Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

A Non-Rabbinic Law Rejected by the Tannaim

David Henshke
The Jewish Quarterly Review
Vol. 92, No. 1/2 (Jul. - Oct., 2001), pp. 79-103
DOI: 10.2307/1455612
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1455612
Page Count: 25
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($12.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
A Non-Rabbinic Law Rejected by the Tannaim
Preview not available

Abstract

The biblical law requiring the redemption of the firstborn of unclean animals appears in the Torah in two formulations. While Exodus limits the commandment to a firstborn ass, Numbers refers to an "unclean animal" in general. The Rabbis had two possible ways to reconcile the verses: (1) the ass was mentioned as an example, but the commandment actually applies to all unclean animals; (2) the commandment is restricted to the ass, which was intended in the phrase "unclean animal." While the Rabbis adopted the second alternative, Philo adopted the first, as did the Karaites. This paper examines the thesis put forward by others that traces of Philo's interpretation may be found in rabbinic literature, and that both possible explanations were debated by the Rabbis. Examination of the sources, ranging from the covenant of the Returnees of Zion to the late tannaitic period, reveals that, although the Rabbis were aware of the alternative intrepretation that the firstborn of any unclean animal must be redeemed, throughout tannaitic literature this interpretation was rejected in favor of the position that the obligation applies only to the firtborn of an ass. This essay also discusses the various explanations offered by the Rabbis, on the one hand, for the singling out of the ass, and, on the other hand, for the general formulation "unclean animal."

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[79]
    [79]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
80
    80
  • Thumbnail: Page 
81
    81
  • Thumbnail: Page 
82
    82
  • Thumbnail: Page 
83
    83
  • Thumbnail: Page 
84
    84
  • Thumbnail: Page 
85
    85
  • Thumbnail: Page 
86
    86
  • Thumbnail: Page 
87
    87
  • Thumbnail: Page 
88
    88
  • Thumbnail: Page 
89
    89
  • Thumbnail: Page 
90
    90
  • Thumbnail: Page 
91
    91
  • Thumbnail: Page 
92
    92
  • Thumbnail: Page 
93
    93
  • Thumbnail: Page 
94
    94
  • Thumbnail: Page 
95
    95
  • Thumbnail: Page 
96
    96
  • Thumbnail: Page 
97
    97
  • Thumbnail: Page 
98
    98
  • Thumbnail: Page 
99
    99
  • Thumbnail: Page 
100
    100
  • Thumbnail: Page 
101
    101
  • Thumbnail: Page 
102
    102
  • Thumbnail: Page 
103
    103