What do you think?
Rate this book
The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave: Exploring Talmudic Narratives
The Talmud is well known for its complex legal discussions and halakhic discourse, yet the Talmud also contains a large amount of aggada, non-halalkhic teachings about theology, ethics, spirituality, psychology, health, and many other topics, interspersed throughout the text. This fascinating material has not merited the same amount of scholarly attention over the centuries as has the halakhic portion, and its riches are waiting to be mined.The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave by Rabbi Dr. Moshe Sokol offers eye-opening studies of eight aggadic stories about sages. These narratives contain dramatic explorations of human nature revolving around a common the cost of living a deeply principled life, and the complex ways in which human nature, past experiences, and future hopes shape difficult moral choices. Rabbi Sokol sheds light on these stories, drawing on classical rabbinic commentaries, contemporary scholarship, and insights from such diverse fields as psychology, literature, cultural studies, philosophy, history, and more.The Talmud has endured for millennia, and despite predictions to the contrary, the study of Talmud flourishes. The talmudic conversation will continue long into the future, and aggadic narratives too, properly understood, have much to teach future generations.
327 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 13, 2021
2 people are currently reading
9 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 17, 2021
It is said that when giving public lectures on Aggadah, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik would work especially hard on them. He felt that if an attendee misunderstood his Talmudic lectures, the effects would not be particularly devastating. However, given the nature of aggadic texts, if an attendee misunderstood the lecture, they could leave with heretical ideas or think that the rabbis of the Talmud were buffoons.
The nature of aggadic texts is that they contain ideas that are quite deep but prone to misinterpretation. Often called rabbinic tales, Aggadah is far from simple anecdotes. They explore deep, metaphysical concepts hidden deep in the text. Furthermore, misunderstanding these narratives could lead one to believe in God’s corporeality, polytheism, or other heretical concepts. Thus Rabbi Soloveitchik’s effort in ensuring they were understood with crystal clarity.
In The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave: Exploring Talmudic Narrative (Magid Books), Rabbi Moshe Sokol, Dean of Lander College, has written a brilliant book t that continues The Rav’s approach of approaching Aggadah seriously and interpreting the stories as sophisticated, profound narratives.
In this highly original work, Sokol analyzes eight aggadic narratives about Chazal (Talmudic sages). The challenge in attempting to understand these stories is that there will forever be an inherent tension in trying to understand the personalities of Chazal. In the Talmud (Shabbat 112b), Rava bar Zimuna states: if the early generations of Sages are characterized as sons of angels, then we are human. But if the early generations are characterized as human, then we are like donkeys.
To which Rava bar Zimuna clarifies that he does not mean like the holy donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, who was an extraordinarily intelligent donkey; rather, like a typical donkey. Sokol bridges that tension and explores how the sages, while angelic, were also human. They had feelings and emotions and were men of deep convictions and principles.
For many people, the 2004 ban on the books of Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin was the first time they had to deal with the notion of cherem (excommunication). Note that Slifkin himself was not put in cherem, rather his books. In two of the chapters, Sokol deals were two of the greatest sages in history who were put in cherem: Rabbi Eliezer and Avakya ben Mahalalel.
He explains how their highly principled approaches to life put them on a collision course which led to their cherem. He contrasts how they ultimately dealt with that reality. With Rabbi Eliezer, he died in purity, freed from his excommunication, to which one cannot go more than a few pages in the Talmud without seeing him quoted. While Avakya ben Mahalalel suffered a crueler fate, that even with his genius and greatness, aside from a single quote in Pirkei Avot, is not mentioned in the Talmud.
A generation gap is a difference in values and attitudes between one generation and the next. Often manifest between a child and their parents. Sokol show this is not a new phenomenon and opens his book with an analysis of Rabbi Eliezer and his father, Hyrcanus. He was just Eliezer then, and his lack of yeshiva education brought him to tears. As one of the richest men at the time, not only did Hyrcanus not support his son in that endeavor, but their gap in values was so immense that communication between them was not feasible. In fact, there could be no communication between them, as they were so different, and their values far apart.
Sokol writes that even when Rabbi Eliezer became the leader of the generation, and after he reconciles with his father, their reconciliation is nothing more than a superficial one. While Hyrcanus took pride in his son’s achievements, he still fails to truly understand his son or to appreciate the values to which he has devoted his life. And that is the classic definition of a generation gap.
Perhaps the most stunning piece of agaddah in all of the Talmud is the story of Rabbi Eliezer and the oven of ahknai. What should have been the equivalent of a simple kashrut question turns into a fierce debate that includes supernatural events, excommunication, death, and more. The debate over the purity of this unique clay oven leads the sages to excommunicate Rabbi Eliezer.
The notion of personal excommunication is something not to be taken lightly. The Hebrew term for excommunication is cherem, which Rabbi Ezra Schwartz quoted Rav Hershel Schachter, who noted that it has the same three letters as r-m-ch, which the Talmud uses to represents the 248 limbs of a person, i.,e., the person themselves. So when an individual is put in cherem, the court that is doing that is in effect saying that these 248 limbs, i.e., the person, should drop dead.
The story of the oven of ahknai and ensuring excommunication is one filled with drama, personality conflicts, religious principles, and more. Sokol concludes that sometimes there is a cost to living a principled life, for living a principled life may come at the expense of living an emotionally sensitive one. And those are precisely the conflicts that created a loggerhead between Rabbi Eliezer, Rabban Gamliel, and other great sages of the time.
Other seminal aggadic stories include that of Rav Yochanan and Reish Leikish, Rav Kahana and Rav Yochanan, and Honi Ha’Magil. Sokol brings fascinating insights to these narratives, and the reader is left with a level of clarity that takes the inscrutability out of these tales.
Sokol has written a highly original and engaging work. He brings out the profundity of Aggadah and gets to the depth of the personalities involved. The challenge with Aggadah is that it is extraordinarily easy to misinterpret, and that was the dilemma the Rav had to deal with. And like the Rav in his aggadic discourses, in The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave, Rabbi Moshe Sokol rises to the occasion.
The nature of aggadic texts is that they contain ideas that are quite deep but prone to misinterpretation. Often called rabbinic tales, Aggadah is far from simple anecdotes. They explore deep, metaphysical concepts hidden deep in the text. Furthermore, misunderstanding these narratives could lead one to believe in God’s corporeality, polytheism, or other heretical concepts. Thus Rabbi Soloveitchik’s effort in ensuring they were understood with crystal clarity.
In The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave: Exploring Talmudic Narrative (Magid Books), Rabbi Moshe Sokol, Dean of Lander College, has written a brilliant book t that continues The Rav’s approach of approaching Aggadah seriously and interpreting the stories as sophisticated, profound narratives.
In this highly original work, Sokol analyzes eight aggadic narratives about Chazal (Talmudic sages). The challenge in attempting to understand these stories is that there will forever be an inherent tension in trying to understand the personalities of Chazal. In the Talmud (Shabbat 112b), Rava bar Zimuna states: if the early generations of Sages are characterized as sons of angels, then we are human. But if the early generations are characterized as human, then we are like donkeys.
To which Rava bar Zimuna clarifies that he does not mean like the holy donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, who was an extraordinarily intelligent donkey; rather, like a typical donkey. Sokol bridges that tension and explores how the sages, while angelic, were also human. They had feelings and emotions and were men of deep convictions and principles.
For many people, the 2004 ban on the books of Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin was the first time they had to deal with the notion of cherem (excommunication). Note that Slifkin himself was not put in cherem, rather his books. In two of the chapters, Sokol deals were two of the greatest sages in history who were put in cherem: Rabbi Eliezer and Avakya ben Mahalalel.
He explains how their highly principled approaches to life put them on a collision course which led to their cherem. He contrasts how they ultimately dealt with that reality. With Rabbi Eliezer, he died in purity, freed from his excommunication, to which one cannot go more than a few pages in the Talmud without seeing him quoted. While Avakya ben Mahalalel suffered a crueler fate, that even with his genius and greatness, aside from a single quote in Pirkei Avot, is not mentioned in the Talmud.
A generation gap is a difference in values and attitudes between one generation and the next. Often manifest between a child and their parents. Sokol show this is not a new phenomenon and opens his book with an analysis of Rabbi Eliezer and his father, Hyrcanus. He was just Eliezer then, and his lack of yeshiva education brought him to tears. As one of the richest men at the time, not only did Hyrcanus not support his son in that endeavor, but their gap in values was so immense that communication between them was not feasible. In fact, there could be no communication between them, as they were so different, and their values far apart.
Sokol writes that even when Rabbi Eliezer became the leader of the generation, and after he reconciles with his father, their reconciliation is nothing more than a superficial one. While Hyrcanus took pride in his son’s achievements, he still fails to truly understand his son or to appreciate the values to which he has devoted his life. And that is the classic definition of a generation gap.
Perhaps the most stunning piece of agaddah in all of the Talmud is the story of Rabbi Eliezer and the oven of ahknai. What should have been the equivalent of a simple kashrut question turns into a fierce debate that includes supernatural events, excommunication, death, and more. The debate over the purity of this unique clay oven leads the sages to excommunicate Rabbi Eliezer.
The notion of personal excommunication is something not to be taken lightly. The Hebrew term for excommunication is cherem, which Rabbi Ezra Schwartz quoted Rav Hershel Schachter, who noted that it has the same three letters as r-m-ch, which the Talmud uses to represents the 248 limbs of a person, i.,e., the person themselves. So when an individual is put in cherem, the court that is doing that is in effect saying that these 248 limbs, i.e., the person, should drop dead.
The story of the oven of ahknai and ensuring excommunication is one filled with drama, personality conflicts, religious principles, and more. Sokol concludes that sometimes there is a cost to living a principled life, for living a principled life may come at the expense of living an emotionally sensitive one. And those are precisely the conflicts that created a loggerhead between Rabbi Eliezer, Rabban Gamliel, and other great sages of the time.
Other seminal aggadic stories include that of Rav Yochanan and Reish Leikish, Rav Kahana and Rav Yochanan, and Honi Ha’Magil. Sokol brings fascinating insights to these narratives, and the reader is left with a level of clarity that takes the inscrutability out of these tales.
Sokol has written a highly original and engaging work. He brings out the profundity of Aggadah and gets to the depth of the personalities involved. The challenge with Aggadah is that it is extraordinarily easy to misinterpret, and that was the dilemma the Rav had to deal with. And like the Rav in his aggadic discourses, in The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave, Rabbi Moshe Sokol rises to the occasion.
October 31, 2022
Moshe Sokol’s, The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave: Exploring Talmudic Narratives (Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2021) offers detailed readings of eight rabbinic narratives including several from the Babylonian Talmud that have become extremely popular in recent years. This book reflects the renewed interest in Talmudic stories kindled by the work of many academic scholars over the past decades, as well as by popular writers like Ruth Calderon (A Bride for One Night [2014]), Binyamin Lau (The Sages: Volumes I-IV [2010-2015]), and others. The book appears to be a work of scholarship, or at least popularization of scholarship—the author is dean of Lander College for Men of Touro College, holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania and has authored several academic books, including Judaism Examined: Essays in Jewish Philosophy and Ethics (2013). Published by Koren-Maggid, the book has footnotes, references to contemporary scholarship and a brief bibliography, thus giving it the appearance of an academic work. However, the book is something quite different, and its genre, assumptions and intended audience are difficult to identify: Is it a work for scholars or the laity? For the modern Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox or others? For experienced or unexperienced readers? The evidence, we will see, is confused and inconsistent.
In his introductory chapter Sokol very briefly sets forth his goals and methods. Sokol stresses he does not engage in “comparative or source-critical” study, as he is not interested in the processes by which the story may have been composed from the amalgamation of earlier sources, but “takes the text as it appears in a classical source as a self-sufficient literary text, and seeks to understand what its particular author (or editor) might have meant to convey” (8). As to method: “Essentially, I ask of the texts many questions, and propose answers based upon my understanding of the narrative itself, the intellectual history of the period in which the protagonists of the narrative lived, various Jewish sources, and insights from such diverse fields as psychology, literature, cultural studies, philosophy, and more” (4). The goal is to provide “a retelling of the story with a running commentary full of observations, questions, and potential answers, and includ[e] a very extended analysis and discussion” (4). In other words, Sokol will offer a close reading of the text, a literary analysis of its final form. One might wish for more detail on how one goes about the analysis, what literary features are important, and how they contribute to the insights. But the process of close reading is difficult to describe precisely, and it is completely legitimate to focus on the final from of the story, the form communicated to and received by the text’s audience. In a strange remark Sokol adds: “my aim is to explain these often-puzzling texts in ways that make sense to me. If other readers of these narratives find these explanations helpful too, I will be more than gratified.” We can hardly expect any interpreter of any literature to explain texts in ways that do not make sense to them. However, interpreters owe their readers an account of why their explanations make sense to them—their general assumptions and the theoretical basis for their methods—and on this point Sokol’s disclosures are less than adequate.
The elephant in the introduction, so to speak, is Sokol’s perspective on the historicity of Talmudic stories. Since the 1970s scholars have rejected the understanding of rabbinic stories as reliable biographical and historical sources with which the lives and deeds of the sages can be reconstructed. Some stories have a historical kernel, but it is impossible to separate that kernel from legendary accretions and embellishment. Many stories date from centuries after the events they depict and have no historical basis at all. Stories feature symbolic names, wordplay, irony, ambiguity, parallel structure and other literary features because the storytellers freely composed stories without being tied to a historical reality, and could mold their narrative material creatively and aesthetically. Later storytellers in turn felt free to rework earlier stories, to adapt them to their needs and purposes, which is why we have multiple, conflicting and contradictory versions of a story in the Bavli, Yerushalmi and other rabbinic documents. Different versions of rabbinic stories contradict each other relentlessly. From the notes and bibliography Sokol is aware of this scholarship, as should be any scholar writing on the topic. But Sokol is absolutely silent on what he makes of it or how it factors into his discussion. While his views become evident from the analyses of the stories throughout the book, the reader deserves a discussion up front, as well as its justification and grounding.
The major problem with the book, as I will discuss in detail below, is the complete incoherence of Sokol’s approach. He has been influenced by modern scholarship that understands the stories of the Talmud as literary compositions, that is, non-historical fictions or artistic creations. For that reason they should be studied with close reading and literary analysis, and Sokol does an admirable job of applying such techniques. But Sokol cannot bring himself to accept the fact that this understanding of the genre of the stories essentially entails that they are not historical-biographical accounts and cannot be presented as such. Sokol wants to have it both ways, ignoring the inherent tension between literary and historical-biographical approaches, resulting in a sha’atnez of mixed epistemologies and jumbled theoretical underpinnings. Beneath the surface of some interesting and sensitive readings is a confused, incoherent and self-contradictory understanding of the origins and nature of rabbinic stories
***
That said, one cannot deny that Sokol is a sensitive and insightful reader of texts. His analyses in each chapter are thorough, filled with enlightening observations, and based on comprehensive knowledge of rabbinic literature and its commentaries. He is adept at pointing out irony, ambiguity, wordplay and other literary aspects of the texts. In part due to their original form as oral literature, Talmudic stories are terse and gapped, and require strong readers to fill those gaps and make sense of the frustrating lack of information. Sokol is a very strong reader—perhaps even too strong. He leaves almost no question unasked, no detail without investigation, which, to my mind, often amounts to overreading. Literary theorists distinguish gaps—which the author or storyteller intended the audience to fill—from blanks, which the author did not intend the audience to fill, as they are irrelevant to his purposes. Sokol fills a lot of blanks, asking and answering questions peripheral to the storyteller’s concerns. But Sokol does not claim these speculations are necessarily correct or are the only way to interpret the text. And many readers will undoubtedly wonder about those questions, and appreciate Sokol addressing them.
Here is an example of Sokol’s insightful analysis: In the chapter on Rav Kahana’s visit to R. Yohanan’s academy (Bava Qamma 117a-b), Sokol observes that the snake wound around the burial cave of Rav Kahana—this is the snake in the title of the book—continues the animal imagery from earlier in the story, where the two rabbis are compared to a lion and a fox: “The snake reverses for R. Yohanan the symbolic referents of the first two animals, for the snake reveals to R. Yohanan that R. Kahana, and not he, is the true lion, and that he, R. Yohanan, and not R. Kahana, is the true fox” (182). This perceptive insight adds literary cohesiveness to the Bavli storyteller’s central point regarding the relative knowledge of the Babylonian Rav Kahana vs. the Palestinian R. Yohanan. Sokol also suggest that this snake recalls the snake of Genesis “who lures Eve into eating of the Tree of knowledge. The snake in this aggada, too, forced R. Yohanan to eat of the Tree of Knowledge—self-knowledge” (182). I very much doubt this was the storyteller’s intention: scholars have pointed out other literary tropes evoked by the snake surrounding a cave—most notably the “Ouroboros,” the mythic serpent known from the Greek magical tradition and many other cultures. In addition, the snake in Genesis (in contrast to the Tree) symbolizes sin and evil, not self-knowledge. Still, other readers may find more merit in this connection, and it certainly provides food (or fruit) for thought.
Sokol is aware that that Talmudic stories often involve criticism of sages and portray the sages in negative ways. But he generally cannot bring himself to accept these depictions, opting for what he calls a “generous” reading, which results in forced and unconvincing interpretations (5-6). For example, in the tense dialogue where R. Yohanan and Resh Laqish insult one another (Bava Metsia 84a), Sokol struggles hard to whitewash the harsh barbs of the sages, suggesting that each meant something neutral but each in turn misunderstood the other’s words as an insult: “Now did R. Yohanan intend to offend Resh Lakish with this comment? Almost certainly not, for such would be classified as the transgression called onaat devarim, using language to hurt a person’s feelings” (152-53). Sokol then rereads the insulting retort of Resh Lakish, mai ahanat li, “What did you benefit me?,” as “Why did you torment me” as follows: “Resh Laqish uses ahanat as meaning ‘torment’ from the same root as onaa in onaat devarim.” But this is desperate, impossible philology and apologetics, as neither the Hebrew word onaah nor its Aramaic cognate, both from the root y-n-y, can account for the Aramaic ahanat, from the root h-n-y, whose meaning, quite the contrary, is “to benefit, to be pleasing.” Sokol claims that “even a more generous interpretation must not be a whitewash, and that too I assiduously seek to avoid” (6). But time and again Sokol whitewashes every negative portrayal of a sage, thereby producing forced and unconvincing readings that directly contradict the simple meaning of the text.
The crucial issue, as noted above, is Sokol’s perspective on the historicity of the stories given that he does not address the issue explicitly. But it is clear throughout that Sokol takes the stories as historically and biographically true and accurate. The analysis of each chapter presents the events recounted in the story as historical data. Even the first chapter that treats the story of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos’s origins as found in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 1-2, a late midrash edited in the Islamic era, is taken as a true account of R. Eliezer’s life, never mind that it dates from over 700 years after the sage lived. This version of the account of R. Eliezer, moreover, is an elaboration of a earlier version of the story preserved in Genesis Rabbah 42:1, edited more than 300 years earlier. Sokol can legitimately choose to focus on the final form of the stories as the text for a literary analysis, rather than on the sources from which the story was amalgamated, as he states in the introduction and as noted above. But it is completely illegitimate for Sokol to treat the final form of the story as historical truth when it has been formed from a process of literary reworking of earlier sources that he has chosen to ignore
A good example of the difficulties caused by Sokol’s naïve historical positivism can be seen in his discussion of the aforementioned story of Rav Kahana’s visit to R. Yohanan’s academy (Bava Qamma 117a-b). In this story R. Yohanan mistakenly feels that Rav Kahana insulted him, which results in Rav Kahana’s death. Upon learning of his error, R. Yohanan goes to the burial cave of Rav Kahana, which is encircled by a snake, and manages to persuade the snake to allow him to enter. He then resurrects Rav Kahana, and invites his resurrected colleague to return with him to his academy, but Rav Kahana declines. In summarizing the story, Sokol observes that R. Yohanan “proceeds to resurrect R. Kahana, no mean feat…. While R. Yohanan’s ability to resurrect R. Kahana is remarkable enough…(182-83).” Now the reader is entitled to a lot more clarification about just how this resurrection took place, given our contemporary perspective on the possibilities of bringing the dead back to life. Sokol offers no explanation. I believe he has been trapped by his own method, not wanting to reject the historicity of the story, but having no coherent explanation – how could he? However, after this historical reading of the story, Sokol underscores the problematic nature of these supernatural elements and concedes: “Overall, I think it is fair to say there is a surreal quality to the story” (186). Quite fair to say so, I agree. But Sokol cannot bring himself to completely disavow the historical reading. He proceeds: “Of course, some may nevertheless wish to interpret this aggada literally, and that is a time-honored tradition in the reading of aggadic materials” (186). At this point Sokol embarks on a second interpretation, a non-literal interpretation. But before doing so he feels it necessary to justify the departure from a historical-literal reading by citing Hai Gaon, Maimonides, Abraham b. Maimonides, the Ritva (Yom Tov Asevilli) and the Maharal (Judah Loew of Prague), as precedents for daring to interpret fantastic and miraculous elements of aggadot and stories in a non-literal way. Having marshaled support for not taking a resurrection and snake which understands language literally, Sokol suggests that perhaps R. Yohanan dreamed about the snake, resurrection and conversation with Rav Kahana. Note that Sokol still takes the rest of the events as historical truth, not seeming to realize that if the conclusion of the story is a fiction or a dream, then the rest of the story, recounted in the same way, should be too. Sokol then proposes a third way of understanding the story, “that the author of the aggada may have wished the reader to interpret the story he tells as occurring to R. Yohanan in a dream… the author of the aggada may have chosen to portray events as if they took place in a dream, whether or not R. Yohanan actually dreamt them (189; italics in the original).” I do not follow exactly what Sokol means here (and we should replace “reader” with “audience” as the Talmud was oral, not written, at the time of its composition). If R. Yohanan did not dream the events, and they did not take place in reality, what did the storyteller mean? If they took place in a dream, why not say so explicitly, as many Talmudic stories speak explicitly about rabbis’ dreams?
Yet all of this back and forth is unnecessary, as scholars have shown that this story is a later Babylonian version of a much different anecdote found in the Yerushalmi, that it is modeled on the organization of the Babylonian Yeshivah, that it probably dates from Saboraic or Geonic times when the Babylonian rabbis were competing with the rabbis of the Land of Israel for preeminence in the Jewish world, that some of the coloring of the story reflects Sasanian-Persian culture, and that elements of the description do not appear in some manuscripts of the Talmud and may have been added by medieval scribes. And what is truly remarkable and no mean feat is that Sokol is aware of this scholarship but ignores it. In a footnote he concedes: “Some scholars see in the description of R. Yohanan’s yeshiva certain reflections of Babylonian practices,” referring to an article by Shamma Friedman “and the sources cited therein.” Those sources include Daniel Sperber’s famous article “On the Unfortunate Adventures of Rav Kahana: A Passage of Saboraic Polemic from Sasanian Persia,” which made most of these observations already in 1982. Sokol writing of “some scholars” is slightly disingenuous, as I know of no scholar who does not accept this view of the late dating of the story, which has been supported and confirmed by additional studies since Friedman wrote in 1998. How then can Sokol write about the story—even the first half—as historical events that took place in R. Yohanan’s Palestinian academy?
***
The question of the intended audience of this book is therefore puzzling. It is certainly not scholars, nor even a popular audience who have read scholarship and popularization of scholarship of the past half-century. It is not those who reject the possibility of such phenomena as sentient serpents, resurrections, seventy-year naps, and water suddenly reversing its flow as being part and parcel of daily life, at least in post-Biblical times. It is apparently the (or some) ultra-orthodox, Talmudic literalists, who believe that almost everything in the Talmud is or can be true, no matter how supernatural or miraculous, and that the sages cannot have been guilty of sins or even minor faults. But in this case the academic veneer of notes, bibliography and references to modern scholarship would seem to be not only superfluous but misleading and deceptive.
In sum, the book presents a bizarre example of the spread of methods of academic-critical study of rabbinic narratives to the traditional, ultra-orthodox world. Sokol reads the scholarship, applies literary approaches and insightfully attends to aspects of the narrative art of Talmudic stories. At the same time, he ignores the implications of this approach by uncritically accepting the historical and biographical veracity of Talmudic stories, no matter that they contradict each other and are chock full of supernatural phenomena and miracles, and despite their late dating relative to the events depicted. The questions of the multiple and contradictory versions of stories and of different readings in the manuscripts—topics that Sokol encountered in the books and articles he references—are likewise ignored. Similarly, the consistent reworking of earlier versions by later Bavli storytellers (and those of the medieval midrashim) is totally disregarded, despite the fact that these phenomena result from the same literary processes that Sokol focuses on. In these respects the book is thoroughly medieval, completely uncritical, and shows no interest in the advances of the last century of scholarship. Sokol’s conversation partners are indeed Hai Gaon, Maimonides and the other medieval figures he cites. For those who wish to gain insights into Talmudic stories in light of contemporary scholarship and based on a coherent understanding of the literary processes of composition and transmission that created them, there are far better options available.
Dr. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein
New York University
In his introductory chapter Sokol very briefly sets forth his goals and methods. Sokol stresses he does not engage in “comparative or source-critical” study, as he is not interested in the processes by which the story may have been composed from the amalgamation of earlier sources, but “takes the text as it appears in a classical source as a self-sufficient literary text, and seeks to understand what its particular author (or editor) might have meant to convey” (8). As to method: “Essentially, I ask of the texts many questions, and propose answers based upon my understanding of the narrative itself, the intellectual history of the period in which the protagonists of the narrative lived, various Jewish sources, and insights from such diverse fields as psychology, literature, cultural studies, philosophy, and more” (4). The goal is to provide “a retelling of the story with a running commentary full of observations, questions, and potential answers, and includ[e] a very extended analysis and discussion” (4). In other words, Sokol will offer a close reading of the text, a literary analysis of its final form. One might wish for more detail on how one goes about the analysis, what literary features are important, and how they contribute to the insights. But the process of close reading is difficult to describe precisely, and it is completely legitimate to focus on the final from of the story, the form communicated to and received by the text’s audience. In a strange remark Sokol adds: “my aim is to explain these often-puzzling texts in ways that make sense to me. If other readers of these narratives find these explanations helpful too, I will be more than gratified.” We can hardly expect any interpreter of any literature to explain texts in ways that do not make sense to them. However, interpreters owe their readers an account of why their explanations make sense to them—their general assumptions and the theoretical basis for their methods—and on this point Sokol’s disclosures are less than adequate.
The elephant in the introduction, so to speak, is Sokol’s perspective on the historicity of Talmudic stories. Since the 1970s scholars have rejected the understanding of rabbinic stories as reliable biographical and historical sources with which the lives and deeds of the sages can be reconstructed. Some stories have a historical kernel, but it is impossible to separate that kernel from legendary accretions and embellishment. Many stories date from centuries after the events they depict and have no historical basis at all. Stories feature symbolic names, wordplay, irony, ambiguity, parallel structure and other literary features because the storytellers freely composed stories without being tied to a historical reality, and could mold their narrative material creatively and aesthetically. Later storytellers in turn felt free to rework earlier stories, to adapt them to their needs and purposes, which is why we have multiple, conflicting and contradictory versions of a story in the Bavli, Yerushalmi and other rabbinic documents. Different versions of rabbinic stories contradict each other relentlessly. From the notes and bibliography Sokol is aware of this scholarship, as should be any scholar writing on the topic. But Sokol is absolutely silent on what he makes of it or how it factors into his discussion. While his views become evident from the analyses of the stories throughout the book, the reader deserves a discussion up front, as well as its justification and grounding.
The major problem with the book, as I will discuss in detail below, is the complete incoherence of Sokol’s approach. He has been influenced by modern scholarship that understands the stories of the Talmud as literary compositions, that is, non-historical fictions or artistic creations. For that reason they should be studied with close reading and literary analysis, and Sokol does an admirable job of applying such techniques. But Sokol cannot bring himself to accept the fact that this understanding of the genre of the stories essentially entails that they are not historical-biographical accounts and cannot be presented as such. Sokol wants to have it both ways, ignoring the inherent tension between literary and historical-biographical approaches, resulting in a sha’atnez of mixed epistemologies and jumbled theoretical underpinnings. Beneath the surface of some interesting and sensitive readings is a confused, incoherent and self-contradictory understanding of the origins and nature of rabbinic stories
***
That said, one cannot deny that Sokol is a sensitive and insightful reader of texts. His analyses in each chapter are thorough, filled with enlightening observations, and based on comprehensive knowledge of rabbinic literature and its commentaries. He is adept at pointing out irony, ambiguity, wordplay and other literary aspects of the texts. In part due to their original form as oral literature, Talmudic stories are terse and gapped, and require strong readers to fill those gaps and make sense of the frustrating lack of information. Sokol is a very strong reader—perhaps even too strong. He leaves almost no question unasked, no detail without investigation, which, to my mind, often amounts to overreading. Literary theorists distinguish gaps—which the author or storyteller intended the audience to fill—from blanks, which the author did not intend the audience to fill, as they are irrelevant to his purposes. Sokol fills a lot of blanks, asking and answering questions peripheral to the storyteller’s concerns. But Sokol does not claim these speculations are necessarily correct or are the only way to interpret the text. And many readers will undoubtedly wonder about those questions, and appreciate Sokol addressing them.
Here is an example of Sokol’s insightful analysis: In the chapter on Rav Kahana’s visit to R. Yohanan’s academy (Bava Qamma 117a-b), Sokol observes that the snake wound around the burial cave of Rav Kahana—this is the snake in the title of the book—continues the animal imagery from earlier in the story, where the two rabbis are compared to a lion and a fox: “The snake reverses for R. Yohanan the symbolic referents of the first two animals, for the snake reveals to R. Yohanan that R. Kahana, and not he, is the true lion, and that he, R. Yohanan, and not R. Kahana, is the true fox” (182). This perceptive insight adds literary cohesiveness to the Bavli storyteller’s central point regarding the relative knowledge of the Babylonian Rav Kahana vs. the Palestinian R. Yohanan. Sokol also suggest that this snake recalls the snake of Genesis “who lures Eve into eating of the Tree of knowledge. The snake in this aggada, too, forced R. Yohanan to eat of the Tree of Knowledge—self-knowledge” (182). I very much doubt this was the storyteller’s intention: scholars have pointed out other literary tropes evoked by the snake surrounding a cave—most notably the “Ouroboros,” the mythic serpent known from the Greek magical tradition and many other cultures. In addition, the snake in Genesis (in contrast to the Tree) symbolizes sin and evil, not self-knowledge. Still, other readers may find more merit in this connection, and it certainly provides food (or fruit) for thought.
Sokol is aware that that Talmudic stories often involve criticism of sages and portray the sages in negative ways. But he generally cannot bring himself to accept these depictions, opting for what he calls a “generous” reading, which results in forced and unconvincing interpretations (5-6). For example, in the tense dialogue where R. Yohanan and Resh Laqish insult one another (Bava Metsia 84a), Sokol struggles hard to whitewash the harsh barbs of the sages, suggesting that each meant something neutral but each in turn misunderstood the other’s words as an insult: “Now did R. Yohanan intend to offend Resh Lakish with this comment? Almost certainly not, for such would be classified as the transgression called onaat devarim, using language to hurt a person’s feelings” (152-53). Sokol then rereads the insulting retort of Resh Lakish, mai ahanat li, “What did you benefit me?,” as “Why did you torment me” as follows: “Resh Laqish uses ahanat as meaning ‘torment’ from the same root as onaa in onaat devarim.” But this is desperate, impossible philology and apologetics, as neither the Hebrew word onaah nor its Aramaic cognate, both from the root y-n-y, can account for the Aramaic ahanat, from the root h-n-y, whose meaning, quite the contrary, is “to benefit, to be pleasing.” Sokol claims that “even a more generous interpretation must not be a whitewash, and that too I assiduously seek to avoid” (6). But time and again Sokol whitewashes every negative portrayal of a sage, thereby producing forced and unconvincing readings that directly contradict the simple meaning of the text.
The crucial issue, as noted above, is Sokol’s perspective on the historicity of the stories given that he does not address the issue explicitly. But it is clear throughout that Sokol takes the stories as historically and biographically true and accurate. The analysis of each chapter presents the events recounted in the story as historical data. Even the first chapter that treats the story of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos’s origins as found in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 1-2, a late midrash edited in the Islamic era, is taken as a true account of R. Eliezer’s life, never mind that it dates from over 700 years after the sage lived. This version of the account of R. Eliezer, moreover, is an elaboration of a earlier version of the story preserved in Genesis Rabbah 42:1, edited more than 300 years earlier. Sokol can legitimately choose to focus on the final form of the stories as the text for a literary analysis, rather than on the sources from which the story was amalgamated, as he states in the introduction and as noted above. But it is completely illegitimate for Sokol to treat the final form of the story as historical truth when it has been formed from a process of literary reworking of earlier sources that he has chosen to ignore
A good example of the difficulties caused by Sokol’s naïve historical positivism can be seen in his discussion of the aforementioned story of Rav Kahana’s visit to R. Yohanan’s academy (Bava Qamma 117a-b). In this story R. Yohanan mistakenly feels that Rav Kahana insulted him, which results in Rav Kahana’s death. Upon learning of his error, R. Yohanan goes to the burial cave of Rav Kahana, which is encircled by a snake, and manages to persuade the snake to allow him to enter. He then resurrects Rav Kahana, and invites his resurrected colleague to return with him to his academy, but Rav Kahana declines. In summarizing the story, Sokol observes that R. Yohanan “proceeds to resurrect R. Kahana, no mean feat…. While R. Yohanan’s ability to resurrect R. Kahana is remarkable enough…(182-83).” Now the reader is entitled to a lot more clarification about just how this resurrection took place, given our contemporary perspective on the possibilities of bringing the dead back to life. Sokol offers no explanation. I believe he has been trapped by his own method, not wanting to reject the historicity of the story, but having no coherent explanation – how could he? However, after this historical reading of the story, Sokol underscores the problematic nature of these supernatural elements and concedes: “Overall, I think it is fair to say there is a surreal quality to the story” (186). Quite fair to say so, I agree. But Sokol cannot bring himself to completely disavow the historical reading. He proceeds: “Of course, some may nevertheless wish to interpret this aggada literally, and that is a time-honored tradition in the reading of aggadic materials” (186). At this point Sokol embarks on a second interpretation, a non-literal interpretation. But before doing so he feels it necessary to justify the departure from a historical-literal reading by citing Hai Gaon, Maimonides, Abraham b. Maimonides, the Ritva (Yom Tov Asevilli) and the Maharal (Judah Loew of Prague), as precedents for daring to interpret fantastic and miraculous elements of aggadot and stories in a non-literal way. Having marshaled support for not taking a resurrection and snake which understands language literally, Sokol suggests that perhaps R. Yohanan dreamed about the snake, resurrection and conversation with Rav Kahana. Note that Sokol still takes the rest of the events as historical truth, not seeming to realize that if the conclusion of the story is a fiction or a dream, then the rest of the story, recounted in the same way, should be too. Sokol then proposes a third way of understanding the story, “that the author of the aggada may have wished the reader to interpret the story he tells as occurring to R. Yohanan in a dream… the author of the aggada may have chosen to portray events as if they took place in a dream, whether or not R. Yohanan actually dreamt them (189; italics in the original).” I do not follow exactly what Sokol means here (and we should replace “reader” with “audience” as the Talmud was oral, not written, at the time of its composition). If R. Yohanan did not dream the events, and they did not take place in reality, what did the storyteller mean? If they took place in a dream, why not say so explicitly, as many Talmudic stories speak explicitly about rabbis’ dreams?
Yet all of this back and forth is unnecessary, as scholars have shown that this story is a later Babylonian version of a much different anecdote found in the Yerushalmi, that it is modeled on the organization of the Babylonian Yeshivah, that it probably dates from Saboraic or Geonic times when the Babylonian rabbis were competing with the rabbis of the Land of Israel for preeminence in the Jewish world, that some of the coloring of the story reflects Sasanian-Persian culture, and that elements of the description do not appear in some manuscripts of the Talmud and may have been added by medieval scribes. And what is truly remarkable and no mean feat is that Sokol is aware of this scholarship but ignores it. In a footnote he concedes: “Some scholars see in the description of R. Yohanan’s yeshiva certain reflections of Babylonian practices,” referring to an article by Shamma Friedman “and the sources cited therein.” Those sources include Daniel Sperber’s famous article “On the Unfortunate Adventures of Rav Kahana: A Passage of Saboraic Polemic from Sasanian Persia,” which made most of these observations already in 1982. Sokol writing of “some scholars” is slightly disingenuous, as I know of no scholar who does not accept this view of the late dating of the story, which has been supported and confirmed by additional studies since Friedman wrote in 1998. How then can Sokol write about the story—even the first half—as historical events that took place in R. Yohanan’s Palestinian academy?
***
The question of the intended audience of this book is therefore puzzling. It is certainly not scholars, nor even a popular audience who have read scholarship and popularization of scholarship of the past half-century. It is not those who reject the possibility of such phenomena as sentient serpents, resurrections, seventy-year naps, and water suddenly reversing its flow as being part and parcel of daily life, at least in post-Biblical times. It is apparently the (or some) ultra-orthodox, Talmudic literalists, who believe that almost everything in the Talmud is or can be true, no matter how supernatural or miraculous, and that the sages cannot have been guilty of sins or even minor faults. But in this case the academic veneer of notes, bibliography and references to modern scholarship would seem to be not only superfluous but misleading and deceptive.
In sum, the book presents a bizarre example of the spread of methods of academic-critical study of rabbinic narratives to the traditional, ultra-orthodox world. Sokol reads the scholarship, applies literary approaches and insightfully attends to aspects of the narrative art of Talmudic stories. At the same time, he ignores the implications of this approach by uncritically accepting the historical and biographical veracity of Talmudic stories, no matter that they contradict each other and are chock full of supernatural phenomena and miracles, and despite their late dating relative to the events depicted. The questions of the multiple and contradictory versions of stories and of different readings in the manuscripts—topics that Sokol encountered in the books and articles he references—are likewise ignored. Similarly, the consistent reworking of earlier versions by later Bavli storytellers (and those of the medieval midrashim) is totally disregarded, despite the fact that these phenomena result from the same literary processes that Sokol focuses on. In these respects the book is thoroughly medieval, completely uncritical, and shows no interest in the advances of the last century of scholarship. Sokol’s conversation partners are indeed Hai Gaon, Maimonides and the other medieval figures he cites. For those who wish to gain insights into Talmudic stories in light of contemporary scholarship and based on a coherent understanding of the literary processes of composition and transmission that created them, there are far better options available.
Dr. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein
New York University
June 23, 2021
While the Talmud and other rabbinic documents are known as volumes containing legal discussions, most people do not know that the Talmud and other rabbinic volumes such as Midrash also include non-legal writings about theology, ethics, psychology, health, and many other topics, as well as fascinating and delightful stories. Along with being appealing, riveting, and charming tales, these accounts also contain subtle often overlooked lessons. Rabbi Dr. Moshe Sokol offers a very interesting easy to read study of these eight dramatic reports about rabbis facing extreme difficulties. His analyses are exceptionally thoughtful. He asks questions about the narratives and offers wise insightful explanations. As much as we enjoy the stories before reading his examinations of them, we enjoy them much more when we read his penetrating thoughts.
The title of Sokol’s book, “The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave,” is the title of one of the eight tales and is only one of several strange events in that tale. The stories focus on many human problems: improper behavior by pious men, interpersonal conflict, alienation, pain, triumph, success, failure, love, fear, anger, redemption, yearnings, and more. He analyses all of the accounts in a rational eye-opening manner. He tells us the sources of each of them and gives us an enlightening introduction to each, including the bio of the main character and the conditions of the time he lived.
The first three are devoted to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. The leading scholar of his time, around 70 CE, said that Eliezer had a phenomenal memory; he was like a plastered cistern that never loses a drop. He absorbed and knew all the teachings of his predecessors. Eliezer is remembered for affirming, “I never said anything I had never heard from my teachers.” The first of the three tells is about his remarkable youth, how he only began to study at age 28. The second, the most remarkable story in the book relates his disagreement with all other scholars, every one, and how several miraculous events occur proving he was right including God intervening in the dispute and declaring that he is correct about the issue at hand and is always correct. Yet, the ancient sages rejected Eliezer’s view, rejected the miracles that proved him to be right, and rejected God who declared that he was correct. And they went further. Despite his towering intellect and achievements, when Eliezer refused to accept their view they excommunicated him. How could they do this? How could they reject God? Is excommunication a proper reaction to a difference of opinion? Wouldn’t excommunication cause future students to be unable to learn from the wise Eliezer? Why does the story end with God being pleased with being rejected? The third tale tells about Eliezer dying still refusing to accept the view of the majority.
The remaining five tales are also dramatic, raise questions, seem contrary to Jewish thought, yet Judaism accepts them as containing the truth.
The book’s fourth chapter analyses Akavya ben Mahalalel who refused to retract four of his legal decisions despite extreme pressure from the majority of rabbis, and who was also excommunicated. Why did the sages fear Akavya’s dissents? Isn’t this a violation of free speech? Why did Akavya dissent? What was so important that he was willing to be excommunicated rather than recant?
The fifth, sixth, and seventh stories looks at the behavior of the leading sage of Israel when Babylonia had more enlightened sages, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nappaha, traditionally recognized as the editor of the Jerusalem Talmud, who in the fifth chapter, refused to engage in business, and despite poverty, decided to spend time in study. The sixth has his complex relationship with his close friend, brother-in-law, and student Reish Lakish, a former thief. The seventh describes how the relationship ended with both dying because Rabbi Yohanan refused to pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery, despite his sister’s heartfelt plea, when the tale reveals that his prayer would have saved Reish Lakish’s life, and Rabbi Yohanan realized his mistake and died in misery because of his despair. And in the seventh, reverting to an earlier time, Rabbi Yohanan has a disastrous encounter with the sage Rabbi Kahana, seeks to resurrect him after killing him, and faces the snake.
The last chapter in the book is an analysis of the strange occurrence to Honi, the magic worker who could force God to bring rain, who slept for seventy years. Why seventy? Did it really happen? What did Honi learn? What do we learn? Honi was considered a very pious and knowledgable man. Why didn’t the people whom he met when he awakened try to learn from him?
How should we interpret rabbinic tales filled with miraculous and non-natural events? Should we accept them as literal reportage of actual events? Are the tales addressing the changes that occurred to Judaism after the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE and the ascendancy of Babylon over Israel? If so, what are they telling us? Is what they are telling us relevant today? What do the tales teach about relationships? What do the incidences tell us is a well-lived life?
Readers will find that Rabbi Sokol’s analyses address all of these questions and more. There is much in this 231 page book to entertain, teach, and improve us.
The title of Sokol’s book, “The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave,” is the title of one of the eight tales and is only one of several strange events in that tale. The stories focus on many human problems: improper behavior by pious men, interpersonal conflict, alienation, pain, triumph, success, failure, love, fear, anger, redemption, yearnings, and more. He analyses all of the accounts in a rational eye-opening manner. He tells us the sources of each of them and gives us an enlightening introduction to each, including the bio of the main character and the conditions of the time he lived.
The first three are devoted to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. The leading scholar of his time, around 70 CE, said that Eliezer had a phenomenal memory; he was like a plastered cistern that never loses a drop. He absorbed and knew all the teachings of his predecessors. Eliezer is remembered for affirming, “I never said anything I had never heard from my teachers.” The first of the three tells is about his remarkable youth, how he only began to study at age 28. The second, the most remarkable story in the book relates his disagreement with all other scholars, every one, and how several miraculous events occur proving he was right including God intervening in the dispute and declaring that he is correct about the issue at hand and is always correct. Yet, the ancient sages rejected Eliezer’s view, rejected the miracles that proved him to be right, and rejected God who declared that he was correct. And they went further. Despite his towering intellect and achievements, when Eliezer refused to accept their view they excommunicated him. How could they do this? How could they reject God? Is excommunication a proper reaction to a difference of opinion? Wouldn’t excommunication cause future students to be unable to learn from the wise Eliezer? Why does the story end with God being pleased with being rejected? The third tale tells about Eliezer dying still refusing to accept the view of the majority.
The remaining five tales are also dramatic, raise questions, seem contrary to Jewish thought, yet Judaism accepts them as containing the truth.
The book’s fourth chapter analyses Akavya ben Mahalalel who refused to retract four of his legal decisions despite extreme pressure from the majority of rabbis, and who was also excommunicated. Why did the sages fear Akavya’s dissents? Isn’t this a violation of free speech? Why did Akavya dissent? What was so important that he was willing to be excommunicated rather than recant?
The fifth, sixth, and seventh stories looks at the behavior of the leading sage of Israel when Babylonia had more enlightened sages, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nappaha, traditionally recognized as the editor of the Jerusalem Talmud, who in the fifth chapter, refused to engage in business, and despite poverty, decided to spend time in study. The sixth has his complex relationship with his close friend, brother-in-law, and student Reish Lakish, a former thief. The seventh describes how the relationship ended with both dying because Rabbi Yohanan refused to pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery, despite his sister’s heartfelt plea, when the tale reveals that his prayer would have saved Reish Lakish’s life, and Rabbi Yohanan realized his mistake and died in misery because of his despair. And in the seventh, reverting to an earlier time, Rabbi Yohanan has a disastrous encounter with the sage Rabbi Kahana, seeks to resurrect him after killing him, and faces the snake.
The last chapter in the book is an analysis of the strange occurrence to Honi, the magic worker who could force God to bring rain, who slept for seventy years. Why seventy? Did it really happen? What did Honi learn? What do we learn? Honi was considered a very pious and knowledgable man. Why didn’t the people whom he met when he awakened try to learn from him?
How should we interpret rabbinic tales filled with miraculous and non-natural events? Should we accept them as literal reportage of actual events? Are the tales addressing the changes that occurred to Judaism after the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE and the ascendancy of Babylon over Israel? If so, what are they telling us? Is what they are telling us relevant today? What do the tales teach about relationships? What do the incidences tell us is a well-lived life?
Readers will find that Rabbi Sokol’s analyses address all of these questions and more. There is much in this 231 page book to entertain, teach, and improve us.
Currently reading
November 8, 2025CORE: ETHICAL AND SPIRITUAL STRUGGLE
At its core, the book is a meticulous exploration of aggadic narratives from the Talmud (those non-legal, storytelling sections of the Babylonian Talmud (and one from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer)) that delve into the lives, dilemmas, and spiritual struggles of the Talmudic sages, known as Chazal (our Sages of blessed memory).
Unlike the halakhic (legal) portions of the Talmud, which focus on rules and debates, aggadah is poetic, metaphorical, and psychologically rich, often using dreams, miracles, and interpersonal dramas to illuminate profound ethical and existential truths.
8 NARRATIVES
Sokol selects eight specific narratives, each centered on a sage or group of sages, and dissects them layer by layer to reveal their hidden depths. The title itself comes from one of these stories (from Bava Batra 73a-74a), where a sage encounters a snake guarding a cave - symbolizing temptation, moral peril, and the razor-edge choices between worldly security and spiritual commitment.
Each chapter runs 20-30 pages, starting with the Hebrew/Aramaic text alongside English translation, then Sokol's exegesis. He cross-references sugyot (Talmudic discussions) and midrashim, ensuring logical progression: from literal events (is it history, dream, or allegory?) to psychological drivers (how does trauma "snake" through choices?) to broader applications (e.g., aggadah's role in sustaining Jewish identity amid exile).
Why Would You Enjoy It? Tailored to Your Interests as a Clinician and Researcher
As a doctor immersed in clinical research, with a stated passion for dissecting mechanisms of action—those underlying processes that turn inputs (like a drug or therapy) into outputs (healing or change)—this book would resonate on multiple levels. Talmudic aggadah, as Sokol presents it, isn't fluffy inspiration; it's a blueprint for behavioral and ethical mechanics, akin to how you'd map neurotransmitter pathways or therapeutic interventions. Here's why it'd hook you, broken down logically:
Psychological Depth as a "Mechanism" for Moral Decision-Making: These narratives aren't random tales—they're case studies in human cognition under pressure. Sokol reveals how past experiences (e.g., a sage's bandit youth) interact with future aspirations (Torah mastery) to shape choices, much like how you'd analyze gene-environment interactions in a study. For instance, in the title story, the snake isn't just a plot device; it's a mechanism symbolizing amygdala-driven fear responses that hijack rational prefrontal planning. You'd enjoy the "aha" moments of seeing aggadah prefigure modern concepts like cognitive dissonance or attachment theory, all without anachronistic forcing—Sokol grounds it in the text's own logic.
Ethical Dilemmas with Real-World Parallels to Clinical Scenarios: Imagine patient cases where principled living clashes with survival instincts—e.g., a terminally ill person weighing euthanasia, or a researcher facing data-fudging temptations. Sokol's sages embody this: principled to a fault, yet achingly human (as per Shabbat 112b: later generations are "human," not angelic). The book unpacks the "cost" of integrity through narrative gears—interpersonal fallout, self-doubt, even physical peril—offering mechanisms for resilience that could inform your work on patient adherence or moral injury in medicine. It's focused and clear, with Sokol's prose avoiding fluff; he checks interpretations against commentaries for reliability, prioritizing accuracy as you do in research.
Intellectual Rigor Without the Jargon Overload: If you're drawn to academic precision but crave authenticity, Sokol delivers. His analyses are transparent: He flags ambiguities (e.g., "Is this dream literal or metaphorical?"), compares viewpoints (Rav vs. Maharal), and builds arguments step-by-step, like a meta-analysis of sources. No hand-waving—each insight is substantiated, turning opaque Talmud into a transparent lab. Reviewers call it "penetrating" and "profound," noting how it elevates enjoyment of the stories: You read the aggadah first (thrilling, like a mystery), then Sokol's lens makes it richer, revealing layers you'd missed.
Broader Resonance for a Researcher's Mindset: In clinical work, mechanisms explain why interventions work (or fail). Here, aggadah's "why" is the human soul's machinery—hope as a catalyst, regret as friction. As someone treating adults who "can handle difficult topics," you'd appreciate Sokol's unflinching take: Sages aren't saints; they're flawed operators in a broken system, navigating post-Temple trauma (exile, persecution) that echoes modern stressors like pandemics or ethical lapses in research. It's lengthy and detailed (each chapter rewards slow reading), but human-sounding—Sokol writes like a thoughtful mentor, not a lecturer. Plus, at ~$25-30, it's a low-risk dive into Jewish textual psychology that could spark hypotheses for your own studies on moral cognition.
At its core, the book is a meticulous exploration of aggadic narratives from the Talmud (those non-legal, storytelling sections of the Babylonian Talmud (and one from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer)) that delve into the lives, dilemmas, and spiritual struggles of the Talmudic sages, known as Chazal (our Sages of blessed memory).
Unlike the halakhic (legal) portions of the Talmud, which focus on rules and debates, aggadah is poetic, metaphorical, and psychologically rich, often using dreams, miracles, and interpersonal dramas to illuminate profound ethical and existential truths.
8 NARRATIVES
Sokol selects eight specific narratives, each centered on a sage or group of sages, and dissects them layer by layer to reveal their hidden depths. The title itself comes from one of these stories (from Bava Batra 73a-74a), where a sage encounters a snake guarding a cave - symbolizing temptation, moral peril, and the razor-edge choices between worldly security and spiritual commitment.
Each chapter runs 20-30 pages, starting with the Hebrew/Aramaic text alongside English translation, then Sokol's exegesis. He cross-references sugyot (Talmudic discussions) and midrashim, ensuring logical progression: from literal events (is it history, dream, or allegory?) to psychological drivers (how does trauma "snake" through choices?) to broader applications (e.g., aggadah's role in sustaining Jewish identity amid exile).
Why Would You Enjoy It? Tailored to Your Interests as a Clinician and Researcher
As a doctor immersed in clinical research, with a stated passion for dissecting mechanisms of action—those underlying processes that turn inputs (like a drug or therapy) into outputs (healing or change)—this book would resonate on multiple levels. Talmudic aggadah, as Sokol presents it, isn't fluffy inspiration; it's a blueprint for behavioral and ethical mechanics, akin to how you'd map neurotransmitter pathways or therapeutic interventions. Here's why it'd hook you, broken down logically:
Psychological Depth as a "Mechanism" for Moral Decision-Making: These narratives aren't random tales—they're case studies in human cognition under pressure. Sokol reveals how past experiences (e.g., a sage's bandit youth) interact with future aspirations (Torah mastery) to shape choices, much like how you'd analyze gene-environment interactions in a study. For instance, in the title story, the snake isn't just a plot device; it's a mechanism symbolizing amygdala-driven fear responses that hijack rational prefrontal planning. You'd enjoy the "aha" moments of seeing aggadah prefigure modern concepts like cognitive dissonance or attachment theory, all without anachronistic forcing—Sokol grounds it in the text's own logic.
Ethical Dilemmas with Real-World Parallels to Clinical Scenarios: Imagine patient cases where principled living clashes with survival instincts—e.g., a terminally ill person weighing euthanasia, or a researcher facing data-fudging temptations. Sokol's sages embody this: principled to a fault, yet achingly human (as per Shabbat 112b: later generations are "human," not angelic). The book unpacks the "cost" of integrity through narrative gears—interpersonal fallout, self-doubt, even physical peril—offering mechanisms for resilience that could inform your work on patient adherence or moral injury in medicine. It's focused and clear, with Sokol's prose avoiding fluff; he checks interpretations against commentaries for reliability, prioritizing accuracy as you do in research.
Intellectual Rigor Without the Jargon Overload: If you're drawn to academic precision but crave authenticity, Sokol delivers. His analyses are transparent: He flags ambiguities (e.g., "Is this dream literal or metaphorical?"), compares viewpoints (Rav vs. Maharal), and builds arguments step-by-step, like a meta-analysis of sources. No hand-waving—each insight is substantiated, turning opaque Talmud into a transparent lab. Reviewers call it "penetrating" and "profound," noting how it elevates enjoyment of the stories: You read the aggadah first (thrilling, like a mystery), then Sokol's lens makes it richer, revealing layers you'd missed.
Broader Resonance for a Researcher's Mindset: In clinical work, mechanisms explain why interventions work (or fail). Here, aggadah's "why" is the human soul's machinery—hope as a catalyst, regret as friction. As someone treating adults who "can handle difficult topics," you'd appreciate Sokol's unflinching take: Sages aren't saints; they're flawed operators in a broken system, navigating post-Temple trauma (exile, persecution) that echoes modern stressors like pandemics or ethical lapses in research. It's lengthy and detailed (each chapter rewards slow reading), but human-sounding—Sokol writes like a thoughtful mentor, not a lecturer. Plus, at ~$25-30, it's a low-risk dive into Jewish textual psychology that could spark hypotheses for your own studies on moral cognition.
June 2, 2023
You might think that this is a dry textbook? No.
Part one, what if a rich man's son runs away to university? His teacher doesn't appreciate him, he's miserable, and his brothers urge dad to disinherit him.
Lots of drama.
The man becomes a great scholar and argues with his collages - wow, and you thought academics /today/ are hard on each other?
The man is on his deathbed, and his collages finally reconcile. Maybe.
Part 2, what if 2 brilliant college students are broke? They go of to find work, and one "overhears an angel" so he goes back... And becomes the well-paid dean of the college! And if the other man had stayed, he would have been more qualified to become dean. Which student was right, the one who stayed or the one who left?
A nuanced look at both perspectives.
Part one, what if a rich man's son runs away to university? His teacher doesn't appreciate him, he's miserable, and his brothers urge dad to disinherit him.
Lots of drama.
The man becomes a great scholar and argues with his collages - wow, and you thought academics /today/ are hard on each other?
The man is on his deathbed, and his collages finally reconcile. Maybe.
Part 2, what if 2 brilliant college students are broke? They go of to find work, and one "overhears an angel" so he goes back... And becomes the well-paid dean of the college! And if the other man had stayed, he would have been more qualified to become dean. Which student was right, the one who stayed or the one who left?
A nuanced look at both perspectives.
August 26, 2021
When people discuss the Talmud, they usually speak about its legal (halachic) aspects. However, its pages are also filled with aggadic material – stories about the ancient rabbis that were used to teach lessons or illustrate a point. In “The Snake at the Mouth of the Cave: Exploring Talmudic Narrative” (Maggid Books), Moshe Sokol, dean of the Lander College for Men at the Touro College and University System, analyzes eight of these stories.
See the rest of my review at https://www.thereportergroup.org/past...
See the rest of my review at https://www.thereportergroup.org/past...
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews