Help on m'Avodah Zarah and Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael

[ficino]

I have read the Wikipedia articles on Avodah Zarah and the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, but since I am not versed in this literature, I am not familiar with the technical terms used even in the Wikipedia articles. I solicit help from knowledgeable people on this forum. Can someone supply dates of the original versions and of the redactions that we now have? (Perhaps that hasn't been established, but if so, then a rough ballpark?) My understanding is that Avodah Zarah (lit. "idols"?) is a tractate from the Bavli about situations faced by Jews who live among Gentiles, esp. issues surrounding homage to false gods. I understand that the Mekhilta is a midrash on halakhic material in Exodus.

Perhaps with stories in such material one has to look at the apparent cultural and historical milieu to establish a rough date presupposed by the story, then one has to posit a text in which the story was recorded, then successive redactions? I don't even know what "mAZ" and "tAZ" mean! Does m stand for Mishnah and t for Tosefta? Way over my head.

Anyway, I'm asking the question because I'm reading an article by Azzad Yadin, "Rabban Gamliel, Aphrodite's Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism," The Jewish Quarterly Review 96.2 (2006) 149-79. Yadin argues that a story of a conversation between Gamliel and a pagan philosopher is not, as hitherto believed, aimed at highlighting opposition between Judaism and "pagan" philosophy but rather, at highlighting the substantial agreement of those two systems against popular religious practices.

Many thanks in advance.

[andrewcriddle]

Avodah Zarah is a Mishnah treatise with Gemara (commentary) in the Talmud. mAvodah Zarah is the Mishnah tAvodah Zarah is the slightly later Tosefta. Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael is a midrash in the names of Tannaitic (Mishnah and Tosefta period) rabbis, but of uncertain date in its present form.

The dispute between Gamliel and the philosopher is first found in mAvodah Zarah chapter 3:4. i.e. as rabbinic stories go this is a rather early one. (The Mishnah in its present form is a little after 200 CE but is based on earlier tradition. The Tosefta is c 300 CE the Talmud of Palestine c 400 CE the Talmud of Babylon c 500-600 CE.)

Assuming that the Gamliel involved is Gamliel II the story if true would go back to the very late 1st century CE.

Hope this helps
Andrew Criddle

[ficino]

Many thanks, Andrew. In the article I cited in the OP, Yadin thinks the story presumes a milieu of third century CE and that "Gamliel" is more to be taken as a name given to a stock figure of a rabbi familiar with Greek philosophy than as the historical Gamliel II or III.

[semiopen]

It's not possible to say something in the Talmud is first century, although Andrew certainly did a fine job of showing how it might be done.

If this was the price is right, Yadin/Ficino would probably win.

A lot of the conjecture is based on whether the sages of Babylon knew about the Palestinian Talmud. Avodah Zarah is an important example.

Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds
Accounting for Halakhic Difference
in Selected Sugyot from
Tractate Avodah Zarah

Christine Elizabeth Hayes

http://natzraya.com/Books%20on%20Judais ... (1997).pdf

Seems like an interesting book with the additional virtue of being free.

[ficino]

Yes, looks like a fascinating book, semiopen, thanks for the link. I downloaded it. I see she studied with Boyarin.

I should be clear that Yadin's article concerns two stories that portray a "Gamliel" in disputation with a Greek philosopher. It is in the first of them that Y sees the philosopher and the rabbi in agreement against popular Greek religion. The philosopher asks why God is portrayed as jealous of idols, arguing that idols are not worthy of such a reaction, being nothing. The rabbi replies with a riff on what Yadin, I think persuasively, sees as Socrates' famous "by the dog" oath. In the second story, a philosopher asks "Gamliel" why he bathes in a public bath that has a statue of Aphrodite. Gamliel says that she has come into his domain, not he into hers. Yadin says this saying has puzzled exegetes for centuries.

[andrewcriddle]

In the second story, a philosopher asks "Gamliel" why he bathes in a public bath that has a statue of Aphrodite. Gamliel says that she has come into his domain, not he into hers. Yadin says this saying has puzzled exegetes for centuries.

IMHO Gamliel means that putting an image of Aphrodite in a bathhouse as decoration does not make the bathhouse a place of pagan worship (and as such forbidden to Jews.)

Andrew Criddle

[ficino]

Yes, that's an interpretation Yadin cites with approval.