Answering Questions with Questions: On The Frequent Use of Rhetorical Questions in the Talmud
Illustration by Dall-e. Description: “A historically accurate illustration set in the 2nd century, depicting a group of Jewish scholars engaged in a discussion. The scholars are dressed in traditional 2nd century clothing appropriate for their culture, including tunics and head coverings. They are situated in an architectural setting typical of the period, with stone walls, arches, and perhaps a glimpse of ancient scrolls or texts. The atmosphere is one of deep intellectual engagement, with some scholars gesturing towards each other or towards texts, embodying the spirit of Talmudic debate. The scene should convey a sense of historical authenticity, reflecting the scholarly tradition of questioning and dialogue.”
I've been studying aggadic sugyas intensively recently, and I've been struck by a few things:
1) The way to say "he thought" is amar (אמר), literally “he said”.
2) Related to this lack of abstract language, linguistically, there are almost no passive constructs.
3) Rhetorical and dialogical questions are extremely prevalent.1 In the aggada, it's much less common than nowadays to say something directly, it's often as a rhetorical question. This may explain the Ashkenazi stereotype of answering questions with questions. This last item is what this piece will be about.
What is a rhetorical question?
(Yes, that header is self-referential.)
Rhetorical question - Wikipedia:
A rhetorical question is a question asked for a purpose other than to obtain information. In many cases it may be intended to start a discourse, or as a means of displaying or emphasizing the speaker's or author's opinion on a topic [...]
In the vernacular, this form of rhetorical question is called "rhetorical affirmation". The certainty or obviousness of the answer to a question is expressed by asking another, often humorous, question for which the answer is equally obvious. Popular examples include "Do bears shit in the woods?", "Is the sky blue?" and "Is the Pope Catholic?"
A major feature of rhetorical questions is that they can be restated as statements.
Phrasing them as rhetorical questions simply makes them more dramatic.
In Yiddish speech patterns
David Kraemer has a fascinating article “Talmud Talk and Jewish Talk”, in In geveb: A Journal of Yiddish Studies (2020).2 The abstract of the article states:
Anecdotal evidence, combined with popular representations of Jewish discourse, suggest that there is an identifiably “Jewish” quality of Jewish speech. Jewish conversation leads with questions, interrupts with objections, and is relentlessly argumentative. Scholars have noted the Talmudic echos of these characterizations, particularly in Yiddish speech, and they have often assumed the Talmud and Yeshiva-culture as a source of these habits. Kraemer lays out methodological problems with establishing such causation and refines observations concerning parallels between Talmudic and popular Yiddish discourse. Finally, asking about the plausibility of such directional influence, he reviews the proliferation of the Talmud and its supporting institutions in the Yiddish-speaking world from the invention of the printing press to the end of the nineteenth-century, establishing a prima facie case for the plausibility of such a conclusion.
In the article he writes:
"If not definitive, this quick review at least demonstrates the plausibility of our thesis that Talmudic discourse is an important factor in the development of Jewish speech habits in the Yiddish-speaking world and the worlds to which it gave birth."
Example from the Talmud - debate of Geviha ben Pesisa
Let's look at the dramatic debates of Geviha ben Pesisa (Sanhedrin 91a, parts of which were previously analyzed), and take a closer look at the rhetorical questions, and restate them as statements.
Sanhedrin 91a (section #5), Geviha’s interlocutors say to him:
דאמריתון מיתי חיין.
דחיין מיתי ־ דמיתי חיין?!
you say: The dead will come to life.
The way of the world is that those who are alive die. How can you say that the dead will come to life?
Can be restated as:
you say: The dead will come to life.
The way of the world is that those who are alive die. [it stands to reason that by a fortiori that certainly] the [already] dead will stay dead
In Geviha’s response to the intellectual attack, the fact that it's a fortiori is stated explicity - לא כל שכן:
דאמריתון מיתי לא חיין.
דלא הוו ־ חיי, דהוי חיי, לא כל שכן?!
you say: The dead will not come to life.
If those who were not in existence come to life, is it not reasonable all the more so that those who were once alive will come to life again?
This can be restated as:
you say: The dead will not come to life.
If those who were not in existence come to life, [it stands to reason that by a fortiori that certainly] those who were once alive will come to life again
Here, we'd simply have to remove the "no" to make it a statement - כל שכן, instead of a rhetorical question.
(On the relatively high prevalence of a fortiori in the Talmud, as opposed to other methods that were developed by Aristotelean logic hundreds of years before, see my previous piece.)
Another example from that sugya, in a different debate of Geviha’s (with the Africans, ibid, section #8):
עבד שקנה נכסים ־ עבד למי, ונכסים למי?
with regard to a slave who acquired property, the slave belongs to whom and the property belongs to whom? [The slave and his property belong to the master. ]
Steinzaltz adds the explanation, which I've put in brackets.
If it wasn't rhetorical, this could have been stated explicitly:
"The slave and his property belong to the master."
In Hebrew, this would be something like:
עבד לאדון, ונכסים לאדון
But the rhetorical question makes it more dramatic
Negation
Similarly, we often find negation used, where in English it would be seen as unnecessary.
“Negation” in grammar (based on Google definition, with adjustments):
involves the use of a negative word (e.g. not, no, never), or a word or affix with negative force (e.g. nothing, non-).
Examples:
לא אמרן אלא ....
Literally, "[X] was not said except where"
In English, this is more typically expressed as "[X] is said where".
Meaning, in the Talmud it's expressed using a negation.
Examples (see Sefaria search results for sources):
אמר רב פפא: לא אמרן, אלא דלא טעים מידי, אבל טעים מידי, לית לן בה.
אמר רב פפא: לא אמרן אלא באתרא דלא חתימי, אבל באתרא דחתימי, אי לא חזי חותמה, לא שקיל, ובאתרא דלא חתימי נמי לא אמרן, אלא דלא מהנדסי, אבל מהנדסי, לית לן בה.
Similarly:
אל תקרי א, אלא ב
Literally, "don't read [it as] A, rather [as] B"
In English, this would be simply "read A as B"
Examples:3
אמר רבי אבהו: אל תקרי: "עלי עין", אלא "עולי עין".
אמר רבי אבהו: אל תקרי 'לשד' אלא: 'שד'.
אמר רבי אבהו: אל תקרי: "ויראו" אלא "ויראו"
A possible factor for use of negation, is that, these seemingly unnecessary additional words helps with readability, and prevents loss of information.
In halachic sugyas, there are many such formulas, such as: Iba'ya Lehu (איבעיא להו = "They had a question"); and clarifying queries:
Mai Beinaihu (מאי בינייהו = "What's the difference between them?"): Difference between two similar opinions;
Mai Ta'ama (מאי טעמא = "What's the reason?");
Mena Hani Mili (מנא הני מילי = "From where are these words?"): Biblical or study source for a halacha;
Mai Nafka Mina (מאי נפקא מינא = "What's the outcome?"): Practical difference between opinions.
See my previous piece on linguistic signposts in the Talmud.
Thanks to MA from the 'Ask the Beit Midrash' Facebook group for pointing me to this excellent article.
For sources, see Olivia Devorah Tucker’s Sefaria source sheet: אל תקרי ״___״ אלא ״___״ Al Ti'Krai "___" Ehleh "___" (Don't read it "___" rather "___") ; and see the 2019 Hebrew article by Metania Yedid (with previous scholarship cited):
מתניה ידיד, "מדרשי 'אל תקרי': דרכו המתודולוגית־חינוכית של הדרשן", דרישה 4 (תשע"ט)