The Realm of the Sacred, Wherein We May Not Draw an Inference from Something which Itself Has Been Inferred: A Reading of Talmud Bavli Zevachim Folio 50

Abstract

The exegesis of sacred rites in the Talmud is subject to a restriction on the iteration and composition of inference rules. In order to determine the scope and limits of that restriction, the sages of the Talmud deploy those very same inference rules. We present the remarkable features of this early use of self-reference to navigate logical constraints and uncover the hidden complexity behind the sages’ arguments. Appendix 11 contains a translation of the relevant sugya.

¹Hebrew and Aramaic transliteration approximates traditional Sephardic pronunciation, which is closer to academic standard transliteration than the various Ashkenazic pronunciations, yet is legible. Specific references follow the convention of folio (number), side (a or b), number of lines from the top or (if negative) bottom of the page.

Acknowledgements

Comments by Levi Goldwasser, Aaron Segal, and Eli Hirsch were helpful in determining the form and content of this paper.

Notes

¹Hebrew and Aramaic transliteration approximates traditional Sephardic pronunciation, which is closer to academic standard transliteration than the various Ashkenazic pronunciations, yet is legible. Specific references follow the convention of folio (number), side (a or b), number of lines from the top or (if negative) bottom of the page.

²A sugya is the basic unit of talmudic dialectical exchange. Compare a Platonic dialog or a Zen koan.

³This convenience is suggested by the Talmud's language, for the sages’ own expression of this relation ‘davar halameid b'hekeish mahu, shelameid b'gezeirah shavah?’ would be literally translated in just this way.

⁴On the surface, it appears that Rashi's explanation of the passage is truer to its words, for he explicitly points out the ‘third generation’ status of an inference while the Tosafot emphasize what seems to be a different point, viz. circularity. Not only has the present analysis shown how the Tosafot's reading fits with the Talmud's language, it has shown it to be in one sense a better fit: on their reading, the same inference (k ₁) that the sages first call ‘a son of a kal vachomer’ is the inference that they call ‘a son of a son of a kal vachomer’. On Rashi's reading, we saw, the reference of these two remarks shifts.