“For I Say”: A Keeper at the Rabbinic Gates of Doubt
Abstract The rabbinic idiom “for I say” ( שאני אומר ) has been construed philologically as a specific type of presumption, buttressed with first-person rhetoric. From the perspective of legal analysis, I contend that “for I say” and presumption are diametrically opposed decision-rules, employed cons...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Brill
2021
|
In: |
The review of rabbinic Judaism
Year: 2021, Volume: 24, Issue: 1, Pages: 56-72 |
Further subjects: | B
Jewish law and jurisprudence
B factual uncertainty B legal fictions B Narrative B talmudic law |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | Abstract The rabbinic idiom “for I say” ( שאני אומר ) has been construed philologically as a specific type of presumption, buttressed with first-person rhetoric. From the perspective of legal analysis, I contend that “for I say” and presumption are diametrically opposed decision-rules, employed consistently in tannaitic and amoraic literature. While presumptions are exclusionary rules, circumscribing doubt, “for I say” is an inclusionary rule, validating doubt. The versatility of the “for I say” rule testifies to its preliminary nature – while the outcome is determined by a robust set of primary decision rules. “For I say” should be read as: for I can say, legitimizing doubt and calling on primary rabbinic rules for treating cases of factual uncertainty, in contestable instances. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1570-0704 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: The review of rabbinic Judaism
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700704-12341375 |