historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

116 ADIEL SCHREMER
This can be shown in the first place by the very fact that there
is almost no reference to Scripture in the early halakhic dicta of the
Second Temple era. As Ephraim E. Urbach noted long ago, in all
the reports found in talmudic literature regarding halakhic decisions
and rulings given by authorities of the Second Temple era, prior to
Hillel and Shammai, one finds no reference to Scripture at all. 34
These early rulings, without exception, contain no biblical proof-texts
as their foundation or justification. Moreover, in a recent paper,
Daniel Schwartz has shown that even in the sayings attributed to
Hillel (whom talmudic tradition records as the one who laid the
foundations for a systematic study of Scripture—that is, the seven
middot or exegetical principles for the study of Torah), 35 reference to
Scripture and use of it as a justification for a halakhic position are
rarely to be found, if at all. 36
In light of the central role that scriptural citations play in later
rabbinic discourse and in light of the rabbinic tendency to add citations
to halakhic statements where these are lacking, the absence of
scriptural proof-texts in halakhic sayings attributed to authorities of
the Second Temple period is striking, to say the least, and undoubtedly
calls for an explanation. Urbach has suggested that the fact that
early halakha, as it is known to us from rabbinic sources, is presented
in the form of decrees, testimonies and traditions derived from
custom, but without reference to Scripture, indeed indicates that in
those days halakhic decisions were not derived from Scripture. Rather,
sources are, like most of the rabbinic material relating to this institution, idealised,
late, and anachronistic projections, and therefore cannot be used as evidence for
the Second Temple era. See D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish
Self-Government in Antiquity, TSAJ 38 (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994),
77-130. Even if one were to accept these sources at face value, it should be stressed
that they contain no hint whatsoever as to the exact period to which they refer; it
may well be the case that they 'describe' a first century CE 'reality,' while I speak
of a much earlier era. It should be borne in mind that my thesis does not exclude,
of course, the simple possibility of historical development; the contrary is the truth.
34 See E. E. Urbach, "The Drasha," 166-82 (= The World of the Sages, 50-66);
Urbach, The Halakhah, 93-108; Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara, 19.
35 T. San. 7:11 (ed. Zuckermandel, 427); Sifra, Baraitha de-Rabbi Ishma'el, end
(L. Finkelstein, Sifra on Leviticus [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1983] 9-10); ARN, Version A, 37 (ed. Schechter, 110). Cf. Schurer, History of the
Jewish People, 344.
36 See D. R. Schwartz, "Hillel and Scripture: From Authority to Exegesis," in
Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, ed. J. H. Charlesworth
and L. L. Johns (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 335-62.