The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis. Naftali S. Cohn

In this case, the entire chain is imagined to be composed of courts linked in time from the biblical era to the earliest rabbi in the post-destruction era.⁵⁴ Taking the various chain-of-transmission narratives as variants of the same motif expressed differently in different contexts, there appears to be a recurrent assumption evidenced by this motif that the Court and its members preceded individual rabbis—and ultimately, all rabbis—in a chain of transmission going back to Moses. It is worth emphasizing that those who precede the rabbis are constructed as Court members and not Pharisees, as is typically assumed. As Shaye Cohen has demonstrated for rabbinic literature in general, “at no point in antiquity did the rabbis see themselves clearly as Pharisees or as the descendants of the Pharisees.”⁵⁵

      The second body of evidence that demonstrates that the rabbis are seen as heirs of the Court consists of reports scattered throughout the Mishnah of taḳḳanot, or emendations made to particular laws.⁵⁶ In total, nineteen pericopae describe an emendation to a law using the formulaic word hitḳin (התקין, “he emended”) or hitḳinu (התקינו, “they emended”). They are attributed as follows (listing the number of pericopae;⁵⁷ arranged chronologically):⁵⁸

Anonymous	7
The early prophets	1
Bēit din (Court of Temple times)	3
Hillel the elder	3
Rabban Gamliel the elder	1
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel	1
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai	3

      The toseftan examples that expand the Mishnah’s list can be summarized similarly:⁵⁹

Shimon ben Shetaḥ	1
Rabban Gamliel	3
Rabbi (Yehudah the Naśi)	1
“Our rabbis”	1
(The sages)	(1)

      What is significant about these lists of those who have made emendations to Jewish law is that all appear in the rabbinic chain of transmission.⁶⁰ Parallel to the chain-of-transmission narratives, the reports of taḳḳānōt assume that there exists a continuity between biblical institutions, the Court of Temple times, and the earliest rabbis. In the Tosefta, this extends further to Rabbi Yehudah the Naśi and to the rabbis in general.

      According to the evidence of these two recurrent mishnaic motifs, the Court of Second Temple times and its members are seen as the rabbis’ predecessors. The rabbis are distinct from the Court, as evidenced by the consistent lack of the title “rabbi” in the Mishnah for these predecessors; yet the act of transmission provides continuity between the two.⁶¹ Furthermore, the chain of transmission provides a history and account of origins of Jewish law that establishes the legal authority of the rabbis.

      Rabbinic Memory: Past and Present Legal Institutions in the Mishnah and the Argument for Rabbinic Authority

      The authoritative role in Temple ritual that the mishnaic rabbis repeatedly imagine for the Court, as well as the relationship they claim to this Court, can best be explained in light of the role that the rabbis claim for themselves in their own time. As I have shown in the previous chapter, the rabbis picture themselves as legal authorities, jurists of traditional Judaean law, who have the power to determine how Judaeans practice traditional rituals and other cultural practices. Because they claim for themselves a legal role that provides authority over ritual practice, the rabbis imagine the ritual of the past to be controlled by a similar legal institution, and they invent a connection or possibly emphasize an existing connection to this past institution. Perhaps drawing loosely on earlier traditions about a council made up of elders, the rabbis create a past that mirrors the present as they would like it to be. They turn this council into a legal body, a Court, to which they give control over the most important rituals of the Temple era. The Court’s invented hybrid legal-ritual role reflects the hybrid legal-ritual role that the rabbis claim for themselves. Because they see the Court as their predecessors, their memory of an authoritative Court provides a historical foundation out of which the rabbis and their role emerge. The memory of the Temple expressed in ritual narratives thus creates a myth of origins for the rabbinic group and their legal-ritual role that makes a powerful claim for rabbinic authority in this role.

      In narrating and recalling past Temple ritual, the rabbis are therefore creating a past for themselves that authorizes their own real or desired role—a role, they believe, that has always been central and has upheld tradition and correct ritual practice.⁶² The rabbinic memory of the past provides the rabbinic role with antiquity and establishes that those who have filled this role have always had authority. In the rabbinic view evidenced by the Mishnah, ritual law and practice in post-Temple times must follow rabbinic rulings just as ritual law and practice followed the dictates of their predecessors in the times of the Temple.⁶³

       Chapter 3

      Narrative Form and Rabbinic Authority