MY DISSERTATION
Hidary, Richard. “Tolerance for Diversity of Halakhic Practice in the Talmuds.” PhD diss., New York University, 2008.
A revised version will be publised as: Hidary, Richard. Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud. Brown Judaic Studies. Providence: Brown University, forthcoming.
This dissertation assesses the degree of tolerance held by the rabbis of the Talmud towards diversity of halakhic practice within the rabbinic community. By comparing dozens of Yerushalmi and Bavli parallel sugyot, we have found that the Yerushalmi generally views diversity of practice negatively, preferring a monistic view of halakha, while the Bavli takes a more pluralistic attitude. Tannaitic sources mostly tend towards a monistic view, but also include some of the most strongly pluralistic statements in rabbinic literature.
One explanation for the split between the two Talmuds is the difference in the distribution of the Jewish population in each country. The rabbis in Babylonia were scattered in various cities and were thus able to maintain independence from each other as they legislated for their local populations. The rabbis in Palestine were concentrated in a few neighboring cities in the north such that different practices in close proximity lead to tension.
A second and more important explanation is rooted in the intellectual culture of the rabbis in each location. The Yerushalmi sees halakha as a mimetic set of static traditions and so it seeks out the one most authentic practice. The Bavli intellectualizes halakha and so recognizes the validity of multiple views and practices that result from rational argumentation. This difference between the Talmuds corresponds to findings of previous scholars regarding the value of multiple opinions and debate.
Though the Talmuds present a range of attitudes toward pluralism, this range is still significantly circumscribed at both ends. Both Talmuds tolerate diversity of practice regarding customs as well as laws that depend on some local reality. On the other hand, no rabbinic sources tolerate people already labeled as minim (heretics) whose practices are invalid and who remain outside the boundaries of rabbinic Judaism. Both Talmuds express a yearning for uniformity and both have some measure of tolerance; the difference between them is only in degree.
The body of the dissertation includes detailed critical and literary analyses of texts on topics such as the difference between law and custom, the prohibition against making factions, rabbis as local authorities, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, the efforts of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh, the rebellious elder, the mistaken court, and the Talmudic endeavor to systematically decide between disputes in the Mishnah. The conclusion summarizes the various rationales and legal mechanisms that the Talmuds use to explain and legislate both the monistic and the pluralistic positions.