-
CHAPTER SIXTEEN Talmud and Midrash
- Jewish Publication Society
- Chapter
- Additional Information
CHAPTER SIXTEEN Talmud and Midrash burning from the Fathers of the Church to the Fathers of the Synagogue, we encounter an entirely different kind of literature, with entirely different problems. The Talmud comes from the same period as the writings of the Church Fathers and deals with some of the same issues. Talmudic literature, like patristic literature, is largely an exposition of authoritative Scripture. But there the resemblance ends. The Church Fathers wanted to clarify Christian doctrine, combat heresy and construct a complete theological system. To this end they composed elaborate treatises. Almost every statement quoted in the preceding chapter can be ascribed to a known author, dated with accuracy and interpreted with confidence in the light of an extended context. • • • 89 90 • • • Fallen Angels But the talmudic-midrashic literature which we are now to consider is a compilation of materials from various ages, which were transmitted by word of mouth for a long time before they were written down. The Mishnah was edited about 200 C.E., the Babylonian Talmud (Gemara) in the middle of the fifth century, the Midrashim later still. But these works contain some elements that go back centuries before the Christian era. The authoritative parts of this material, those that were transmitted with the greatest care and subjected to the most critical analysis, deal with halakah, that is with Jewish religious law. Our concern, however, will be chiefly with aggada, that is (speaking loosely), with the homiletic sayings of the Jewish teachers. Such utterances were not regarded as official or binding. Inconsistencies appear frequently; and even when they are noted, the effort to reconcile them is superficial. No serious effort was made to integrate the theological opinions of the rabbis into a coherent system. The emphasis of traditional Judaism was on correct conduct rather than on doctrinal conformity. Furthermore, the aggadic sentences are generally brief. For the sake of emphasis, the aggadists often resort to exaggerations which must not be taken literally. Many sentences are anonymous . Even when they appear in the name of a certain rabbi, we cannot tell from what period of his life they come, or what circumstances called them forth, or even whether the thought he expressed was original with him. It is therefore unsafe to draw any conclusion about rabbinic Judaism from one or two aggadic statements. Even if they have been accurately transmitted and correctly understood, they may represent no more than the speculations of a single teacher. Only when a view is found with some frequency, and when it accords with the general spirit of rabbinic thought, dare we say that this is the opinion of "the rabbis of the Talmud." For these reasons, we must be greatly impressed by the complete unanimity with which the rabbinic teachers rejected dualism , even the kind of modified dualism we have been studying. They must have been familiar with these notions; but they repudiated them emphatically. THE SIN OF THE ANGELS. The Talmud never speaks of fallen or rebel angels. This is no accident; nor were the rabbis ignorant of the legend. They knew and suppressed it. [54.146.97.79] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 07:04 GMT) Talmud and Midrash • • • 91 What, asks the Talmud, is the meaning of the name Azazel (Lev. 16.10)? It derives from the fact that the scapegoat "atones for the sins of Uzza and Azzael." * Who Uzza and Azzael were and what sins they had committed, we are not told. But in later Jewish literature, the leaders of the fallen angels bear these names, which indeed are but variants of the names Shemhazai and Azazel we already know so well. Elsewhere the Gemara remarks that the giants Og and Sihon were children of Ahijah, the son of Shemhazai.2 From these two cryptic statements alone, we should never suspect that the Talmud was referring to fallen angels. It does not even say that these beings were angels of any sort. But the allusion must be to the familiar tale. The very terseness of the references is significant. Who then were "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6? The Targum, the Aramaic translation which was accepted for use in the synagogues, renders this phrase: "the sons of the nobles." This rendering of the passage is standard in Jewish tradition. Humanity before the Flood became corrupt, as the Bible fully relates . The young aristocrats of the day set the pace for immorality , making free with the "daughters of man," that is to say, with...