fragments include a number of so-called Lishanei Aḥarinei (parallel versions) found only in medieval Ashkenazic commentaries which shed light on the redaction and transmission of the Talmud.
This volume revolves around an annotated edition, including full transcription of the NYU binding fragments with notes and an extended discussion of their significance for future Talmudic research. The introduction includes basic information about the fragments, a survey of scholarship on the topic of Lishanei Aḥarinei, a discussion of parallels in medieval Ashkenazic commentaries, and a conclusion highlighting the relevance of these fragments for understanding the editing and circulation of the Talmud. An extended codicological and paleographical analysis prepared by Edna Engel of the National Library of Israel and an overview of the removal and preservation of the fragments by the conservation staff of the NYU library accompany this introduction. Following the edition of the text itself we include a complete synopsis of known versions of this tractate (revised based upon a synopsis prepared by the Saul Lieberman Institute of Talmudic Research and Bar Ilan University’s Institute for Computerization in Jewish Life). The volume will also include regular and UVA images of all of the fragments.
The Talmud
The Babylonian Talmud, the great compendium of Jewish law and lore compiled between 200-700 CE in Sasanian Persia, is the most important text for shaping traditional Jewish belief and practice. Despite this widespread interest, the Talmud’s complicated legal discussions and its terse and specialized language has largely confined its study to those with specialized training. Yet, within the past few decades two monumental English translations have emerged from the traditional Jewish world that expand the accessibility and readership of this work. In addition, a popular practice known as “daf yomi,” a “page a day,” has developed, in which thousands of men and women endeavor to study a folio of Talmud each day so as to complete the 2711 pages in a 7.5 year cycle. Courses in world religions in many universities are also now including selections from the Talmud among the great works of religion.
This volume offers a comprehensive overview of the Babylonian Talmud, its provenance and reception, as well as the major problems and issues relevant to its interpretation. This introduction is geared toward high level undergraduates, graduate students, scholars outside of the specialized field of rabbinic literature, as well as those whose interest in the Talmud emerges from their religious and cultural commitments. This volume will provide an overview of the structure and organization of the Talmud, of its dating and historical background, and a survey of the types of material included in the Talmud. It will also discuss the Talmud in its historical and cultural contexts, namely late antiquity, Greco-Roman Hellenism, and the Sasanian Persian empire. Finally it will assess its reception and lasting impact within later Jewish tradition, especially the process by which it became the authoritative source of Jewish law, as well as some contemporary developments.
Peer-Reviewed Articles & Book Chapters
In this article I argue for the importance of the limitation of interpretative possibilities in Midrash. I first offer a brief quantitative analysis of the first four chapters of the early rabbinic Midrash on the book of Exodus, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. Demonstrating that in this small sampling this Midrash excludes exegetical options more frequently than it opts for multivocality, I move to an in-depth discussion of a few different ways through which this Midrash both includes and limits interpretations. I conclude with a tentative suggestion for thinking about why limitation plays such a key role in Midrash.
The Babylonian Talmud is a foundational work for the development of Jewish law and a centerpiece for the study of rabbinic literature. One of the fastest growing trends in the academic study of the Talmud is the contextualization of this text against the background of Greco-Roman, Sasanian Persian and Zoroastrian, as well as Syriac and Christian works. This article surveys the history of the study of the Babylonian Talmud in light of a variety of cultural contexts and provides a close look at some of the major products of this line of research.
In this article I demonstrate how a homily in the printed edition of Midrash Tanchuma actively reworks a sugya from the Babylonian Talmud in order to convey a substantively different message. I argue that while the Bavli sugya calls into question the value of the biblical commandment to rebuke others (Lev 19:17), Tanchuma fashions a sustained endorsement of this practice. Demonstrating that the Tanchuma homily is of late provenance, had access to a version of the Bavli, and used the talmudic sugya rather than prior midrashic sources, I also provide a methodological roadmap for future research into the relationship between Midrash Tanchuma and the Babylonian Talmud.
In this article I seek to advance our understanding of the compositional logic behind the Matthean antitheses by arguing that the juxtaposition of themes underlying the last three antitheses parallels a related grouping of topics in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Testament of Gad and rabbinic sources. I suggest that just as Matthew 5:33-48 links a discussion of oaths to a reworked interpretative tradition on Lev. 19:17-18, the Damascus Document, Testament of Gad, and later rabbinic works juxtapose the topic of oaths and these biblical verses. Although the various sources employ divergent rationales for linking these topics, the persistent presence of a connection between them speaks to a shared tradition that may have informed the order and organization of the Matthean antitheses.
A question often left unaddressed by scholars is why the Gospel of Matthew employs the specific example of leaving an altar to reconcile with a brother or sister (Matt 5:23-24) in connection with Jesus’ comments on murder, anger and liability for judgement (Matt 5:21-22). In this article I argue that Exod 21:14 and the earliest rabbinic glosses on this verse offer us insight into the nature of this connection. Both Matt 5:21-24 and the rabbinic understanding of Exod 21:14 include the elements of murder, an underlying emotional drive, interrupting a sacrificial offering, and the Jewish Sanhedrin. I suggest that these affinities encourage us to include Exod 21:14 and its interpretation in early rabbinic commentaries in future analyses of the first Matthean antithesis.
In this article I posit the presence of an early Jewish exegesis of Lev 19:17-18 preserved in the tannaitic midrash known as Sifra which is amplified and inverted in the Didache, Q, Luke 6:27-35, and Matt 5:38-44. Identifying shared terminology and a sequence of themes between all of these passages, I argue that these commonalities testify to the existence of a shared exegetical tradition. By analyzing the later rabbinic material I delineate the contours of this second temple period interpretation and augment our understanding of these early Christian pericopae.
Previous scholars have identified a number of avenues through which the early rabbis construct a rhetorical façade of authority to mask their actual societal standing. In this article I analyze a unique tannaitic passage in which the rabbis uncharacteristically declare their inability in the face of the biblical command to rebuke (Lev. 19:17). I argue that this pericope subtly undermines two rabbinic claims to authority: 1) that the rabbis represent the paradigmatic performers of the biblical commands and 2) that they are the exemplary exegetes of the biblical corpus.
Non-Refereed Articles
Typical English usage of the term “discipline” differentiates between the punitive sense, often perceived as negative, and the educational sense of the word. However, looking to Jewish sources from antiquity we find a more holistic mode of discipline that positively intertwines both dimensions. This article begins by examining the nominal and verbal uses of discipline (y.s.r) within Jewish wisdom traditions as exemplified by the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Ben Sira, and the Wisdom of Solomon. I demonstrate how these sources encourage corporal disciplinary measures (y.s.r) as a key element in the acquisition of proper knowledge and cultural content (musar). Against this backdrop I turn to early rabbinic texts to examine a conceptually rich juxtaposition between lashes within an educational context (master-disciple), and lashes within a parental (father-child) and judicial (judge-convict) setting. I suggest that the bundling of these three disciplinary contexts articulates a Janus-facing ideal for the master as disciplinarian. The final section of the article considers the act of Torah study, specifically as an oral practice, as a disciplinary means to acquiring cultural content.
Additional Publications
“Kiss: Second Temple, Hellenistic, and Rabbinic Judaism,” “Lawsuit: Rabbinic Judaism,” and “Lawyer in Judaism” in C. Helmer, et. al., ed., The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, vol. 15. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter (2017): 357-59, 1067-68, and 1071-72.
“Patriarchate” and “Exilarchate;” sections of “Culture and Society” and “Rabbinic Constructions of Memory” in C. Bakhos, ed., The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 2. New Haven/London/Lucerne: Yale University Press and the Posen Foundation, forthcoming.
Book Reviews