Jesus and the Talmudic Tradition

John 9 gives us an account of Jesus’ encounter with a blind man whom he healed, much to the annoyance of the Pharisees. Cultural nuance is missed in our dealing with such texts. Jesus’ decision to spit in mud and rub it into the man’s eyes can seem puzzling unless its context is upheld. I had heard rumours that Jesus was defying the Talmudic tradition and performing a messianic miracle. While the messianic miracle is not something I have researched, my studies did bring up this interesting passage from Shabbat 108b:20, a book of discussions regarding permissive behaviour on the Sabbath. Specifically we are dealing here with lawful healings. For those unfamiliar with the narrative style of Talmudic literature we are peering into a conversation between Rabbis regarding what to do if a man has an eye ailment on the Sabbath.

Even as it once happened that Rabin was walking behind R. Jeremiah by the bank of the Lake of Sodom, [and] he asked him, May one wash with this water on the Sabbath?20 — It is well, he replied.21 Is it permissible to shut and open [one's eyes]?22 I have not heard this, he answered, [but] I have heard something similar; for R. Zera said, at times in R. Mattenah’s name, at others in Mar ‘Ukba’s name, and both [R. Mattenah and Mar 'Ukba] said it in the names of Samuel’s father and Levi: one said: [To put] wine into one’s eye23 is forbidden; [to put it] on the eye, is permitted.24 Whilst the other said: [To put] tasteless saliva,25 even on the eye, is forbidden. It may be proved that it was Samuel’s father who ruled, ‘[To put] wine into one’s eye is forbidden; on the eye, is permitted’: for Samuel said: One may soak bread in wine and place it on his eye on the Sabbath. Now, from whom, did he hear this, surely he heard it from his father? — But then on your reasoning, when Samuel said: [To apply] tasteless saliva even on the eye is forbidden; from whom did he hear it? Shall we say that he heard it from his father, — then Levi did not state any one [of these laws]! Hence he [must have] heard one from his father and one from Levi, but we do not know which from his father and which from Levi.

This section properly demonstrates what I believe Jesus was doing in choosing the heal the man in the way he did. One cannot take from this passage that the law forbade healing a man’s eyes with saliva on the Sabbath. On the contrary, the Rabbis discuss the matters in order to come to the most suitable solution. I suggest that Jesus’ decision was with one of two directives:
1) To demonstrate his disdain for petty wrangling over words.
2) To demonstrate his disdain for unrelated artificial laws which have no bearing on the truth of the Torah law
3) The Pharisees possibly solidified what was said here as a “Thou shalt not” law, i.e. thou shalt not heal a man’s eyes on the Sabbath.

As Jesus had already done so in healing the man with the withered hand, he already flouted their laws knowing that they would hold it in higher regard than the more Godly act of bringing healing and restoration as a witness of God’s power.

Comments are welcome regarding your interpretation.