<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This volume contains the papers presented at the <italic>Philosophy and History of Talmudic Logic</italic> Affiliated Workshop of Krakow Conference on History of Logic (KHL2016), held on October 27, 2016, in Krakow, Poland.</abstract>

Preface. Philosophy and History of Talmudic Logic

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">A lively exchange in recent epistemology considers the problem of epistemic disagreement between peers: disagreement between those who share evidence and have equal cognitive abilities. Two main views have emerged about how to proceed in such circumstances: be steadfast in maintaining one’s own view or conciliate, and suspend or reduce one’s confidence in one’s belief. Talmudic debates do seem to promote steadfastness, as the disputants are not called on to conciliate purely because they confront a disagreeing peer. But why? Third party judgments are even more problematic, for what epistemic warrant is there for choosing between a disagreement of superiors? A common explanation for Talmudic steadfastness is the notion <italic>’elu w’elu divrey ’Elohim <underline>k</underline>ayim</italic> – both sides of Talmudic (or, more generally, <italic>halakhic</italic>) disputes have ‘heavenly’ legitimacy. But a closer look at this oft-quoted dictum and its various interpretations does not, in fact, reveal such support for steadfastness. Other explanations for Talmudic steadfastness are, therefore, required.</abstract>

Epistemic Disagreement and <italic>’Elu We’Elu</italic>

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The purpose of this study is to show that the logical content of a <italic>Tann’ay</italic>itic hermeneutic changed and developed as it passed into the hands of the <italic>’Amor’ayim</italic>, the <italic>Tann’ayim</italic>’s successors, and then into the anonymous stratum of the <italic>Babylonian Talmud</italic>. This hermeneutic was based on a very specific syntactical order in a biblical verse, which was formed by an initial inclusive clause, followed by a list of specifics, and then followed by a second inclusive clause. This hermeneutic is called in Hebrew <italic>kelal uferaṭ ukelal</italic>. In the <italic>Tann’ay</italic>itic period the hermeneutic required that the second inclusive clause had to be more extensive than the first one. It appears that this new degree of extensiveness suggested that the list of specifics was not definitive of the initial inclusive clause and that other things might be implied by the second one. The way that the rabbinic interpreter determined what these things might be was by seeking the common characteristics that the items in the specifics clause shared. By the time of the late <italic>Tann’ayim</italic> and early <italic>’Amor’ayim</italic> the requirement for the two inclusive clauses had changed. The formal syntax of the hermeneutic remained, but inclusive clauses had to be equal in their degree of inclusivity. The change in logic seems to be the result of viewing a second, more inclusive clause as a distinct element that could be disconnected from the first inclusive clause and the specifics that follow it. If the two inclusive clauses were, however, the same or similar, the rabbinic interpreter could argue that they belonged to the same categories and thus formed a legitimate <italic>kelal uferaṭ ukelal.</italic> In the final period of the Talmud’s creation neither the syntactic nor logical requirements were any longer needed to form a <italic>kelal uferaṭ ukelal</italic>. Two artificially constructed inclusive clauses and some specifics could appear in almost any order within a biblical verse and be considered a <italic>kelal uferaṭ ukelal.</italic> It appears that the desire of the rabbinic interpreters of each era to connect their <italic>halako<underline>t</underline></italic> to the Torah was the force behind the changes we have described.</abstract>

Developments in the Syntax and Logic of the Talmudic Hermeneutic <italic>Kelal Uferaṭ Ukelal</italic>

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Hezekiah bar Halafta and Judah Messer Leon, who wrote in 14th – 15th century in Provence and Italy, were the first and last of “Jewish Schoolman.” This short article compares two texts, in order to showing differences and similarities.</abstract>

Medieval Judaic Logic and the Scholastic One in the 14th – 15th Centuries Provence and Italy: a Comparison of the Logical Works by Rav Hezekiah bar Halafta (First Half of the 14th Century) and Rav Judah Messer Leon (Second Half of the 15th Century)

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The paper explores the role of competing notions of what does it mean to have a testament of the law of the past in Christian and Rabbinic corpora of text and thought. The argument probes and renegotiates the complex relationships of the Christian suspension of Old Testament by the New Testament and the Rabbinic suspension of (any) new testament in the two <italic>Talmudim</italic>. It consequently draws implications of that analysis for understanding the relationships of the two <italic>Talmudim</italic> to the tradition of hermeneutics of texts, as influenced as the latter has been by theological and literary approaches of various Christian theologies of the two Testaments. As a part of that analysis the articles justifies the task of advancing and providing a critique of political theology and political philology as modes of thought and investigation. That provides a way to ask anew the question about relationships between theology, literary theory, and political thought.</abstract>

Suspending New Testament: Do the Two Talmuds Belong to Hermeneutics of Texts?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This paper tries to outline a history of development of informal logic in Semitic languages and especially in Arabic. It tries to explain how the first definite formulation of rules of this logic appeared at āl-Šāfi‘y’<italic>s Risāla</italic>, a work on ’<italic>uswl āl-fiqh</italic> or methodology of law. It attempts also to provide new theories and hypotheses about the translation movement in the Arabic and Islamic medieval world.</abstract>

The Genesis of Arabic Logical Activities: From Syriac Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics to āl-Šāfi‘y’s Logical Techniques

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Gravestones with Hebrew inscriptions are the most common class of Jewish monuments still present in such regions as Ukraine or Belarus. Epitaphs are related to various Biblical, Rabbinical, and liturgical texts. Despite that, the genre of Hebrew epitaphs seldom becomes an object of cultural or literary studies. In this paper, I show that a function of Hebrew epitaphs is to connect the ideal world of Hebrew sacred texts to the world of everyday life of a Jewish community. This is achieved at several levels. First, the necessary elements of an epitaph – name, date, and location marker – place the deceased person into a specific absolute context. Second, the epitaphs quote Biblical verses with the name of the person thus stressing his/her similarity to a Biblical character. Third, there is Hebrew/Yiddish orthography code-switching between the concepts found in the sacred books and those from the everyday world. Fourth, the epitaphs occupy an intermediate position between the professional and folk literature. Fifth, the epitaphs are also in between the canonical and folk religion. I analyze complex hermeneutic mechanisms of indirect quotations in the epitaphs and show that the methods of actualization of the sacred texts are similar to those of the Rabbinical literature. Furthermore, the dichotomy between the sacred and profane in the epitaphs is based upon the Rabbinical concept of the ‘Internal Jewish Bilingualism’ (Hebrew/Aramaic or Hebrew/Yiddish), which is parallel to the juxtaposition of the Written and Oral Torah.</abstract>

Connecting Sacred and Mundane: From Bilingualism to Hermeneutics in Hebrew Epitaphs

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">There are many phenomena in the Bible connected to the idea of the random, generally in a positive light, but sometimes in a negative one. Both in the Talmudic literature and in the <italic>Halakhah</italic> texts, the <italic>ḥazal</italic> (the Sages) also relate to random processes. As we will see here, for them every chance event has a clear meaning, usually even a holy one. In fact, every culture in the world relates to randomness. However, from the Greek philosophers until the rationalism of the 19th century, a process of denuding randomness of its holiness has been taking place. In Judaism, a lottery is not a blind process; moreover the randomness has a clear and profound theological meaning.</abstract>

Using Lotteries in Logic of <italic>Halakhah</italic> Law. The Meaning of Randomness in Judaism

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">We consider several fundamental principles of rabbinic approaches to handling uncertainty for legal purposes. We find that non-numerical versions of ideas subsequently developed in the literature on interpretations of probabilistic statements are useful for explicating these rabbinic principles.</abstract>

Probabilistic Foundations of Rabbinic Methods for Resolving Uncertainty

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The logical reasoning first appeared within the Babylonian legal tradition established by the Sumerians in the law codes which were first over the world: Ur-Nammu (ca. 2047 – 2030 B.C.); Lipit-Ishtar (ca. 1900 – 1850 B.C.), and later by their successors, the Akkadians: Hammurabi (1728 – 1686 B.C.). In these codes the casuistic law formulation began first to be used: “If/when (Akkadian: <italic>šumma</italic>) this or that occurs, this or that must be done” allowed the Akkadians to build up a theory of logical connectives: “... or…”, “… and…”, “if…, then…”, “not…” that must have been applied in their jurisprudence. So, a trial decision looked like an inference by <italic>modus pones</italic> and <italic>modus tollens</italic> or by other logical rules from (i) some facts and (ii) an appropriate article in the law code represented by an ever true implication. The law code was announced by erecting a stele with the code or by engraving the code on a stone wall. It was considered a set of axioms announced for all. Then the trial decisions are regarded as claims logically inferred from the law code on the stones. The only law code of the Greeks that was excavated is the Code of Gortyn (Crete, the 5th century B.C.). It is so similar to the Babylonian codes by its law formulations; therefore, we can suppose that the Greeks developed their codes under a direct influence of the Semitic legal tradition: the code was represented as the words of the stele and the court was a logic application from these words. In this way the Greek logic was established within a Babylonian legal tradition, as well. Hence, we can conclude that, first, logic appeared in Babylonia and, second, it appeared within a unique legal tradition where all trial decisions must have been transparent, obvious, and provable. The symbolic logic appeared first not in Greece, but in Mesopotamia and this tradition was grounded in the Sumerian/Akkadian jurisprudence.</abstract>

On the Babylonian Origin of Symbolic Logic

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 3 (May 2024) Special issue title: Logic and Law

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 2 (April 2024) Special issue title: Logic in Poland in the 20th Century

Volume 13 (2024): Issue 1 (April 2024) Special issue title: Logic in Poland in the 20th Century

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 3 (April 2023) Indian Philosophy

Volume 12 (2023): Issue 1-2 (March 2023) Indian Logic

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 3-4 (December 2022)

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 11 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 3 (June 2021) Humanistic Economy

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 2 (May 2021) Humanistic Economy

Volume 10 (2021): Issue 1 (February 2021)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 3-4 (October 2020)

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 2 (July 2020) Libertarianism from the Philosophical Perspective

Volume 9 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 3 (October 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 8 (2019): Issue 1 (February 2019)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 7 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 4 (October 2017)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 3 (July 2017)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 1 (March 2017)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 4 (December 2016)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 5 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 3 (July 2015)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)

Volume 4 (2015): Issue 1 (February 2015)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 3 (September 2014)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 2 (June 2014)

Volume 3 (2014): Issue 1 (February 2014)

Studia Humana

Studia Humana (SH) is a multi-disciplinary double blind peer reviewed journal publishing valuable contributions on methodological aspects of human and social sciences such as (1) analytic philosophy and philosophical logic related to universal features of epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, praxeology, non-classical logics and their applications to methodology of science, linguistics or theology, etc. as well as (2) communication and political economy to provide a forum for the academic discussion of original ideas which explore new approaches and methodologies in communication with emphasis on social economics and transitive processes, methodology of Austrian school of economics, economy and policy in conjunction with issues of culture, identity, gender, and ecology, etc., but predominantly with a comparative perspective for approaches and methodologies that are not in mainstream to promote dialogue and exchange in looking for new theoretical means of conceiving the life-world.  The editors invite the submission of articles, book reviews, and responses from professional scientists. It is particularly interested in publishing contributions by new authors who pursue their academic development. One of the objectives of SH is the provision of a suitable platform for the discussion in all areas of human sciences beyond the limits of Western-centrism, with emphasis on problems of post-Socialist European states and ideas marginal to mainstream. Currently, SH has four electronic issues per year. SH aspires to become a venue to connect human sciences to the world and thus the editors strongly encourage submissions in English language. The journal also aims to contribute to the understanding of society and state through the study of relevant institutions, using concepts belonging to the disciplines of philosophy and economics. The crossing of different disciplinary points of view will enable us to gain a deeper insight into the various aspects of the observed phenomena. Our main objective is to study changes and their underlying mechanisms in modern societies (e.g., in post-Socialist countries), through the analysis of the institutions that remain most hidden from the public eye. Calls for contributions will be also published on the journals website and in newsletters sent through internet.  The publication policy of Studia Humana follows strictly the ethical rules recommended by COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/     Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 

Studia Humana

Volume 6 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Preface. Philosophy and History of Talmudic Logic

Epistemic Disagreement and ’Elu We’Elu

Developments in the Syntax and Logic of the Talmudic Hermeneutic Kelal Uferaṭ Ukelal

Medieval Judaic Logic and the Scholastic One in the 14^th – 15^th Centuries Provence and Italy: a Comparison of the Logical Works by Rav Hezekiah bar Halafta (First Half of the 14^th Century) and Rav Judah Messer Leon (Second Half of the 15^th Century)

Suspending New Testament: Do the Two Talmuds Belong to Hermeneutics of Texts?

The Genesis of Arabic Logical Activities: From Syriac Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics to āl-Šāfi‘y’s Logical Techniques

Connecting Sacred and Mundane: From Bilingualism to Hermeneutics in Hebrew Epitaphs

Using Lotteries in Logic of Halakhah Law. The Meaning of Randomness in Judaism

Probabilistic Foundations of Rabbinic Methods for Resolving Uncertainty

On the Babylonian Origin of Symbolic Logic

Search

All Volumes and Issues in this Journal