“I find it deeply moving and worthy of homilies that arguably the most influential voices in the history of Jewish thinking are anonymous.” - Daniel Boyarin
“I find it deeply moving and worthy of homilies that arguably the most influential voices in the history of Jewish thinking are anonymous.” - Daniel Boyarin
Welcome to The Oral Talmud, our weekly deep dive chevruta study partnership, discovering how voices of the Talmud from 1500 years ago can help us rethink Judaism today.
This week Dan & Benay learn with special guest scholar Daniel Boyarin! Boyarin is the Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Emeritus Professor of Talmudic Culture in the Departments of Near Eastern Studies and Rhetoric at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of many articles and books on the Talmud, including “A Traveling Homeland: The Babylonian Talmud as Diaspora” (2015), “Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity” (2004), “Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture” (1993), “Socrates and the Fat Rabbis” (2009), “Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man” (1997), and, most recently “The No-State Solution: A Jewish Manifesto” (2023), themes of which Boyarin experiments with in this interview from the Summer of 2020.
What does it mean to approach to Talmud as a portable homeland for a Diaspora nation? How does it feel to be charmed by Talmud? Is Talmud a project of intentional incoherence? What lessons do we learn from the voice of the anonymous editor(s) of Talmud. How do we find a usable past?
Access the full Sefaria Source Sheet for additional show notes. The Oral Talmud is a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. If you’re enjoying this podcast, please help us keep both fabulous Jewish organizations going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation at oraltalmud.com. You can find a donate button on the top right corner of the website.
DAN LIBENSON: This is The Oral Talmud - Episode 16: The Greatest Voices Are Anonymous with Daniel Boyarin. Welcome to The Oral Talmud, a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. I’m Dan Libenson…
BENAY LAPPE: …and I’m Benay Lappe.
DAN LIBENSON: The Oral Talmud is our weekly deep dive study partnership, in which we try to figure out how voices from the Talmud – voices from 1500 to 2000 years ago – can help us think in new ways about Judaism today.
Today’s episode features our fourth guest, author Daniel Boyarin! Boyarin is the Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Emeritus Professor of Talmudic Culture in the Departments of Near Eastern Studies and Rhetoric at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of many articles and books on the Talmud, including “A Traveling Homeland: The Babylonian Talmud as Diaspora,” “Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity,” “Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture,” “Socrates and the Fat Rabbis” “Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man,” and, most recently “The No-State Solution: A Jewish Manifesto,” (2023) themes of which Boyarin hints at in this interview from the Summer of 2020.
Each episode of The Oral Talmud has a Source Sheet linked in the show notes on a web site called Sefaria where you can find pretty much any Jewish text in the original and in translation. If you wish, you can follow along with the texts we discuss and share them with your study partners or just listen to our conversation!
And now, The Oral Talmud…
DAN LIBENSON: We are absolutely thrilled today to be welcoming and it's a great honor to have you on and to be able to, to talk to you about the Talmud and to hopefully have your, your ideas about the Talmud help our listeners, our watchers, really kind of get a, get a, a deeper understanding of, of what the Talmud fundamentally is.So, so first of all, thank you so much for being with us and, and welcome.
DANIEL BOYARIN: Well, it's a pleasure. Um, anytime anybody says it's an honor to meet me or an honor to have me on their show, I get worried. Um, I'd much rather that it be a pleasure. So.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, it's so a pleasure for sure. Um, I, I thought that we could just get started with an idea, like, I, I think that fundamentally a lot of, uh, what, what Benay and I are doing on this show is actually learning parts of the Talmud together and thinking about what, what was going on.
But then we're also trying to talk to, to experts, uh, and, and scholars of Talmud to, to try to drive into this question of fundamentally: What is the Talmud?
You know, what is, what, what is it trying to be? And in particular, you know, one of your, your book that I mentioned, the, the idea of the, the Talmud as a diaspora, as “A Traveling Homeland” felt to me like, well, that's a way of describing the Talmud that I think most people wouldn't think, you know, let's say it's a book, it's, it's, it's, uh, discussions is whatever, but the idea that it's a traveling homeland, I think that actually is really helpful in driving into this question of like, what are we even dealing with? So could you talk a little bit about what you mean by that and what you were trying to, to do?
DANIEL BOYARIN: I'll be glad to. I'm particularly in invested and involved in that right now since I'm writing a kind of a follow up book, uh, at, at this time. So I'll share some of the ideas, uh, from the follow up book as a way of getting into talking about the Talmud.
There's a very famous, uh, formulation that is famous, um, among, um, critical theorists, historians, um, et cetera. So, you know, like sometimes the Tosofot from the 13th century will say, uh, about a piece of Talmud: “The whole world asks about this piece of Talmud,” right? The whole world is the 300 French and Franco-German rabbis in their, uh, community. So the whole world talks about this, uh, definition, um, named namely the 3000, um, people who think about such things at this time of the, of the, of the, um, word “nation” of the concept “nation.”
I'm talking about Benedict Anderson's famous definition of a nation as an imagined community. An imagined community. Um, by that he means that, um, the, both historically in terms of the formation of nations, which was generally a lot more recent than we, than we think, and being a product essentially of the early modern period, 16th century, 17th century, 18th century, and then of course the newer nations that, uh, came into being in the 19th and 20th, um, uh, centuries. That one starts out with what we might call real community. And, uh, this is not a, a value judgment. I'm just using it as a, as a cipher for what I, um, want to talk about.
That is the face-to-face community. It's called the village, the neighborhood, the, um, the valley, the little valley that, that, that we live in, in which we essentially know the people. Um, and, uh, the, the, the sense of community is built up out of the interactions, uh, economic, um, uh, family, um, sexual interactions that take place between the people who live in this relatively or tiny or small, at any rate, uh, face-to-face community.
Now, what constitutes the nation is a kind of imagining of those relationships beyond the possibility of face-to-face interactions, right? So, so first our village, then our valley, then our valley gets extended to the next valley over, and then gradually we end up with Lafon, for instance. Uh, again, something that took place much, much later, uh, than our imaginations generally are, um, would, would have us imagine.
Italy the same, right? People from Sicily still don't, uh, will talk about Italy as something other than, uh, then Sicily, you know, they'll say things like, I'm going to Italy for my vacation. That, um, that Italian is not the language that they speak, they speak Sicilianu, um, and, Beliciano um, uh, and Italian is that, you know, that official language. So that sense of, um, of the nation as an imagined community is very, very powerful. Um, um, analytic explanation for nations and the book, uh, has had, uh, Benedict Anderson, I remind you the name of the author, um, has had a tremendous impact on thinking about nations the last, uh, decade since it was published.
My conception of the Jews is that the Jews. Is a nation also, right? I say the Jews is, which drives my, uh, potential publisher. Crazy. Um, because I'm not talking about individual Jews. I'm talking about the Jews as a concept, the Jews as a, as a whole thing, right? The Jewish nation is what I would say, but I don't wanna put that into my title as it were, because that's the goal of my analysis. So I can't assume it, um,
In the beginning so that the Jews is also an imagined community, but a community imagined in time and not in space. So, um, I knew my bubbes and my zaydes, I didn't know anybody of any generations earlier. Some people of course have grandparents or even great grandparents, but I had a connection with them as real people, right?
Just as by my analogy. The people in the village have connections with, um, with, um, people that they see from the village. And somehow the, both, the affect and a lot of the content of my emotional life is driven by that connection with my parents, my grandparents, and people of that generation. Um,
I imagine that further or that, that, that. Um, emotional, um, commitment and identification gets extrapolated just as it does in France or Italy - in space. It gets extrapolated in time such that, um, I, I imagine back further ancestors. Um, our family happens to be descended on one side from the Vilna Gaon, so I feel very connected with, with the Lithuanian Vilna tradition.
On the other side, my family is connected, goes back to very, um, central Lubavitch figures, right? So it's no wonder I'm mixed up, right. Um, you know, it's, it's a little, um, it's a little confusing sometimes. I dealt with it for many years by simply denying the, the Hasidic connection. But, uh, not anymore. And, uh, um, as I get older, uh, Lubavitch Chabad gets more and more and more attractive to me in many ways.
So that's that sense of, uh, imagined, um, a community imagined in time. We conceive of, in the presence as horizontal connections with, with people, but we're not, we're not connected to those people necessarily in space. Right. They could be, um, in Morocco, in Israel/Palestine, in Greece, in London, in Vienna, in Berlin. But I'm, I've, I'm connected with them in, in, in, in, in the ways that, um, that we recognize as being profoundly moving, um, for people. Right? Uh,
I mean, we make a joke of the, uh, of the people who open up the, the, you know, the Jewish newspaper and it says plane crashes over the Atlantic. Uh, four Jewish names among the, um, God forbid, uh, the dead or something of that sort, right? That's a kind of extreme and caricature version. A reduc—an absurdity. But many Jews do feel if something bad happens to Jews or if Jews do something bad, that, uh, that we are implicated in that. So that, that is, um, a, um, a deep, um, I I, I, I claim for myself, but by ex extrapolation, I think it is, um, the source of, um, a great deal of collective power. And by power I don't mean political power. I don't mean power over, I mean power to - power to do things in, in the world.
Because it's oriented towards the past, the, uh, the living contact with the past, with the, with the Jewish past, with the shared Jewish past, with, with the, those Jews in, uh, Tangiers in, in Athens, in Stockholm, um, in, in and everywhere else, um, is, is is fed best. I think. Um, I'm convinced of this actually by shared doings, uh, practices, um, in the present as well.
Now, note, I'm not talking about religion. Right. I have nothing against religion. I'm, uh, an observant Jew myself. I used to call myself orthodox. I'm not so sure I'm Orthodox. Um, heterodox might be better, certainly not unorthodox as in the sense of that, uh, that annoying film. But I'm not, I don't want, I don't want to, and I'm unable to, um, shut this down in a little box called Religion. When you shut things down and put them into little boxes, it becomes very easy to, um, just, uh. Let them go down the drain. Right. Um, this, uh, notion of Jewishness and I will not talk about Judaism. I'll talk about, uh, Yiddishkayt or Jewishness, or actually lately I'm thinking about calling it Jewishkayt. Um, uh, instead of a, um, a Yiddish word, a sort of portmanteau lone word into, uh, into, um, English, um, is much more expansive than the notion of a religion. Uh, particularly since when we talk about religions, we tend to talk about, we even use it as a synonym: Faiths right? What's faith gotta do with it? Faithfulness. Yes. But faith, it's, uh, goyem naches!
DAN LIBENSON: And, and so how do you think that, that, so how, how do you put the Talmud in this context? You know, what, was it
DANIEL BOYARIN: just about to get there!
DAN LIBENSON: Right!
DANIEL BOYARIN: Yeah. Um, I'm just about to get there. Um, so the, the for, for me, in my experience, and I'm not only talking about my own personal experience, which I might, uh, be encouraged to talk about later if you want, but my experience of students, my experience of communities, my experience of, of, of, of, of interacting with, uh, uh, groups of Jews, uh, from very, very different backgrounds, very different, uh, situations in life, very different orientations towards religion, is that
The Talmud itself is a kind of, um, representation only, not only a representation, but an almost an actualization of Jewishkayt. It's not, it's not a religious book in the way that, uh, you know, that, uh, Lutherans might talk about a religious book. Um, I say Lutherans just because, uh, Luther was, I think, the greatest genius that Christianity produced in, in the last thousand years. Perhaps a little chutzpadik for me to, uh, to say that, but I've, I've done a fair amount of study. Um,
One page is talking about, it might be talking about, uh, God's throne in heaven, that sounds religious, and somebody who went and, and saw it. And the next page we'll be talking about what to do if you've got a cold. Right? Um, a third page will be, uh, raising the question. Uh, how do you deal with, uh, some, um, um, I don't know any other words, so pardon me, some shit on the floor on Shabbaos. Um, um, another page, uh, giving advice on, um. How to, uh, make money in business, uh, and, and what not to do. And then we're into stories about demons. So it's, it's a kind of, um, fullness of life that I think, um, makes the t so vivid, so alive, including for people who will not, don't want to and need not accept the quote unquote religious strictures.
Obviously, in some sense, it's, it's more engaging or even more engaging when it also has that kind of direct impact. Um, but it, but it, it needed. Um, right now in the world, more Jews are studying a page of Talmud every day than ever in, in, in history. Many of them are not people who would define themselves as Orthodox. Um, um, live all kinds of lives, but, uh, but are finding in the Talmud – There's a woman in London who draws a, a brilliant little, um, drawing every day for the page. Mm-hmm. Somehow picks something out. And, uh, I unfortunately, I don't remember her name right now. Um, oh,
DAN LIBENSON: Draw Yomi is her…
DANIEL BOYARIN: Right. So, uh, so this, this, so this contact with this life, with this life and liveliness of our bubbies & zaydes from 1500 years ago, more zaydes than bubbies, but we'll talk about that in, in, in a little, in a little while also, because it, it can't be elided, um, the gender balance, but, but it, it can be thought about, it can be encountered.
It's like, uh, I think a, a shot of adrenaline for the individual, uh, Jew as well as for the, what I, what I continue to call and what my book will in, in insist on michism - michism is Litvak Yiddish for Inshallah – um, in the nation of the Jews, the Jewish nation as a diasporic nation, as a nation constituted in time and, and not in a particular, uh, space, and certainly not in a state.
So that's why the Talmud as homeland is not just for me, some sort of romantic, um, statement of, uh, alah Heinrich Heine who first I think referred to the Torah as the, the portable homeland of the Jews. Right. And I, I drew the image from there. But, um, but for me it has, I think, um, related but also very, very, um Different, uh, uh, significance and signification including, um, a political, what's called political now, a political image for, uh, for the Jewish future that, um, is crucially centered around shared study and particularly shared study of, uh, of the Talmud.
BENAY LAPPE: And I think this, this image of us being connected as an imagined community across space is particularly rich and evocative for us right now as we are all connected more than ever in a virtual community, and not so much in physical space, but with the sticky on that, um, you know, as a queer person.
When I encountered Talmud for the first time, things jumped out at me that my teachers weren't pointing out, but they were just so screamingly obvious. For example, now for example, what what jumped out at me were the ways in which the rabbis were radically overturning Torah. And essentially what I, what I saw was laying out a methodology for doing so and, and that led to what might be an oversimplified characterization of my part of the Talmud as essentially a handbook for how to upgrade the tradition.
So what I would love to ask you is what did you see? What jumped out at you? When you first learned Talmud, that had to do with your life experience. If, if you could reflect on that, why, why did that jump out at you? And it, it occurs to me that who reads the Talmud is essential. You know, what you bring to the experience is really going to help you see what's been missed. You know?
And as, as one of my other teachers, Shamma Friedman says, I, I looked at it and I saw things. And I think each of us, because of who we are and our life experience is gonna look at it and see different things. And that's why I'm particularly excited about people with very different life, life experiences finally coming to the table.
So I'd love to know, what did you see? What did that have to do with you? And do you see a unified project in the Talmud? And is, do you think my characterization is even fair?
DANIEL BOYARIN: Okay, good. Um, those are, those are, those are wonderful questions, Benay and, um.
Uh, first of all, I, I, I'm not sure that, uh, that, I mean, I'm pretty sure that folks watching this, at least a lot of folks who are ultimately gonna be watching this, uh, don't know that, uh, that I grew up in a, in a totally secular, uh, sort of, um, leftish Zionist home where, um, connection to the Jewish people was very strong, but also very secular, Um, uh, in its, uh, in, its in its orientation.
I mean, I grew up thinking you're not allowed to eat butter on Friday night. 'cause although we ate trayfe the whole week on Friday night, my mother didn't put butter and meat on the table. You know, it was sort of a kind of, um, memorial to the, to, to the shabbath and to the kashrut that she had known as a, as a, as a child, as a girl growing up in the Orthodox home. So that, that sort of, uh, thing which, which, which is a double edged right, because it's both the rejection of. Of the religion and, but also, uh, a marker of very strong connection with the past and in, in, in, in, in some, uh, um, in some way.
So for me, my first encounter with the Talmud was actually at the Hebrew University in their introductory class, what they called the Mechina, the preparatory class for the study of Talmud. The reason I found myself in that class altogether was I had gone to Israel as a junior in college, um, with the idea that I was going to study Kabbalah, right? Because I was, um, like, like much of my generation, very, uh. Interested in mysticism and, um, this was supposedly Jewish mysticism. So I was gonna go study the Zohar. I actually signed up for a class in the Zohar.
And, uh, the first day I was in Israel, I went to the office of the Americans and Canadians in Israel. 'cause I needed help with orientation. And I happened, the person with whom I talked, and I've never saw him again. I don't remember his name, but he had a big impact on my life because he was an Orthodox man. He said to me, you wanna study Zohar? Have you studied the Talmud? I said, no, I don't even know what the Talmud is. You know, I thought it was a commentary on the Torah. I had it confused with the Midrash or, or with Rashi. Um, he said, well, you can't study Zohar if you haven't studied the Talmud. It makes no sense at all. So sign up for a Talmud class. So I signed up for a Talmud class.
My very first impression of the Talmud was, or my very first feeling when I started studying the Talmud was, you are not New Jersey anymore. You, I'd never been to Kansas. So I didn't, I felt that I had stepped into a world so magical, so exciting, so rich and vibrant and different from the, um, not quite bourgeois. I don't think we had enough money to be bourgeois. Um, kind of, um, um, suburban. Or rural, um, existence that I'd grown up with in New Jersey. Um,
BENAY LAPPE: I, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I love the way you, you des the way you describe that experience as being charmed Yeah. As you describe it in the full antique sense of that word. Yeah. No, it's, and I love that, and I, I, I know what you mean.
DANIEL BOYARIN: Yeah. Good. Great. Yeah. I mean, the only experience I, I, I'd had that was, or, uh, that year that was somewhat similar was, um, the day after the Six Day War, right. So the seventh day when, uh, uh, walking in the old city of Jerusalem for the first time, you know, obviously. And again. I just felt I was in a different world. The shuk in those days was, you know, it was like stepping, um, I'd never been to Istanbul. I'd never been to Cairo. You know, just stepping into that world in which the sounds were different, the smell were different. Um, uh, every, the sights were different.
That's what stepping into the Talmud was like, for me, it was just this, um, uh, magic, uh, magic, uh, world. Now, this would be a meaningless kind of statement. If it were only me, then it would be just something to, uh, you know, to write about in, uh, DSM VI, right?
Um, but I've experienced that over and over and over again. With students, with, uh, people who are not students of mine, but encountered the Talmud, this, uh, in different varieties. I don't think they'd use the same language or the same, um, metaphors precisely. People come from different places, but of it, of just feeling compelled, uh, by desire to, to, to keep, uh, uh, studying.
Um, one of the, um, more well known, uh, Talmud scholars of the generation after me now, and I'm, I'm not going to, uh, uh, mention names because, uh, I don't have permission to, but, um, came to the United States to do a PhD on Martin Buber. Uh, and, um, she, um, entered my Talmud class. Well, suffice to say that, uh, she never wrote a PhD on Martin Buber. She wrote a PhD on the Talmud, and as I say, she is one of the more well-known, um, Talmud scholars of her generation, um, today.
So there, there is something that pulls - not everybody, but that pulls lots and lots of people in. And I had that experience, uh, of just being charmed, as you say, in the antique sense. You know, it's, it's as if, um, a, a magic flute started playing, uh, somewhere and life became colorful in ways that it hadn't been. I was not a depressed kid. I was happy. Uh, but, uh, the just, uh, that, that, um, that sense of encounter, which with, um, something so different and yet, so mine, right at the same time.
And then the sharing that, uh, that, that, uh, led to ultimately as I did adopt, um, with my family, a an observant life became very, very involved, um, in that. Um, even just loving the fact that at a Shabbos table with guests, we would talk about, uh, a, a, a passage in the Talmud and discuss it and, um. By the very, by the way, uh, at least I can say that very quickly. Uh, at our table, there were men and women discussing, uh, the, um, the matter at hand.
Um, my, uh, 4-year-old son at the time, the, the professor. Now, he wasn't a professor yet at some point in a Friday night conversation, but he was signaling in the, in the middle of a Friday night conversation, he just looked up and said, “but what does the Rambam say?” I don't think he had any idea what the Rambam was or who the Rambam was at that point, but he knew that that's the sort of thing that you, that you say. And he's still, he's still asking that question as a professor.
So, um, this was all just, uh, like the addition of a dimension of, um, effervescence to use, uh, um, Durkheim's term, you know, of deep liveliness and that sense of deep, powerful connection with the past.
Now, when and here when did I start questioning that? Um, without, without, in any way withdrawing from it was when I started teaching. Um, when I came to the United States and I started teaching women, all of a sudden the questions of gender leaped out or left out. I mean, not that I'd been, um, oblivious to them, but, um, it's when you have to address people. And, uh, so women, um, and a little bit later, um, queer folk.
Um, since I teach in a, [00:57:00] um, in a state university, I, I also have non-Jews who came to study the Talmud. Um, another student of mine, um, never became Jewish. And, uh, and she is one of the absolute leaders of American Jewish Scholarship.
BENAY LAPPE: Um, and did you, did you see in it any sort of coherent project or, or is that-
DANIEL BOYARIN: No. No! Okay. Mm-hmm. I saw in it an incoherent project. Uhhuh Uhhuh. I love that. Incoherence uhhuh. And that's, that is exactly the attraction. Or, or a, a major source of attraction is that it doesn't settle down to a, um, a, uh, a well wrought urn, right? Yeah. Uh, to, uh, misappropriate, uh, uh, a term from the new, New Critics. Yeah. It just doesn't, uh, settle. And it's that, that doesn't mean that there aren't walls and there aren't limits, certainly within Halakha. It's not anything goes, uh, but a whole lot goes on the discursive level. And as a community, we've settled on certain practices or, uh, our several communities have settled on certain practices.
I don't think there are any, uh, um. Um, Jews who aspire, uh, to, um, keeping the Torah who eat, uh, chicken and cheese together, right? But, uh, but discovering in the Talmud that one of our favorites, one of our culture heroes, Rabbi Yossi HaGelili insisted that, uh, chicken and cheese is perfectly kosher, uh, because, um, um, um, chickens don't have milk, right?
And is, is, is adds a dimension of, um, of incoherence and excitement, uh, that, um, uh, that opens up, um, a world of imagination, a world of shared imagination, a world of shared discourse and shared culture that. I think, uh, as I said, is a kind of lifeblood, um, of, of, of circulation. Um, so that's, that's the kind of, um, Jewish blood I'm prepared, uh, to, uh, to talk about.
BENAY LAPPE: I love that. Let, let, let me ask you about this incoherent project. It in the last 50 years or so, maybe a little about that. I think you can tell me. [01:00:00] Um, the layer through the work of Shamma Friedman and David Weiss Halivni and your own work and others, the layer of the editor has been brought out as actually having created the, the flavor of what the Talmud is and retro rejecting its own ideas and values and, um, taste for plurality and indeterminacy of truth back into the first generation of the Yavneh era. So I, I'd love to hear you talk about what, what you see in this editorial layer, right? Um, yeah,
DANIEL BOYARIN: yeah. Uh, first of all, I, I, I find it, um, uh, deeply moving and, um, worthy of homilies that arguably the most influential voices in the history of, of, of, uh, in the history of, of, uh, Jewish thinking, um, are anonymous.
There's something, um, you know, um, we say Gadol, that there's a hierarchy of honorifics so that there's Rav and, uh, Rabi, and Rabban - Like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, or Rabban Gamliel or, and, and then we say Gadol miRabban Shmo - even higher than that is just a name without a title, right? For instance, someone like Shmuel, he's never Rav Shmuel or Rabban Shmuel. And um, but I say even Gadol mi’Shmo is Stam
BENAY LAPPE: so even greater than someone without a title is someone even without a name,
DANIEL BOYARIN: a name. Uh, um, and so that is what we. Might call the editorial voice. Uh, I think it's much more than editorial, uh, and in, in the sense of what we think of as editorial, uh, redact is by now a tainted word because redacted seems to mean censored or something. Mm-hmm. Right? Mm-hmm. Um, um, which is not what it has historically meant, but that's what it means now. So we can't use the word redact anymore.
Um, but those voices that actually took all the traditions, the traditions that, uh, Dan was uh, mentioning in the beginning, uh, in our conversation, you know, everything that was in the middle between, um, shall we say, uh, the Mishna and, uh, whatever this, uh, production of the Talmud was, which is later than we used to think. We used to think it's like fourth, fifth century now we're, it's more like sixth century. Um, those voices are themselves, not unanimous. They're not single. Right. So that's the first thing we have to say. We can't talk about the editor or the redactor the, uh, uh, we do tend to call it traditionally the Talmud, “the Talmud says”. Mm-hmm. Right? Mm-hmm. But the, uh, of course, uh, uh, the Talmud from, uh, tractate to tractate or sometimes chapter to chapter, sometimes page to page seems to, um, seems to, to shift.
Um, but in a broad characterization, one could say that that level of the Talmud manifests a certain kind of, uh, epistemology and, uh, uh, theory of knowledge or thinking about knowledge in which, um, knowledge and quote unquote truth are not available, um, as absolute as absolutes and, uh, so that the, the, the favoring of the desire for controversy and for controversy to go on forever, right? Makhloket laShem Shamayim, ain Sofo - Sofa l’meet’kah’yem! v’Makhloket she’aino laShem Shamayim ain sofo meet’kah’yem. But a controversy that is for the sake of heaven will per will endure forever as a controversy.Right.
Um, even if, uh, uh, all the Jews who live in certain parts of the world or sometimes all the Jews who live in the whole world settle down and decide, um, certain practice so that we can all eat in each other's homes, right. Um, a Messianic aspiration, um, will, none of us will eat chicken with cheese, but, but rabbi's voice, which was clearly, uh, a voice for the sake of heaven remains forever. Right? And that sense of, of, of hanging on to the unfinishedness, the, uh, of, um. Of, of, of knowledge.
And the, um, my brother tells a story, he, he learned, my brother Jonathan, learned for many years. He's still learning in, um, um, re do finds things. Um, and let's pray for his health. He's very ill. Uh, Feinstein's Yeshiva on the Lower East Side, uh, describes that there was one man who came there every day. Beard, not, not peyos probably, but you know, the real thing, the real deal, not some hippie who was, uh, was uh, doing teshuva or something. And every once in a while, this man would get up and walk around and say, I don't know how often he said it, “I don't do what God wants me to do. I do what I think God wants.” Right. That moment of, I'm gonna call it humility, epistemological humility, um, has the potential to, uh, save millions of human lives.
So, um, And that's, and that's one of the virtues that I see in the Talmud mm-hmm. Is that sense of unfinishedness, you know?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Go, I, I, in your book, uh, “Borderlines,” you talk about the possibility that, oh, let me start in a different place. Dan and I are always asking ourselves, what was going on in fifth sixth century Iraq that made this, um, raising up of indeterminacy, um, in the Talmud, as, as it is possible or necessary, perhaps, and in Borderlines you talk about the possibility. I'm not sure if I have you completely right here, that this indeterminacy and the Talmud's messaging of pluralism might have been a response actually to the dogma and simple truth, simple single truth, emphasis of Christianity. Is that, is that, was that a dynamic going on?
DANIEL BOYARIN: I think that's what I said then, and I, I certainly Okay. Wouldn't say it now. I would say something else that it, okay. Okay. Good. But I said then I believe, you know, I mean, you know better 'cause you read the book more recently, but, uh, um, what I either said then, or wish now that I had said then, –
BENAY LAPPE: I'm sure I, I'm sure I misunderstood.
DANIEL BOYARIN: So that was a kind of late antique collapse of epistemological certainty, you know, that, uh, that, uh, for which I have some evidence, but not a great deal. It's very, very hypothetical that, that, um, intellectuals, uh, uh, uh, around the, uh, the, the Greek East almost lost faith in the possibility of discovering and proving the truth through rational argumentation. And, uh, so that this, this, uh, this, uh, crisis in, in rational truth seeking, um, has different effects.
I mean, and one effect that in, um, certain, uh, areas of the Christian world, the areas that became Orthodox Nicene type Christianity especially,um, uh, the idea of rational argumentation was discredited and replaced with, uh, notions of, of, of simple truth and, um. And, uh, and revelation, you know, the, the simple dirty monk who goes out and in Nicea after the arguments have, have not worked and just says, I confess, and essentially says some version of the Nicene creed. And then everybody, uh, just, uh, you know, bends the knee. Um, that, that, that's a kind of understandable, um, response to such a crisis.
And one that we find, for instance, in the story of Tanur Shel Achnai explicitly rejected, right? So in that sense. But, but, but both of these as, as, as responses to a, a kind of, um, um. Um, collapse of belief in seeking truth through rational argumentation.
Um, and, um, it's not, uh, entirely different, I think from the moment in which we live now, right. In which some sense of, uh, of, um, um, of the possibility of rational argumentation, uh, and, um, is in collapse. And, and it's in collapse for, for, for most people. And, and I mean, it, it doesn't, uh, this doesn't, um, distinguish between right and left in a sense. The response is made. Uh, you know, to that may differ,but the, uh, the, that, that kind of a crisis is, um, is, um, attendant also.
Uh, and in that sense, the Talmud may help us, may help us in some ways as a, uh, as a, uh, a model for ways of living with, um, with, uh, controversy, with antithetical opinions, even when these, uh, different opinions are deeply empathetic. Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Right. One of the claims that I make is that the learning of Talmud actually makes us people who are better able to not only tolerate, but to really have an appetite and, and desire for holding contradiction. Do you think that's fair? I think, do you think it's making us, Talmud is making us those kinds of people?
DANIEL BOYARIN: Well, yes, but we have to recognize the limitations of that. First of all, we have to start out being, being in a sense, being people for whom that is a value.
Mm-hmm. Uh mm-hmm. Um, and secondly, um, there are limits of course. I mean, people talk about the Talmud as pluralist. It's not pluralist. It's um, that's not quite right. It certainly doesn't allow anybody to just walk in and, and express an, an opinion. There are conditions on who gets to express and who doesn't get to express. And that's one of the big, big, uh, critical, uh, you know, critical issues that that has to be dealt with in our, um, imagining of the, the Talmud and the place of the Talmud. Um, uh, that's one, uh, one point.
And also there are limits to the Say-able and Un-say-able, right? Nobody, well, uh, you know, uh, the limits might be articulated by, uh, a figure like, um, Elisha ben Abuyah, right? As kind of a, um, the, the one who stepped. Beyond the bounds. Uh, I can't of course go into detail, um, on the stories in this context, although perhaps if we have a study session, uh, sometime we might, uh, take a look at some of that, uh, material as kind of the, the, the, uh, you know, the boundaries.
Um, there's a place in the Talmud and I, and unfortunately I don't have the reference offhand, but I've mentioned it, where, um, a Galilean follower of Jesus, uh, named, uh, James, Yakov, as they mostly seem to have been in those days in the third century, um, um, expresses, uh, a halachic opinion, that makes a great deal of sense as a, as an interpretation of a pasuk, of a verse in the, in the Torah. And one of the amorim was there, said, “well, if he were someone who comes in with us, then I would accept that opinion,” right? So the means that there are people who are beyond the bounds of, uh, [01:16:00] expressing even an, uh, an opinion that makes a great deal of sense, you know, acceptability.
So all of these things, what I, what I don't like is the kind of, um, blithe appropriation. And this is not something you do at all. Uh, Benay,
Benay: thank goodness
DANIEL BOYARIN: I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about certain other, um, environments that I'm. Uh, uh, again, I, I'm really, um, doing pretty well with avoiding lashon hara. Uh, for the most part, uh, um, it, it, um, which is actually one of my favorite sports, but, um, that, that's, you know,
Talmud is pluralist, right? So everybody can come in and say… and no, first of all, in this world, you have to, you have to pay your dues before you can say. you know, you have to, you have to study, you have to have a deep engagement, um, with the, uh, with the tradition. And you have to know when you're stepping over the bounds, you can do that. Right. It's an honorable position. It's called epichorus. Right. But you be an a first, you have to be deeply, deeply engaged. And, um, that,
and saying for years is the kind of bon mot, that the Haredim whether we like or don't like, or, uh, this position or that position or the way they live or whatever. And I think sometimes, uh, anti Haredi is, uh, the Jewish, modern Jewish version of Antisemite. But that's another, uh, um, that's another story. But they're [01:18:00] necessary for the Jews. Why are they necessary for the Jews? Because they're our only reliable source of, Epicuros right.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. I what I, I know we're running out of time, but there's something I really wanna ask you because I'm afraid I am misusing an idea. I think when I quote you most often, I am repeating your phrase, finding a usable past.
DANIEL BOYARIN: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: And I hope I'm not misunderstanding it. Can you tell us what, what you meant, and I think it was in the end of Carnal Israel, when you talk about your project being, or one of your projects being, finding a usable pest.
Yeah. Um, and what, and, and how does that fit into the Talmud?
DANIEL BOYARIN: Yeah. I, I, I, first of all, I wanna, I wanna say that I don't mean just picking and choosing and saying, I like this. I don't like that this, this, this fits. So, you know, uh, which [01:19:00] is, um, um, that's, uh, that's not en engaging with the past in any, um, uh, a serious way.
Uh, what I mean is, um, I think. Engaging, um, so deeply and energetically, um, in the past. And the past for me is, um, emblematized by the Talmud. Um, that, um, that, um, um, that my judgments, even my judgments of when, um, not to follow a certain commandment or, um, not to, um, observe a certain prohibition are, um. I'm not quite saying this right, and I, I don't feel that I'm getting it exactly, but, uh, you know it, I, um,
I remember a certain, uh, I think, uh, early modern rabbinic figure, uh, from Eastern Europe who referred to a certain mitzvah, right? That, that, that we would find morally repugnant, right? Uh, something on the order of, uh, if a,um, certain, um, undesirable person falls into a pit on Shabbos, we just leave them there and let them die. And he said “Mitzvah aseit she’ain m’kay’am’im.This is a, a, a, a positive requirement of the law that we don't follow.” Know? And we're not talking about, I'm not talking about a conservative rabbi. I'm not talking about reform within, you know, I mean, that's an extreme thing. We don't just go around and saying, I don't like this. I don't like the mikveh, no more mikveh. I don't like this. Right.
But we find the tools to, uh, to, uh, understand, to accept, to reject through, uh, uh, it's the assertion that it's, Mitzvah tah’aseh
BENAY LAPPE: that it's a requirement that it's a commandment to davkah disobey.
DANIEL BOYARIN: Mm-hmm. Right. But we don't, but we don't observe it, you know? Um. I, I, I don't know how to say it better. It's, that was not really very, um, well said. I recognize, but it's partly because the idea itself is, um, is um, is not fully formed, but,
BENAY LAPPE: um, well, is it, would it be, I, I think I'm understanding it better as I'm listening to you. Is it fair to say you don't mean hunt around for the pieces that you like and then put those together and say, “this is what the tradition is?”
It's not that you find pieces, it's that you find within the entirety of the past a foundation which may have been missed by others, or that that holds within it, the, the, the moral, the morally, um, virtuous or the. I, I would say the traditionally radical that you can stand on is that, am I getting closer to it?
DANIEL BOYARIN: Yes. Actually that was better than, than anything I said. So anyway,
BENAY LAPPE: I, I, I love this this notion that the tradition has always been radical. It has always been saying to us it's your obligation to violate the tradition when it violates your
DANIEL BOYARIN: in some, in, in some way. Yeah. Right. You know? Um, so, Dan?
DAN LIBENSON: oh yeah. So, so we are, uh, we're outta time. So I think that, um, this is hopefully the first of, of many conversations and we're just so grateful that you took the time to, to talk to us. Sure.
DANIEL BOYARIN: Okay. So be well, thank you. It's been a pleasure for me. Uh, nice to see you again Benay and Dan. And, uh, are you both in Chicago or are you in two different places in the world?
DAN LIBENSON: We're both in Chicago, but these days it doesn't matter anymore.
DANIEL BOYARIN: Exactly. Right,
DAN LIBENSON: right. We're all in the same place.
DANIEL BOYARIN: Yeah. Okay.
BENAY LAPPE: Daniel, thank you so, so much to be continued. I hope Byebye,
DANIEL BOYARIN: Inshallah, bye-bye.
DAN LIBENSON: Thanks so much for joining our chevruta today! We hope you’ve enjoyed learning with us… and with the Talmud. You can find links to the source sheets for all episodes in the show notes and on our website at oraltalmud.com. Your support helps keep Oral Talmud going. You can find a link on the website to contribute. We’d also love to hear from you! Email us with any questions, comments, or thoughts at hello@oraltalmud.com. Please, share your Oral Talmud with us – we’re so excited to learn from you. The Oral Talmud is a joint project of SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva and Judaism Unbound, two organizations that are dedicated to making Jewish texts and ideas more accessible for everyone. We are especially grateful to Sefaria for an incredible platform that makes the Talmud available to everyone. It’s free at sefaria.org. And we are grateful to SVARA-nik Ezra Furman for composing and performing The Oral Talmud’s musical theme. The Oral Talmud is produced by Joey Taylor, with help from Olivia Devorah Tucker, and with financial support from Lippman Kanfer Foundation for Living Torah. Thanks so much for listening–and with that, this has been the Oral Talmud. See ya next time.