A New Testament Scholar Reads the Mishnah

THE OXFORD ANNOTATED MISHNAH: A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE MISHNAH WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTESEdited by Shaye J. D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg, and Hayim Lapin. 3 Volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022, 2023. Pp. xvi + 2585; list of figures. Hardcover, $680.00; Paperback, $85.00. For those unexposed to the interpretative variation of the Law in early Judaism, reading the Mishnah is daunting indeed. Even those well-versed in the Law and Jewish texts of the Second Temple period—as I believed myself to be before diving into the Mishnah—will sense the waters rapidly rising above their heads when they simply begin with Danby or the translations available on sefaria.org (useful as they are). But like all texts, the Mishnah operates in a world of unspoken premises likely well known to its first authors, editors, and readers. In this respect, it is no different than, say, the Gospel of Mark or Josephus' Antiquities. A difference between the latter texts and the Mishnah, however, is that many (certainly not all) institutions that teach the Bible (HB, LXX, NT) assume the necessity of teaching Josephus, Philo, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the texts compiled as “pseudepigrapha” and “apocrypha” in order to contextualize the material. Many of these institutions, however, do not assume the same about the Mishnah (or any rabbinic material for that matter). There will obviously be exceptions to the latter, but, generally speaking, this means that numerous professional bible scholars (never mind clergy) are simply uninitiated into the world of the Mishnah. The Oxford Annotated Mishnah will be able to contribute to that initiation not simply by the fresh and accessible translation but by the characteristically helpful introductions, contextualizing notes, and cross-references to other tractates and texts outside the Mishnah. Each tractate contains an introduction with one or several paragraphs under various headings, typically: “Overview,” “Structure and Organization of the Tractate,” “Main Ideas,” “Relationship to Scripture,” and “Special Notes to the Reader” (this latter category typically comments on manuscript evidence). Some lack one or more of these due to inapplicability; for example, Tractate Yadayim omits “Relationship to Scripture” probably due to the supposition that “hand impurity ... is of rabbinic origin” (3.937). Additionally, nearly every paragraph of a tractate contains illuminating commentary, including explanations of the unstated logic of an opinion and remarks on the development of the opinion from scripture to the Mishnah to their commentators. To grasp the utility of this edition, one may fruitfully compare it to the translation by Herbert Danby (1933), which is praised in the current edition's Introduction (1.8). Danby's translation contains an introduction to the whole Mishnah but nothing before each tractate. And likely due to the limitations of space, the notes, while helpful, are sparse. As a single example, one may compare the two editions' translations and notes of Tractate Yoma. The translation by Danby contains no introduction, spans ten pages, and contains 138 explanatory notes, most of which are a few words or a single sentence. The edition of Yoma in The Oxford Annotated Mishnah, on the contrary, contains two pages of introductory material, a 32-page translation, and 431 explanatory notes. While it is true that “more” does not always amount to “better,” in the case of an edition whose goal is “to equal Danby's in quality and to surpass it in utility” (1.8), the additions are indeed helpful. But more than that, this edition's Introduction sells itself short in stating that the “goal of this translation is to make the Mishnah accessible to the Hebrew-less reader” (6). While this translation certainly serves “the Hebrew-less,” knowing Hebrew would not guarantee comprehending these discussions. The editors state the matter more precisely in their more elaborate articulation of the translation's purpose, saying: “For the Hebrew-less reader, unaccustomed to Mishnaic rhetoric and technical terminology, Danby's translation, while excellent in itself, remains a closed book” (1.8). This is closer to the point. Fluency in Hebrew would not stifle the fact that from the first words of the Mishnah, one feels they have entered into a room where the conversation has been long in session. Thus, the value of this edition surpasses its translation of the Hebrew words into English ones: it provides some, at least some, “catching up” on what has been said while one was out of the room. And for that, many readers will be grateful. In order to showcase the usefulness of this work in helping non-experts understand the logic of opinions in the Mishnah, I will proceed through two categories covered or assumed in the Mishnah that also pertain to material in the NT: legal overrides and the purity of cups. One familiar with legal debate generally, and with the opinions preserved in the Mishnah specifically, will understand the need to establish precedents for the occasions in which one legal requirement overrides another. The situation is inevitable, especially in legal codes that contain temporal components, such as we have in the bible. A classic scenario is that of circumcision, which must be done on the 8th day of a boy's life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3), coinciding with the Sabbath, during which no labor may be done (Ex 20:10). In this case, performing the circumcision on the required day will require performing labor on a day that prohibits it. Keeping one will require breaking the other. On this matter, m. Shabbat 19:2 rules, “On the Sabbath one may do whatever is necessary for a circumcision” (1.423). Thus, circumcision overrides Sabbath. An example pertaining to the temple is found in m. Shevi'it 1:4, in which the text opines on permissible kinds of harvesting during the sabbatical year, in which reaping is forbidden (Lev 25:1–7; cf. Ex 34:21). Shevi'it 1:4 reads: “Just as the plowing [mentioned in the verse] is an optional act, so too is the harvesting [mentioned in the verse] an optional act—this excludes the omer harvest” (1.148–489). On its own, it is unlikely that an uninitiated reader would pause to consider the logic behind this ruling. But in this edition, the opinion contains the following footnote: “Obligatory harvesting acts, however, such as the omer, the first sheaf of the harvest brought to the Temple on the day after Passover (Leviticus 23:10), must be undertaken even on the Sabbath (Menahot 10:3). This follows the notion that Temple rituals override the Sabbath (see Pesahim 6:1-2)” (1.149). Not only does it contain helpful cross-references by which one can read additional examples of overrides, it points out that the prohibition to harvest (in the sabbatical year and the sabbath day) is overridden by the necessity to bring the omer to the temple. Thus, temple law overrides Sabbath. Yair Furstenberg's note both helps explain m. Shevi'it 1:4 and enables the uninitiated reader to see a comparable logic in other opinions and texts. However, when these matters occur in the Gospels (healing on the Sabbath; plucking grain on the Sabbath) one regularly finds (often Christian) interpreters concluding that Jesus challenged the validity of the Law due to his compassion (over against a “Jewish” or “Pharisaic” piety expressed only in externals); or that his self-understanding as a divine agent granted him unilateral capacity simply to declare what is lawful or is not. But these conclusions are unnecessary, and they often result from ignoring the basic component of “overrides” as presented in the Mishnah. One example where understanding the logic elucidated by Furstenberg may be helpful is in Matthew 12. Jesus and his disciples are walking to a synagogue on the Sabbath. His hungry disciples pluck grains to eat them, and the Pharisees tell Jesus they are violating the Sabbath. His legal defense reminds the Pharisees what David and his men did when hungry, how they ate the consecrated bread, which was lawful “to the priests alone” (Matt 12:4). He adds that the priests in doing the work required of them in the temple violate the Sabbath “and are innocent” (Matt 12:5). At this point, the Pharisees would have understood that he was mounting an argument based on overrides. David and his men felt hunger, and that intense hunger overrode the prohibition of non-priests consuming the bread (see m. Yoma 8:5). Similarly, the priests' work in the temple on the Sabbath overrides the prohibition to do no work on the Sabbath. Because his argument depends on overrides, especially the notion that temple law overrides Sabbath law, for his defense to pertain to his situation, he needs to establish (or at least assert) that what he is doing is at least as important, if not more so, than the work required in the temple. If it were, it would suggest that his work also overrides the Sabbath; consequently, he and his disciples would indeed be violating the Sabbath, but like the priests, they would be doing so “innocently.” Such a claim is his next step: “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here” (Matt 12:6). His argument is complete: hunger overrides temple law; temple law overrides Sabbath law; therefore, hunger experienced in the context of doing the work necessary to complete whatever is “greater than the temple” justifies work on the Sabbath. He and his disciples violate the Sabbath, but they are innocent in so doing. What is greater than the temple is a matter of debate. In my opinion, it is the work of announcing the restoration (cf. Matt 12:41). That detail aside, it is clear that Jesus' defense depends on overrides generally; more specifically, he argues in keeping with assumptions also evident in the Mishnah, namely that temple overrides Sabbath, and extreme hunger overrides Sabbath. In Luke 11, Jesus accepts an invitation to dine with a Pharisee, but the ensuing meal does not go as planned (Luke 11:37–54). When he does not wash before eating, Jesus reads the amazement on the Pharisee's face and says, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. You foolish ones, did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you” (Luke 11:39–41; NASB). The need to wash defiled vessels is stated in Lev 11:32–33. As one might expect, due to the understated aspect of the Levitical command, numerous opinions about the washing of vessels arose, and some of these are preserved and debated in Tractates Kelim (translated by Michael Chernick) and Tohorot (translated by Yair Furstenberg). For example, Kelim 25:1–7 and Tohorot 8:7 claim a division of the vessel into interior and exterior. Once again, this edition provides clarifying commentary. The beginning of m. Tohorot 8:7 reads: “If the exterior of a dish was made impure by liquids—R. Eliezer says: It renders liquids impure but does not disqualify foods” (3.757). The casual reader would be forgiven both for proceeding without pause and for being ignorant of the wider discussion in m. Kelim. But Furstenberg's accompanying note explains: “With regard to many utensils, including dishes, the Sages separate their internal, main part from its surrounding secondary surfaces. Liquids defile the whole utensil only if they come in contact with its interior; otherwise, they defile only the part they directly touched (see Kelim 25)” (3.757). Consequently, turning to m. Kelim 25:6 one reads: “Bases, rims, handle sockets, or handles of vessels that have a receptacle upon which [impure] liquids fell—one dries them, and they are pure” (3.509–510). The note by Chernick reads: “Only impurity in a vessel's ‘interior’ can convey impurity to its entirety. The rule that the outside of vessels can become impure is a rabbinic ordinance ...” (3.510). Once more, the contributor clarifies the ruling and states what many unfamiliar readers may not have known, namely the “rabbinic” origin of the impurity of a vessel's exterior. While Jesus' comments in Luke 11 are open to a couple different interpretations, the explanations of the Rabbinic logic on interior and exterior purity help bring some clarity. In my opinion, Jesus critiques the Pharisees not for washing the exterior, but for washing the exterior when ignorant of the fact that the interior is defiled. He uses the example of cup washing to make a point about their interiors, metaphorizing the Pharisee himself as a cup (Luke 11:40). Having transitioned from cups to humans, he says, in effect, “But inside, you [the cup] are defiled! And so washing the interior will render ‘all’ pure to you.” That is, purifying the interior of “the cup,” taking for granted that they purify its exterior (as they do), will render all the cup (the self) pure. Taking into account the rabbinic discussions of vessel impurity may go some way in clarifying that Jesus' claim “all is pure to you” (Luke 11:41) is not a moralizing “redefinition” of purity or a claim that only interior purity matters. It is a claim, in agreement with the rabbinic discussions, that interior defilement renders the whole vessel impure. Thus, purifying both the interior and exterior of the cup/self will render “all” the cup/self pure. The logic of the Mishnah, as explained in the notes by Chernick and Furstenberg, helps better contextualize Jesus' comment on purity. Being a NT scholar, I have chosen points of contact between the Mishnah and the Gospels, but I hope I am not misunderstood. This edition of the Mishnah is not simply useful only to the degree that it sheds light on the NT. It is an immense gift to the academic study of early Judaism and to the Mishnah itself. Not only does it provide an up-to-date and readable translation of the Mishnah, but the annotations provide invaluable information that will help particularly the non-expert find a seat in the room. The editors and contributors are to be congratulated and thanked, and I hope its publication sparks a renewed interest in its pages among a much wider readership

Art · Literature · New Testament · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · History · Philosophy