No description available.

The Mishnah and Tosefta are two related works of legal discourse produced by Jewish sages in Late Roman Palestine. In these works, sages also appear as primary shapers of Jewish law. They are portrayed not only as individuals but also as “the SAGES,” a literary construct that is fleshed out in the context of numerous face-to-face legal disputes with individual sages. Although the historical accuracy of this portrait cannot be verified, it reveals the perceptions or wishes of the Mishnah’s and Tosefta’s redactors about the functioning of authority in the circles. An initial analysis of fourteen parallel Mishnah/Tosefta passages reveals that the authority of the Mishnah’s SAGES is unquestioned while the Tosefta’s SAGES are willing at times to engage in rational argumentation. In one passage, the Tosefta’s SAGES are shown to have ruled hastily and incorrectly on certain legal issues. A broader survey reveals that the Mishnah also contains a modest number of disputes in which the apparently sui generis authority of the SAGES is compromised by their participation in rational argumentation or by literary devices that reveal an occasional weakness of judgment. Since the SAGES are occasionally in error, they are not portrayed in entirely ideal terms. The Tosefta’s literary construct of the SAGES differs in one important respect from the Mishnah’s. In twenty-one passages, the Tosefta describes a later sage reviewing early disputes. Ten of these reviews involve the SAGES. In each of these, the later sage subjects the dispute to further analysis that accords the SAGES’ opinion no more a priori weight than the opinion of individual sages. They result in a narrowing of the scope of the SAGES’ opinion and a broadening of the scope of an individual sage’s opinion. By applying rational criteria, these reviews have the effect of undermining the SAGES authority. However, the full body of twenty-one Toseftan reviews is apparently motivated by an increased emphasis on rational analysis rather than an agenda to undermine that authority. This approach prefigures the later, more comprehensive use of rational analysis to evaluate the whole of tradition that is found in the Babylonian Talmud. / Old Testament & Ancient Near Eastern Studies / D. Litt. et Phil. (Judaica)

The Mishnah and Tosefta are two related works of legal discourse produced by Jewish sages in Late Roman Palestine. In these works, sages also appear as primary shapers of Jewish law. They are portrayed not only as individuals but also as “the SAGES,” a literary construct that is fleshed out in the context of numerous face-to-face legal disputes with individual sages. Although the historical accuracy of this portrait cannot be verified, it reveals the perceptions or wishes of the Mishnah’s and Tosefta’s redactors about the functioning of authority in the circles. An initial analysis of fourteen parallel Mishnah/Tosefta passages reveals that the authority of the Mishnah’s SAGES is unquestioned while the Tosefta’s SAGES are willing at times to engage in rational argumentation. In one passage, the Tosefta’s SAGES are shown to have ruled hastily and incorrectly on certain legal issues. A broader survey reveals that the Mishnah also contains a modest number of disputes in which the apparently sui generis authority of the SAGES is compromised by their participation in rational argumentation or by literary devices that reveal an occasional weakness of judgment. Since the SAGES are occasionally in error, they are not portrayed in entirely ideal terms. The Tosefta’s literary construct of the SAGES differs in one important respect from the Mishnah’s. In twenty-one passages, the Tosefta describes a later sage reviewing early disputes. Ten of these reviews involve the SAGES. In each of these, the later sage subjects the dispute to further analysis that accords the SAGES’ opinion no more a priori weight than the opinion of individual sages. They result in a narrowing of the scope of the SAGES’ opinion and a broadening of the scope of an individual sage’s opinion. By applying rational criteria, these reviews have the effect of undermining the SAGES authority. However, the full body of twenty-one Toseftan reviews is apparently motivated by an increased emphasis on rational analysis rather than an agenda to undermine that authority. This approach prefigures the later, more comprehensive use of rational analysis to evaluate the whole of tradition that is found in the Babylonian Talmud. / Biblical and Ancient Studies / D. Litt. et Phil. (Judaica)

Grâce à sa vaste production littéraire, le judaïsme rabbinique, d’abord minoritaire, est devenu l’orthodoxie juive à la fin de l’antiquité. Les écrits rabbiniques ne cherchent pas à faire rire, mais nous avons constaté que les études académiques sur l’humour des rabbins de l’antiquité contribuent de manière significative à la compréhension des textes rabbiniques. Ces études ainsi que les théories modernes sur l’humour, les outils d’analyse littéraire et notre propre développement méthodologique, nous ont permis d’analyser les récits humoristiques dans les écrits tannaïtiques. Les résultats des travaux sur l’humour dans le Talmud Yerushalmi, le Talmud Babli et le midrash aggada, trouvent un écho dans les résultats de notre étude. Nous avons découvert dans la Mishna et la Tosefta une très grande variété de formes et de fonctions de l’humour. L’étude exhaustive des récits humoristiques dans ces deux corpus nous a permis de développer des nouvelles perspectives sur ces textes et leurs protagonistes, notamment concernant les polémiques internes et externes au mouvement rabbinique, les traits de caractère de certains sages et leur manière d’étudier, l’évolution de l’humour entre la Mishna, la Tosefta et les Talmudim. La grande majorité des récits que l’on trouve dans la Mishna et la Tosefta n’est pas humoristique, mais cette proportion est inversée dans certaines thématiques : dans les polémiques internes au mouvement tannaïtique nous avons noté un équilibre entre les textes humoristiques et sérieux, et de surcroît, dans les polémiques avec des groupes extérieurs au mouvement tannaïtique, les textes humoristiques sont majoritaires. L’humour des tanna’im s’avère être complexe et varié, il permet de faire remonter les origines de l’humour juif à l’époque tannaïtique, d’expliquer certains textes énigmatiques, et de mieux connaître la pensée des tanna’im. / Thanks to their extensive literature, the rabbinic movement which was a marginal minority during the early centuries CE became, by late antiquity, the Jewish mainstream, and the rabbinic practice of Judaism became Jewish orthodoxy. Rabbinic writings do not aim to make one laugh, but we have noticed that academic research into the ancient rabbis’ humor contribute significantly to the understanding of rabbinic writings.Our tools for analyzing the humor in tannitic texts are based on previous studies, modern theories about humor, literary analysis techniques and our own personally developed methodology. The research results about humor in the Talmud Yerushalmi, the Talmud Babli and in Midrash Aggada are echoed in the results of our work.We have found in the Mishna and the Tosefta humor in various forms and functions. A comprehensive study of humorous anecdotes in these two textual corpora lends a new perspective about the rabbis and their writings: it also sheds light on the rabbis’ personalities and the house of study atmosphere, struggles within the rabbinic movement as well as with outside opponents, and the evolution of humor between the Mishna, the Tosefta and the Talmudim. The large majority of the stories found in the Mishna and the Tosefta are not humorous, but this proportion is reversed in certain themes: in polemics within the tannaitic movement we find an equal number of humorous and serious texts, and in polemics with opponents to the tannaitic movement, humorous texts are predominant. The tannaitic humor is complex and diversified, it traces the origins of modern Jewish humor not only to the Talmud but back to the tannaitic period, it helps explain some enigmatic texts, and to better know the tannaitic ideology.