A Rosh Hashanah showdown in the Holy Land

Anyone witnessing the wide-eyed panic of Israeli shoppers in the Machane Yehuda market last week would have been quickly reminded of the fact that a two-day celebration in the Holy Land is a relatively rare occurrence. While Jews living in the Diaspora are accustomed to repeating festive days on account of an ancient calendrical doubt whose results remain enshrined in Jewish law, this phenomenon was never instituted for Jews in the Land of Israel – except that is for Rosh Hashanah.

Or was it?

In the course of my recent research into the formation and authority of the Babylonian Talmud, I came across a fascinating passage contained in the Me’or Hakattan commentary of Rabbi Zerachyah Halevy. Reviewing the Rif’s codification of the Talmudic ruling that Rosh Hashanah must be observed for two days – even in the land of Israel – Rabbi Zerachyah notes that this law was not observed in Israel throughout the Geonic era.

The calendar had always been within the jurisdiction of the original Sanhedrin that sat in the land of Israel, an institution which ceased to exist only with the migration of Jews to Bavel in the fourth century. Perhaps for this reason, the attempt by Babylonian sages to impose a second day of Rosh Hashanah upon the community in Palestine was resisted so strongly, even though this ruling was apparently formalised within the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbi Zerachyah recounts how Rav Hai Gaon attempted unsuccessfully to convince Palestinian communities to observe a second day of the festival in accordance with his understanding of the Babylonian Talmud, but that they had only finally acquiesced to the two-day observance rule in “recent” times at the persuasion of rabbis from Provence. [Rabbi Zerachyah lived circa 1115 to 1186. Rav Hai Gaon lived from 939-1038 CE.]

Ran in his commentary to this ruling of the Rif points out that both sides of this dispute could be seen as legitimate interpretations of the Babylonian Talmud which only rules concerning an era in which the Sanhedrin fixed the calendar according to witnessed sightings of the new moon. Nevertheless, the matter evidently evolved into a question of authority between the Babylonian Geonim and their understanding of the Talmud and the Palestinian community who wished to maintain their tradition of celebrating for one day only.

A further ancient practice of the Palestinian-influenced communities which ceased at around this point was the triennial cycle of Torah reading. The triennial cycle was the practice in Israel, whereas in Babylonia the entire Torah was read in the synagogue in the course of a single year. As late as 1170, Benjamin of Tudela recounted how Egyptian congregations took three years to read the Torah.

It would seem that Babylonian authority over communities in Palestine was a sore and contentious point. During the early generations of Amoraim, scholarship and academies in the land of Israel had rivalled and perhaps even eclipsed those of Bavel, with its sitting Sanhedrin and Yerushalmi Talmud which was produced by Rabbi Yochanan in the 4th century. Subsequent religious persecution led to a significant wave of migration to Bavel and with it the inclusion of numerous Palestinian voices and rulings in the Babylonian Talmud. Nevertheless, Jews in the land of Israel for centuries to come did not fully accept the notion that they were bound by the conclusions of the Babylonian Talmud rather than its Palestinian counterpart. They seem to have maintained that the two Talmuds bore equal legal force, since each represented a legitimate representation of the same underlying oral tradition. This was the situation until the establishment of the caliphate in Baghdad in the eighth century, when Abassid Babylonia became the centre not only of Arabic but also of Jewish culture. From then on, the influence of the Babylonian Talmud gradually began to overwhelm that of the Palestinian Talmud.

Ultimately, the Crusades thoroughly weakened the Jewish community in the land of Israel. This, coupled with a sustained campaign on the part of students of the Rif, appears to have ended whatever resistance had remained to the universal acceptance of the Babylonian Talmud as an exclusive binding source of Jewish law. However, the existence of a precise historical point at which it could be deemed “universally accepted by all of Israel”, as Rambam maintains in his introduction to Mishneh Torah, is a matter which might be subject to some debate.

First posted to Facebook 28 September 2022, here.

Why does Talmud Bavli enjoy halachic supremacy over Yerushalmi?

The Babylonian Talmud has enthralled and frustrated millions of dedicated students since first being published in 6th century Sura. Its apparently chaotic and challenging accounts of rabbinic debates over Jewish law have long formed the primary resource for subsequent scholars seeking to determine halachic rules and principles.

Often overlooked, however, is the Bavli’s older sibling compiled over a century earlier in the land of Israel. As Talmud Reclaimed explores, standard halachic tradition has long been based on the principle of the supremacy and binding nature of legal conclusions of the Babylonian Talmud – even if there are significant variations in the methodologies of how such conclusions are to be determined and implemented. While the Yerushalmi has not traditionally been accorded the same binding authority as the Bavli, neither has it been totally ignored and absent from the halachic process – even those who profess loyalty to the Bavli can sometimes be seen to have relied on the Yerushalmi too.

The uncertain status of the Yerushalmi and its mysterious overshadowing by the Bavli can be traced back to its earliest years. While its authorship is widely attributed to the first generation Amora, Rabbi Yochanan, what exactly was its authority? Was it approved by majority or collective of Palestinian scholars? Might it even have been approved by the Sanhedrin which was still sitting, albeit in limited and persecuted form, in the Land of Israel?

What is fascinating to note is that, while the Babylonian Talmud records numerous Palestinian voices and traditions within its pages and accords them great respect – often elevating their interpretations and traditions over those of its own sages – no mention is made at all of the existence of a Talmud from the Land of Israel. Given the great reverence with which the Bavli treats Rabbi Yochanan, the author of the Yerushalmi, why does it omit mention of his magnum opus? It is difficult to imagine that Babylonian rabbis were entirely unaware of this work.

One theory that has occurred to me is that it is actually inaccurate to refer to our Talmud as “Babylonian”. It is not only that Rabbi Yochanan is revered in the Bavli – he is one of its most frequent contributors. Together with Reish Lakish and other Amoraim from the Land of Israel, he ensures that there is a strong Palestinian voice and influence in almost every major discussion within the Bavli.

An important shift took place within the Talmudic world of Bavel during its 3-4th generation, as intense persecution shuttered the academies and courts within the Land of Israel sending its revered rabbis and considerable scholarship into Babylonian exile. This shift meant that fourth generation Babylonian sages, such as Abaye and Rava, now had the benefit of a vast array of traditions and interpretations that had not been available to their predecessors. As a result of this new information, a principle of halacha kebatra’i (law follows the latter authority) was introduced. Also from this generation, the Bavli no longer links rabbinic teachings back to earlier generations of Babylonian scholars as it did previously (e.g. Amar Rav Yehuda amar Rav) – seemingly because the pool of scholarship and traditions now meant that later generations were standing on the shoulders not only of their Babylonian predecessors, but of those of their Palestinian counterparts too.

In short, the later generations of Babylonian Amoraim, from Abaye and Rava through to Ravina and Rav Ashi who compiled the Talmud, represented the fruits of a joint tradition from Bavel and Eretz Yisrael. They sought to weave together and tease out the most authoritative, logical and practical traditions and interpretations and formalise them within the Babylonian Talmud. If this is true, it is not that the Yerushalmi was ignored – anymore than Rav and Shmuel were ignored. But that they were component parts of what was to become an all-encompassing compilation of the Oral Tradition.

Sherirah Gaon accords binding authority to the rulings of the Babylonian Talmud on account of the supremacy of Rav Ashi’s academy having been accepted by all other rival academies, an acceptance which Rav Elchanan Wasserman (among others) understands to have given it a quasi-Sanhedrin status. If we are correct in viewing the Yerushalmi as having been subsumed within Babylonian scholarship then it is far easier to deem Ravina and Rav Ashi’s Court to have represented some kind of National Rabbinic Authority. Independent historical sources from this era are hard to come by (some are analysed in Talmud Reclaimed), but it seems reasonable to suggest that at Rav Ashi’s time there was scant serious scholarship outside of Bavel which could challenge his authority.

By the time we reach the Geonic period we see a resurgence of Jewish communities and scholarship in the Land of Israel, and evidence of strong clashes between them and their Babylonian counterparts. While many of the divergences between Babylonian and Palestinian practice were limited to legitimate differences in minhag (such as prayer liturgy and triennial cycle of Torah reading), we also find disputes over halachic matters such as the observance of second day of Rosh Hashanah. The most high-profile and threatening “rebellion” against Babylonian authority came with an attempt to make significant changes to the Jewish calendar – an attempt which was forcefully defeated by Saadiah Gaon.

Ultimately, even Rambam and Rif, two powerful halachic authorities who prided themselves on their links to Babylonian Geonim, were openly prepared to draw upon Yerushalmi interpretations as long as these were not explicitly contradicted by later rulings of the Bavli. As the Rif stated at the end of his commentary to Eruvin, the reason for this is halacha kebatra’i. As with the teachings of early Babylonian Amoraim, the combined Yerushalmi-Bavli tradition woven together by Abaye and Rava through to Rav Ashi was taken to be superior to each of its individual component parts. A truly national Talmud.

For more information visit www.TalmudReclaimed.com

First posted on Facebook 24 December 2023, here.