172 CHAPTER FIVEof thesignificance of theircommonplace material representation, asall mod-
ern scholarship has done, is not only problematic per se but ignores the evi-
dencefromrabbinicliteratureitself(discussedbelow)thatatleastsomerabbis
recognized that decoration was nevermerelydecorative.
What motivated the rabbis’ radical misinterpretation of Greco-Roman pa-
ganism? It is of course impossible to say. But we may at least note that their
formalism, their taxonomists’ aversion to ambiguities, and their consequent
creation of categories whose correspondence to social realities is loose are all
characteristic of their treatment even of issues far less freighted with conse-
quence than paganism. If we knew nothing about the context in which the
rabbisproducedandcompiledthelawsofidolatry,itisunlikelythatwewould
sense anything strange about them.
By suggesting, following C. E. Hayes,^20 an internalist rationale for the laws
ofidolatry, Iamrejecting thesort ofnaı ̈vehistoricizing contextualizationthat
has dominated modern interpretation. For example, E. E. Urbach, in a cele-
brated article, argued that the rabbis’ leniency about certain categories of
images was intended to ease the lot of the economically challenged Jews by
permitting them to deal in slightly damaged idols.^21 Not only is this implausi-
ble(howmuchdemandwasthereforslightlydamagedidols?)andapologetic
(sinceitisintendedtodemonstratethattherabbisoftheMishnahweremore
enlightened than their contemporary Tertullian), but it also makes what I
considertheerrorofregardingrabbiniclegislationasunproblematicallybind-
ingonalltheJews.Butrabbiniclegislationwasutopianinthatitwasdirected
at a nation that no longer existed, and whose former members had no reason
to recognize the laws’ authority over them. It was also inner-directed in that
itsprimarycontextwastherabbinicstudyhouse,increasinglyinstitutionalized
inthecourseofthethirdcentury.Hayes’sargumentthatwetakeseriouslythe
inner dynamics of rabbinic law is convincing.
That said,there is evidence fromrabbinic literature itself thatat least some
of the rabbis were uncomfortable with the implications of their formalism;
theywerenotunawarethattheirownviewsrepresentedanattempttomediate
between the absolute aniconis mand rejection of paganis mde manded by a
rigoristic reading of the Pentateuch (and characteristic of standard pre-
DestructionJewishpractice)andthepervasivepresenceofimagesofthegods
in their own world. Some rabbisare supposed to have sensed that even halak-
hically innocent images are problematic and to have avoided possessing or
evenlooking atthem. Wehavealready encounteredthe PalestinianTalmud’s
ad miration for R. Nahu mbar Si mai—Nahu mof the holy of holies—who
(^20) Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds.
(^21) “The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry.” For discussion of additional examples, see Hayes,Be-
tween the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, pp. 2–24; see also S. Stern, “Images in Jewish
Law in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud,”Zion61 (1996): 397–419.