Interpreting religious texts always represents a substantial degree of complexity due to the multiple approaches to understanding the meaning of a specific message or a certain term. The Talmud is no exception to the observed rule, with its Mishnah and Gemara, or the written text and the perception of its meaning, demanding a significant struggle to be correlated to each other. Though scholars express different opinions regarding the interpretation of the hand as the public ground in Gemara, the existing Mishnah leads to believe that the hand must be recognized as such when presented intentionally.
Specifically, the idea of extending one’s hand in an attempt at6 offering or sharing something is presumed to be unclaimed ground. While Mishnah seems to be quite clear on the concept of the hand as the unclaimed territory at first, the further integration of Gemara into the interpretation of the text leads to further complications (Mazuz, 2018). Namely, suggesting that the notion of intent must be incorporated into the definition to characterize the hand as the unclaimed area, Mishnah introduces certain confusion into the understanding of the text. Asa result, the attempt at drawing the hand back may become a prohibited action from the standpoint of the Talmud depending on the interpretation used as the template. Therefore, the perception of the hand as the unclaimed ground appears to be the most sensible avenue to take when examining the key statements of the Talmud.
In other words, the question of whether a man whose hand is filled with fruit can draw it back to the ground on which the man stands can be answered with a resounding confirmation. Moreover, in the s specified context, the concept of holding fruit in one’s hand could also be interpreted as the symbol of plentifulness and, therefore, the symbol of regal origin (Mazuz, 2018). Moreover, the concept of plentifulness linked to the image of a hand in the passage under analysis can be correlated to the idea of not only interpreting the Talmud in a biased way but also introducing the tone’s perspective into the sacred narrative, therefore, altering it and preventing others from its proper understanding. Specifically, Mazuz (2018) refers to the following passage as the confirmation of the described relationships between the notion of the hand and the phenomena of Mishnah and Gemara: “So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, ‘This is from Allāh’” (Mazuz, 2018, p. 205). Therefore, the notion of the hand becomes metaphorical, losing its straightforwardness that the concept of plentifulness implied in the first iteration of the message, and opens the door to new interpretations. Furthermore, the described change in the interpretation of the sacred text allows for shifting from interpersonal relationships to individual dialogue with the Lord and the believer. By dissecting the implicit relationships between the Mishnah and Gemara, one will be able to locate underlying meanings of the text of the Talmud, therefore, learning about the cultural premises thereof.
Despite the presence of different opinions concerning the interpretation of the hand in the Talmud, viewing the Mishnah in its traditional manner suggests that the intention defines the perception of the hand as such in the Talmud writing. Therefore, introducing multiple perspectives into the analysis of the reading is vital. Thus, opportunities for discovering new meanings of the traditional passages open.
Reference
Mazuz, H. (2018). From ‘Moses’ Mishnah’to Moses Maimonides’ Mishneh Tōrah: The Development of the Jewish Oral Law According to al-Maqrīzī. Journal Asiatique, 306(2), 201-207.h