The Use of Literary Considerations as a Key for Assessing the Reliability of Memrot in the Babylonian Talmud: The Case of the Lo Shanu Ela Traditions

This study has reevaluated the connection between the literary editing of an amoraic source and its historical reliability. This was accomplished through the analysis of a broad corpus of statements employing the term "lo shanu ela" in regard to a tannaitic source found in the Bavli. A close examination of the original versions of these statements (mainly of Palestinian amoraim) in the Yerushalmi demonstrates that they were not originally interpretations of the Mishnah, but rather originated as short halakhic statements, independent of any tannaitic source. When first formed, these sources did not fully accord with Palestinian tannaitic tradition, and the Bavli, as it so frequently does, refashioned them to be interpretive statements. In such a way Babylonian editors harmonized them with tannaitic traditions. Evidence for the "Babylonian" nature of these statements is found in their style: they are partially phrased in Babylonian Aramaic, they do not always accord with the tannaitic source they interpret, and other such literary phenomena. However, such editorial ammedations should not be mistaken for a Babylonian origin of the content of these halakhot, for the halakhic innovation transmitted in the name of the same sage appears in both the Palestinian and Babylonian versions of the statement. The specific and original content of these statements can be uncovered through a careful analysis of the parallels. With regard to the historic reliability of amoraic statements and the origins of the Bavli's technical terminology, many "lo shanu ela" statements have parallels in the Yerushalmi, which are attributed to the same sage as in the Bavli and often use similar language. This makes it difficult to view these statements as the late pseudepigraphic literary inventions of a sixth-seventh century editor.⁷²What's more, for statements that did undergo late editing, there is often a halakhic core shared with the parallel in the Yerushalmi. Thus even the Babylonian versions should not be viewed as late, completely unreliable sources.⁷³The research I have presented here demonstrates that scholars should be cautious when making broad historical assertions based on narrow literary-formalistic criteria denying the historical reliability of amoraic statements (Palestinian or Babylonian) found in the Bavli.⁷⁴I intend to continue to research this assumption on the basis of other corpuses of amoraic statements. The same seems to be true even with regard to the origin of the "lo shanu ela" terminology in the Bavli. It is difficult to view this terminology as the result of late, post-amoraic editing. The term "lo shanu ela" is found frequently in the Yerushalmi,⁷⁵and some of these cases have full parallels in the Bavli (see in the appendix). It therefore seems clear that the term was already in use in early amoraic literature (at least in parts of it), and should not be viewed as a late literary creation. This finding accords with the conclusions of other scholars, who view the Bavli's technical terminology as an early part of the literary creation of the amoraim⁷⁶,.