how to make a website for free
Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud (Brown Judaic Studies)

ebooks Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud (Brown Judaic Studies) by Richard Hidary in History

Description

Part riot; part slaughter; the Boston Massacre of March 1770 was a political cause celebre and one of the key events leading to the American Revolution.


#2043174 in Books 2010-11-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.02 x 1.01 x 5.98l; 1.46 #File Name: 1930675917454 pages


Review
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful. Somewhat dense but well-doneBy Michael LewynThis book describes the attitudes of the Talmudic sages towards legal pluralism- that is; differences of opinion among rabbis about halacha (Jewish law); and the extent to which rabbis should be allowed to follow minority opinions or local customs rejected in other cities.Based on dozens of examples; Hidary suggests that there is a significant difference between the Jersualem Talmud ("JT") and the more influential Babylonian Talmud ("BT"). The former text generally maintains a more negative attitude towards diversity of halachic practice. For example; the JT proposes a universal system of rules for deciding between disputing sages; while the BT rejects this system. The BT often discusses diverse practices among the sages; while the JT tries to explain them away.Why do these differences exist? Hidary proposes a few possible explanations. First; the JT was written in Israel; where Christianity was strong and rabbis thus might have sought to reduce diversity in order to prevent additional sects from splitting up Judaism. By contrast; Babylonia was mostly pagan. Second; Israel was dominated by the Roman Empire; which tended to favor codification of laws (a project that tends to reduce diversity). By contrast; Babylonia was dominated by the Persian Empire; whose legal texts (both secular and religious) were usually not codes and generally accepted multiple teachings. Third; in Israel the rabbinic movement was centered in the north of Israel; perhaps where all scholars lived in the same place; unity would be easier to achieve and disunity might seem more threatening. By contrast; Babylonia was more decentralized; and scholars could more easily carve out local fiefdoms and would be less likely to even know about the practices of other cities.

© Copyright 2025 Books History Library. All Rights Reserved.