Calba Savua's Orchard

A Response to Rob Bowman: Early Jewish Mysticism Pt. 1

2011-08-26T08:22:00.000-07:00

Rob Bowman wrote a blogpost critiquing an installment of Daniel Petersen's column in the Deseret News.[1]
My previous post details why one of Bowman's assumptions is untenable, mainly, the position that the word midrash generally means a specific Tannaitic body of literature. I've shown that there is no reason for that to be considered the default definition. He used that assumption in an attempt to show that Petersen misrepresented his source.
In this post I'll examine another statement of his on which much of Bowman's argument hangs.
Before doing so it is worth explaining my use of the word "mysticism." I use it here in a general sense, the imperfect equivalent of the Hebrew term "torat ha-sod," similar to how Gershom Scholem used it in his book "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism." I will be using it interchangeably with "esotericism."

We need look no further than Patai’s book, from which all of the Mormons derive the quotation, to discover that the text dates from at least six centuries later than Aqiva. In Patai’s “Chronological List of Sources” at the back of the book, the “Midrash Alpha Beta di R. Akiba” is listed as originating from the “8th-9th” centuries. In another book, Patai explains the religious context of the work:
“The foundations of medieval Kabbalism were laid in Babylonia and Byzantium in the 7th and 8th centuries, when a number of Midrashim with marked Kabbalistic tendencies made their appearance. Several of these (e.g,, the Alpha Beta of Rabbi Akiba and the Midrash Konen) deal with the mysteries of Creation and the structure of the universe.”
That’s right, the quotation comes from a foundational work in the development of the medieval mystical Jewish tradition known as Kabbalah. This isn’t just Patai’s opinion. It is the scholarly, academic consensus.

Rob Bowman goes on to say that,

The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while failing to describe its source accurately is especially troubling. This is the only quotation in Peterson’s article that he does not identify specifically. Clearly, had he done so, it would have weakened his argument. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to state accurately the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. I make no judgment as to why they all failed to do so.

Unfortunately, beyond stating a range of dates for the composition of the Ottiyot de-Rabbi Akiva (ORA), Rob Bowman has not accurately stated the religious perspective from which it originated. A glaring example is that none of the other references provided by Bowman state that the ORA is markedly Kabbalistic.
Aside from inaccurately describing the religious perspective and not discussing what kind of text the ORA is, Bowman has failed to address important issues affecting the dating of the concepts presented in the work. He has not discussed a single primary source beyond providing the full quote as it appears in "The Messiah Texts", nor said which part he considers late.
Looking at the quote from Patai's "The Hebrew Goddess," I am at a loss to find exactly which tendencies in the ORA Patai saw as markedly Kabbalistic.
Try as I might, I just can't find any. There is no mention of such key Kabbalistic concepts as Ein-Sof or Ayin, no emanations (Sefirot) of the Godhead and their role in the universe, no feminine aspect of God which must be reunited with God, nothing which is specific to the Kabbalah.
If Bowman would assert that there is something explicit or implicit in the text which could be considered specifically Kabbalistic then he must make a case for it.
Kabbalah is often used to refer to all forms of Jewish mysticism, but this usage is sloppy. Though the Kabbalah shares strong affinities with earlier mystical trends, such as the Merkabah mystics or the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz), as a distinctive movement it mainly stems from 12th century Provence.
Rob's "Proto-Kabbalistic" is not a very useful term generally. I don't know of a single Jewish esoteric text or tradition which couldn't with some justification be called proto-Kabbalistic. It is possible to write many entries on this alone, but a few examples should suffice.[2]
My highschool was not far from Or Haganuz, a Jewish community formed on Kabbalistic ethics and ideals as formulated by a disciple of R. Yehudah Leib Ashlag. Ashlag was a pivotal 20th century Kabbalist who translated the Zohar into Modern Hebrew and attempted to popularise its teachings. His goal was to create an altruistic community based on living the Torah (or rather, the true meaning as revealed by Kabbalah) for Torah's sake. By accepting the life of "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" they would be fulfilling the purpose of creation and would ascend as it were on a ladder to God and cleave to him completely.[3]
Or Haganuz takes its name from a Jewish tradition regarding the light of creation, and literally means the hidden, or concealed light.
Howard Schwartz provides a brief explanation.

Everyone is familiar with the words of Genesis 1:3, And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. But the ancient rabbis, who scrutinized the words of the Bible for every hidden mystery, wondered what light this was. After all, God did not create the sun, the moon, and the stars till the fourth day. So what was the light of the first day?...
The rabbis conclude that the two lights—that of the first day and that of the fourth—are different. The light of the first day is a primordial light, what is called the or ha-ganuz, or hidden light. This resolves the problem. But it also raises a whole series of new questions—What was the nature of that sacred light? Where did it come from, and where did it go? These questions have been debated among the rabbis for many centuries, and they arrive at a variety of explanations.[4]

The concept of this light is important to many, if not most, kabbalistic systems, and in its hasidic form exemplifies the philosophy of Or Haganuz's settlers.
This is seen in the teachings of the Rav Kook, who was a seminal figure in modern Judaism and Israeli history. He served as chief rabbi in British Mandate Palestine and did much to bring the gap between the secular Zionist movement and the reactionary orthodox community. For him they both had that part of the truth which the other lacked. The middle path, combining the zealous activism of the former with the deep religiosity of the latter, would help bring salvation to the world.

When I lived in London I used to visit the National Gallery, and my favourite pictures were those of Rembrandt. I really think that Rembrandt was a Tzadik. Do you know that when I first saw Rembrandt's works, they reminded me of the legend about the creation of light? We are told that when God created light, it was so strong and pellucid, that one could see from one and of the world to the other, but God was afraid that the wicked might abuse it. What did He do? He reserved that light for the righteous when the Messiah should come. But now and then there are great men who are blessed and privilaged to see it. I think that Rembrandt was one of them, and the light in his pictures is the very light that was originally created by God Almighty[5]

This light is what sustains and rejuvenates the world, and is expressly manifest through ethical behaviour.

The enlightenment of holy men is the basis for the spiritual illumination that arises in the world, in all human hearts. The holy men, those of pure thought and contemplation, join themselves, in their inner sensibilities, with the spiritual that pervades all. Everything that is revealed to them is an emergence of light, a disclosure of the divine, which adds life and firmness, abiding life and spiritual firmness, which gives stability to the whole world with the diffusion of its beneficience.
A life-giving illumination flows always from the source of the Torah, which brings to the world light from the highest realm of the divine. It embraces the values of the spiritual and the material, the temporal and the eternal, the moral and the practical, the individual and the social. These spell life to all who come in contact with them, and guard them in their purity.
Meditation on the inner life and moral conformity must always go together with those qualified for this. They absorb the light pervading the world, which abides in all souls, and they present it as one whole. Through the influences radiating from their life and their fellowship with others, through the impact of their will and the greatness of their spirirtual being, through their humility and love for all creatures, they then disseminate the treasure of life and of good to all.
These men of upright heart are channels through which light and life reach to all creatures. They are vessels for radiating the light of eternal life. They are the servants of God, who heed His word, the messengers who do His will to revive those near death, to strengthen the weak, to awaken those who slumber.[6]

The Rav Kook's view here is drawn from a core Hasidic concept- the Tzadik.
This is not the place to discuss Tzadikism in depth, but a few words by way of explanation are necessary.
Tzadik is Hebrew for righteous. In Hasidism though it came to represent a special class of leader, a holy man who is the intermediary between the world of God and the world of man. He is the pipeline which draws the holy downwards and the profane upwards. Since he cleaves whole-heartedly to God, his disciples cleave to him. He can intercede for them and raise them up, transforming everything into holiness.[7]
There is a famous Hasidic tradition from the circle of R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, adapted by Martin Buber for the opening portion of "Or Haganuz," his collection of Hasidic stories.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come."[8]
Hasidim asked: "Where did he conceal it?"
They were answered: "In the Torah."
They asked: "If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?"
They answered: "They certainly will find some."
They asked: "If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?"
They answered: "They will reveal it in the way they live."[9]

Apart from the ethical interpretation, there is another aspect of the hidden light which played an even greater role in Kabbalah.
In that classic of Hasidic hagiography, "In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov," a story is told of how R. Baruch was having his oxen sold in a distant town, but worried that they might have been stolen. He sent R. Yosef Kaminker to the Baal Shem Tob (Besht) who then opened the Zohar and read from it.

"I see that R. Baruch's oxen have not been stolen."
R. Yosef asked the Besht, "Is that really written in the Zohar?"
The Besht replied. "This is what our sages said about the verse 'And God saw that the light was good.' They said that it is good to hide it, since with the light of the six days of Creation, one could see from one end of the world to the other. Where did the Holy One, Blessed be He, hide it? He hid it in the Torah. And when they said 'for the righteous in the future to come,' this means for the righteous who will come into the world. Whoever attains the light hidden in the Torah can see with it from one end of the world to the other. Do you suppose that I only saw the oxen? I also saw something which happened in the Jewish community of Amsterdam."[10]

We aren't told what the Besht saw in Amsterdam, but this use of the hidden light is also characteristic of R. Isaac Luria (the Ari) in the hagiography which grew around him.

The hidden light was in him, reaching from one end of this world to the next. He was able to illumine and explain the words of R. Shimon bar Yohai. As it is written in Shivhei Ha-Ari, everything the Ari achieved came from the Zohar.[11]

R. Azriel of Gerona, a leading Kabbalist of the generation before the Zohar had the following to say about the hidden light.

This first light is like the light of thought in which a man sees all that he wishes to look at... and this is the light of wisdom which would rest upon the prophets and crown them with its light, and they would see visions by power, visions of whatever could be, from one end of the world to the next. As long as the soul is pure it shows in her its power and increases, shining brighter and brighter. This light is set apart for the righteous, as they posess a clean and pure spirit, and this light is called the light of life.[12]

Other Kabbalists focused on the implications of the hidden light for creation. R. Shimon ibn Lavi was born in Spain but during his childhood his family was forced to move to Morocco due to the Spanish Expulsion. He was active during the early 16th c. and composed "Ketem Paz," a very important commentary on the Zohar. In it he expresses an idea very similar to the slightly later one found in Lurianic Kabbalah- Tzimtzum, or contraction. The "mystery of expansion" where light is emanated and fills the universe, thus bringing everything into existence, is considered exile, since the light leaves God. The light is then retracted and concealed, since it is too powerful for anything to continue existing in its glare.[13]
This concept of a primeval, hidden light appears both in the talmuds and in various midrashim. One of these quotes has already been mentioned in connection with Buber's anthology.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next.

Fourth Ezra, a work from around the late 1st c. CE, also knows of such a light.

Then You commanded that a ray of light be brought forth from your treasuries, so that your works might then appear.

This goes back as far as the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobolus.

The first [day], the one in which the light was born by which all things are seen together.[14]

Should we consider these as proto-Kabbalistic? That designation quickly becomes meaningless. These texts are not proto-Kabbalistic, even though many of the Kabbalists are often closer to those texts in their thoughts on the nature of this light than the Amoraic statements are.
I doubt that Rob Bowman would consider 1 Corinthians 15:29 proto-Mormon just because LDS use it as a prooftext for the doctrine of proxy baptism.[15]
It is also highly doubtful that he would consider Ezekiel 1 proto-Kabbalistic, even though terminology drawn from it forms an important part of Kabbalistic teachings and modes of expression. Shaul Magid explains how Ezekiel's vision played a role in the way certain Hasidic movements perceived God's interaction with the universe.

R. Gershon Henokh suggests that the telos of Ezekiel’s vision was to reveal the place where divine concealment (koah ha-hester) begins to reveal itself, resulting in the realization that divine absence is itself divine.
"At that time it was God’s will to show Ezekiel how God ﬁlls the entire creation. Therefore, he showed Ezekiel the ﬁrst [highest] place where He could be apprehended until the place that was necessary, i.e., the place of His concealment.
That is, until the world of formation [‘olam ha-yezerah].
As it is explained . . . in the world of emanation, holiness and goodness are
dominant.
This is also true in the world of creation. In the world of formation, however, good and evil are balanced. Therefore, it is only in the world of formation that the power of divine concealment begins. God wanted to show Ezekiel that the power of concealment is itself from God."
R. Gershon Henokh utilizes the Lurianic notion that the chariot is housed in the world of formation (yezerah)—the ﬁrst world where good and evil appear as distinct—as a support for the Maimonidean claim that the chariot represents metaphysics.
That is, metaphysics is the highest realm of speculation of the divine because it is the ﬁrst place where God is hidden. Divine absence becomes the ﬁrst stage of our apprehension of God. The ﬁrst human apprehension of God is His absence.
For R. Gershon Henokh, the purpose of the vision is for Ezekiel to see and communicate that God’s absence (evil) is the result of divine will.
The Lurianic interpretation of the chariot of Ezekiel lowers the status of the prophetic vision to a place that is accessible to the human intellect and experience, that is, the angelic world where good and evil are already distinct.[16]

There is a Zohar section discussing the elements of Ezekiel's vision.

From these two sparkling spirits the wheels (Ofannim) are created, and they are holy, their nature being like that of the creatures... "It flashed up and down among the creatures" (Ezekiel 1:13). What does "it" refer to? This is the holy spirit... When spirit was composed within spirit, there emerged from them the illumination of one creature, which lies above the four wheels.[17]

Another example that has a little more bearing on the ORA is gematria. Like everyone else in Israel of the days of a single TV station, I grew up watching the comedy program "Zehu Zeh." Every Friday during the Gulf War, it hardly seems an exaggeration to say that it kept the country sane. One of the best-loved characters was the Baba Bubah, a parody of a senile old Moroccan Kabbalist who interpreted contemporary events by exaggerated and implausible use of gematria.
There are and were several radio shows featuring experts in gematria who use it to resolve issues in the callers' lives, and even many internet sites with gematria calculators. In the popular imagination, Kabbalah and gematria are practically synonymous.
The Sabbateans used gematria heavily in their attempts to prove that Sabbetai Tzvi was the Messiah. A generation earlier in what was then part of the Polish Commonwealth, R. Shimshon of Ostropol devoted his life to nullifying the power of the demonic agents of evil- kelipot, that is, shells. For him these kelipot were manifested in Christianity. There are numerous instances of fierce anti-Christian mystical polemic in his writings. He used gematria to show that King David provided a key to nullifying the power of Christ. If the numerical values for two of the names of Christ in R. Shimshon's teachings are combined- beam (korah) and hunger (raav, consisting of the same letters as raven, which is the antithesis of the dove)- they result in sar pah (Prince Snare). Psalm 124:7 reads,

Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped.[18]

Gematria has very ancient roots, and was used in the talmuds as well.

Satan has no permission to act as accuser on the Day of Atonement. Whence [is that derived]? — Rama b. Hama said: "The numerical value of Ha-Satan in gematria is three hundred and sixty-four, that means: on three hundred and sixty-four days he has permission to act as accuser, but on the Day of Atonement he has no permission to act as accuser.[19]

The ORA was important to the developement of the Kabbalah because instead of statements scattered here and there, it presented an extensive treatise on the inner meaning of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and, by extension, the possibilities inherent in those letters. There are few concepts in the ORA which can't be found in earlier writings, and this is partiularly true of the quote in question.
Joseph Dan has this to say on what sort of text the ORA is.

This midrash, usually regarded as one collected in the seventh century, is actually an anthology that is distinguished from other similar ones by its keen interest in both cosmogony and mystical literature, but first and foremost by its structure as a commentary on the shape and meaning of the letters of the alphabet. It includes among other things, a brief description of the ascent of Enoch and his transformation to Metatron.[20]

Gershom Scholem, father of the modern study of Jewish mysticism and Joseph Dan's teacher, briefly discussed the ORA as it relates to the textual history of the "Shiur Komah."

Two manuscripts of Shiur Komah versions partially survived on parchment pages in the Cairo Genizah... Further fragments are extant in Hekhaloth Rabbati and Hekhaloth Zutarti... Another fragment is preserved in the so-called Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, which, to be sure, was edited later than the above-mentioned pieces but nevertheless preserved a great deal of the old Merkavah material.[21]

In other words, according to Scholem and Dan both, the ORA was an anthology of older material. Bowman's emphasis on the late date of the ORA implies that anything in it must be regarded as having a 7th-9th c. provenance. This does not take into account the nature of the ORA. Bowman would need to show that the quote in question is late, since there is sufficient evidence for the continuity from earlier times of the concepts in said quote. Bowman's argument can be illustrated by an admittedly imperfect analogy. If I had written a newspaper editorial on Elizabethan and Jacobean dramaturgy and quoted the following from Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespear" without mentioning the source, would it mean that this scene was from 1806?

Iago knitted his brow, as if he had got fresh light on some terrible matter, and cried: 'Indeed!' This brought into Othello's mind the words which Iago had let fall upon entering the room, and seeing Cassio with Desdemona; and he began to think there was some meaning in all this: for he deemed Iago to be a just man, and full of love and honesty, and 'what in a false knave would be tricks, in him seemed to be the natural workings of an honest mind, big with something too great for utterance: and Othello prayed Iago to speak what he knew, and to give his worst thoughts words. 'And what,' said Iago, 'if some thoughts very vile should have intruded into my breast, as where is the palace into which foul things do not enter?' Then Iago went on to say, what a pity it were, if any trouble should arise to Othello out of his imperfect observations; that it would not be for Othello's peace to know his thoughts; that people's good names were not to be taken away for slight suspicions; and when Othello's curiosity was raised almost to distraction with these hints and scattered words, Iago, as if in earnest care for Othello's peace of mind, besought him to beware of jealousy: with such art did this villain raise suspicions in the unguarded Othello, by the very caution which he pretended to give him against suspicion. 'I know,' said Othello, 'that my wife is fair, loves company and feasting, is free of speech, sings, plays, and dances well: but where virtue is, these qualities are virtuous. I must have proof before I think her dishonest.'

In Hardin Craig's edition of Shakespeare's plays this takes up 91 lines!
Joseph Dan brings up another issue which has bearing on this discussion.

It is sometimes difficult to decide when a text serves as an influential source for further creativity, and when its message is simply reproduced, so that the individuality of both the source and the medieval follower is completely negated.[22]

Rob Bowman hasn't even attempted to show that the ORA quote falls into the former category, he merely asserts that it is.
Lawrence Schiffman discusses Enochian and Hekhalot material in particular, but his observations hold true for Jewish mystical works in general.

The notion of a developing literature of “booklets” that he has explored so carefully regarding 1 Enoch (VanderKam 1984, 17-101) is clearly the correct method with which to understand the eventual emergence of 2 and 3 Enoch as well. These works are composites of documents that were themselves put together from other minor protodocuments, a phenomenon clearly emerging from the results of VanderKam’s detailed research… The close relationship of our official Enoch literature- or better, the various booklets- with other texts (not just traditions) highlights the value of this literary-historical model. Had I sought to work on 2 Enoch and its relation to 1 Enoch, this approach would have been enough to provide a model to understand the development of 2 Enoch… It turns out that “booklets,” or better, short treatises, are the building blocks of all the hekhalot-type texts, as shown by Peter Schafer (1983).
In fact, texts as we know them, independent compositions, are a misnomer for these “texts,” since different manuscripts have different mixes of common, but not always present, building blocks. With this model in mind we can grasp that, like 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch is such a composite.
However, 3 Enoch is not just a composite of text traditions such as those found in 1 and 2 Enoch. The circle that produced, exported, composed, redacted, copied, and studied traditions like those in 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch produced various booklets which still circulated in different forms and in different languages after the so-called 1 and 2 Enoch came into being as redacted texts. Some of the original documents circulated in translation. These traditions somehow mixed with those of the hekhalot trend and were redomesticated as part of the emerging textual tradition of late rabbinic/early medieval Jewish esotericism.[23]

Aside from these matters of text, Joseph Dan explains another aspect of Jewish mysticism which Bowman has ignored.

These three subjects- homiletical interpretations of Ezekiel 1, of the first chapters of Genesis, and magic- constitute by far the majority of the parallels found between talmudic and midrashic literature and the esoteric literature. It is true that it is nearly impossible to describe the beginnings of these phenomena, which are so closely integrated with all other aspects of Jewish religious expression from biblical times to the period of the Talmud and Midrash, including the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea scrolls, and early Christian works. One may try to show the beginning of a specific idea or concept in this vast panorama, but the subjects as a whole seem to have been of continuous interest to all trends and tendencies within Jewish culture.[24]

Bowman has asked, or, rather, presented his readers the wrong question.
The kind of questions that should be asked relate to how was the text composed; is it a single composition or is it an anthology; how were traditions transmitted; what in the text is genuinely new or otherwise marks a departure from older texts and traditions; does the designation "medieval" imply a new historical era at this point in Jewish history or is there a continuum in ideas. Bowman declares that the quotation has a medieval theology yet he doesn't show that it is so. His analysis of the quote is just as inadequate.

Continued in the next post...

[1]Rob Bowman's post can be found at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology-and-joseph-smith%E2%80%99s-doctrine-of-exaltation/ and Daniel Petersen's article at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

[2]Other examples include the heavenly Jerusalem, Enoch-Metatron, Shiur Komah, the golem, heavenly ascents, and the Sepher Yetsirah. On the origins of the Kabbalah as a distinct movement see Gershom Scholem, "The Origins of the Kabbalah", Isaiah Tishby "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 1, Joseph Dan "Early Kabbalah", and Moshe Idel "Kabbalah: New Perspectives". For an example of a genuinely proto-Kabbalistic text, see Ronit Meroz "The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah."

[3]Boaz Huss, "Altruistic Communism," pp. 125-126.

[4]Howard Schwartz "Tree of Souls," p. Lxxii.

[5]From the "London Jewish Chronicle," September 13, 1935, p. 21. http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2007/10/rembrandt-rav-kook.html

[6]Abraham Isaac Kook, Ben Zion Bokser (ed.) "Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems," p. 208-209. Bokser's introduction provides an excellent sketch of the Rav Kook and his outlook.

[7]Chapter 3 of Gershom Scholem's "On The Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah" discusses the developement of Tsadikism, as does Arthur Green's "Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq" in "Jewish Spirituality: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present."

[8]Babylonian Talmud, t. Haggigah 12a.

[9]http://www.schocken.co.il/?CategoryID=165&ArticleID=447 see also Oded Israeli's 2010 lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwGOSWLREJM&feature=youtu.be

[10]"Shivhei Ha-Besht" 5:13.

[11]Shaul Magid "Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism" p. 69.

[12]Isaiah Tishby, "Commentarius in Aggadot, auctores R. Azriel Geronensi" p. 111.

[13]Haviva Pedaya "Or Ke-Tavech Ve-Or Ke-Maatefet" http://havivapedaya.com/drupal/node/22 . The existence in North Africa of Kabbalah independent of and predating the Safed center should suffice to illustrate the inaccuracies in the "Hebrew Goddess"'s overview of the Kabbalah. "An important new development took place following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which brought about a powerful upsurge of Messianic longings for redemption, and resulted in the migration of several leading Spanish Kabbalists to the town of Safed in the Galilee. Within a few years thereafter, Safed became the new center of the Kabbala, and held this position for a short but remarkable period in the 16th century. From Safed, the Kabbala spread rapidly to all the Asian, African and European centers of the Jewish diaspora."

[14]4 Ezra 6:40 and Aristobulus, fragment 3. Translation is from James L. Kugel "The Bible as it Was" p. 57.

[15]See J. Trumbower, "Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity," pp. 55-57.
"I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person." Trumbower's endorsement, however, is far from unqualified. For him, the main difference is one of scale, the ancient texts painting a more limited picture of those eligible for such baptism.

[16]Magid, "Hasidism on the Margin" p. 57.

[17]Isaiah Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 2, p. 598.

[18]Yehuda Liebes, ""Jonah as the Messiah ben Joseph." For a general overview of gematria, as well as examples of Sabbatean gematria, see Gershom Scholem "Kabbalah" pp. 337-343.

[19]Babylonian Talmud, t. Yoma 20a. The same Parchment and Pen blog has a post discussing Christian gematria. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/walid-shoebat-youtube-video-on-the-mark-of-the-beast/

[20]Joseph Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 156. In a different book, Dan points out the difficulty of deciding what came first in what work. "The schools of the gaonim, the leaders of the great academies in Babylonia, preserved the tradition of Hekhalot mysticism. Rav Hai Gaon, in the beginning of the eleventh century, mentioned in his writings many of the Hekhalot texts. It is difficult to know, whether this intrrest was only literary, or whether there was creative, mystical activity in these schools. The work of editing and preserving many of the Hekhalot texts was undertaken in Babylonia in this period, but how much of the material which has reached us was traditional, and how much was the result of the creativity of these editors we cannot ascertain. Thus, for example, the great anthology of esoteric speculation concerning the alphabet, cosmology, the heavenly realm,the angels and the divine name, known as the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba or The Letters of Rabbi Akiba, was most probably edited in Gaonic Babylonia. But what parts of this vast collection were ancient, and what were added by the editors, cannot be stated with any certainty. For, the work contains a brief description of the story of Enoch and his rhetamorphosis intoo the Prince of the Countenance, Metatron, along with a list of the secret names of Metaron. The problem is: Did the brief version, included in the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, precede the long, detailed version in 3rd Enoch, or vice versa? That is, did some late editor compare the abridged version and add it to an alrteady extant anthology attributed to the ancient sage? There are several philological elements which support each of these possibilites, and a decision either way is impossible at this time."
"Gershom Scholem and the mystical dimension of Jewish history," ch. 3.

[21]Scholem, "Mystical Shape of the Godhead" p. 276-277.

[22]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 248.

[23]Lawrence H. Schiffman, "3 Enoch and the Enoch Tradition," in Boccaccini (ed.) "Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection" p. 160.

[24]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, pp. 85-86.

A Response to Rob Bowman: Midrash

2011-08-18T18:36:00.000-07:00

Evangelical writer Rob Bowman recently wrote a post on the Parchment and Pen blog which I feel is worth responding to.
The piece is entitled "Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Four: Esoteric Jewish Theology and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation."[1] It is itself a response to a short article by Daniel Peterson in the Desert News[2].
I do find the accusations in the article of misrepresentation unfortunate, but I am not going to deal directly with them here. Rob is intelligent and usually very reasonable, not to mention civil. I want to deal with the substance of his arguments rather than fling mud back and forth.
Before commencing my response I would state that, whatever my personal convictions, I am not making a case for theosis in the modern LDS understanding of it. Such really is beyond the scope of this post. In other words, it isn't necessary to believe in the LDS concept of deification in order to appreciate the criticisms I raise.
A bit of background on who I am. My name is Allen Hansen, and despite the American-sounding name (my Hebrew one is different), I was born and raised in Israel, and have Jewish heritage. I am also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don't have a formal degree, but I do spend quite a bit of time with Jewish history, both primary and secondary sources, but enough about me.
One of the Rob Bowman's main arguments is outlined as follows.

So, just what text is this? The title is worded somewhat differently from one reference to another, but the Hebrew title is ’Otiyot De’Rabbi ‘Akiva’. In English it would be something like The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba. (The Hebrew Aleph Bet and the Greek Alpha Beta are equivalent references to the first two letters of the alphabet, and similar in meaning to our idiom “the ABCs.”) This sounds like an impressive text; after all, Akiba, or more properly ‘Aqiva’, was one of the “founding fathers” of rabbinical Judaism, a noted and highly respected rabbi who lived through both of the Jewish-Roman wars of AD 66-73 and 132-35. If the quotation came from Aqiva, as Bickmore implies (without directly making that claim), that would be impressive indeed! Peterson’s description of this source as “an early Jewish midrash” implies that it originates from the same era of history as Aqiva. But does it?

We'll start this off by looking at how Rob Bowman identifies midrash (pl. midrashim).

The term midrash generally refers to a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that began to be compiled in the second century AD, much of which eventually led to the publication of the Talmud (in two major compilations, ca. 400 and ca. 500). The term also refers to a sizable body of post-Talmudic literature. However, when Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” the use of the term “early,” especially in the context of his argument for the doctrine in question as “ancient,” clearly implies that the text is pre-Talmudic.[3]

For Rob Bowman the main definition of midrash is a specific body of Jewish expository literature spanning the second to fifth centuries CE, with a secondary meaning of a body of post-talmudic literature.
Not only is his definition idiosyncratic it is also misleading.
Reuven Hammer explains a little better what a midrash is.

What exactly is "midrash?" Midrash is both a process and a product.
It is a method of study and interpretation of the Bible and it is the name given to the literary works that emerge from that study. A midrash is both the individual interpretive comment to a work or a verse and also the book into which these individual pericopes have been incorporated.[4]

Midrash primarily refers to a method of scriptural exposition and interpretation rather than collections of it. The latter is clearly a secondary, albeit important usage.
Would midrash generally reffer to a collection of midrash rather than the process of midrash itself? The container rather than the content?
That hardly seems a reasonable position, especially when a good number of midrashim are found in non-midrashic works, such as the Palestinian (or Yerushalmi) and Babylonian Talmuds.
This is somewhat akin to stating that fable generally reffers to literary collections such as Aesop's, La Fontaine's and Krylov's rather than to a literary genre.
It can refer to such, to be sure, but again, it is a secondary meaning not a primary one.
Bowman's definition would be more relevant if we were speaking of the body of works known as halakhic midrashim. What Hammer terms classic midrash. The extant halakhic midrashim consist of the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimeon bar-Yohai (or a good deal of it), Sifra, Sifrei Numbers, and Sifrei Deuteronomy. In addition, there are fragments and portions of lost halakhic midrashim. These are Mekhilta Deuteronomy, Sifrei Zuta Numbers and Sifrei Zuta Deuteronomy.
Eight works in all.[5]
It is a different matter when we come to the body of works known as aggadic midrashim.
The terms halakhah and aggadah require some explanation before proceeding further.
Halakhah is how Jews are meant to live the 613 positive and negative commandments which make up the Law of Moses, or Torah. Halakhah is the practical application of the Torah. For example, the Torah states that every seventh year is to be a sabbatical for the land, and no agricultural work should be done. Halakhah details just how this is to be done- what constitues agricultural work, how are you affected if you work but don't have a field, and so on. Another example would be the biblical prohibition on boiling a kid in its mother's milk. This was expanded to prohibit consumption of all dairy and meat products together, and how long of a wait there should be between eating them.
Halakhah is considered binding, even though many groups differ in the details of a specific halakhah.
Aggadah, on the other hand, is everything not covered by halakhah.
In Midrash Numbers Rabbah 13:15 it is stated that the Torah has seventy faces, or as we might put it, seventy aspects. The number seventy in rabbinic though expressed a totality rather than merely a specific ammount. Thus, Torah covered all aspects of life, past, present and future. Midrash keeps the Torah a living law, relevant for each age. Judah Goldin, one of the great midrashic scholars of our age, had the following to say.

Authority [of the sages] protected exegesis from many possibilities of arbitrariness; but by the same token, so long as it remained sensitive to the requirements of the age, authority had the sanctions to extract from the Written and Oral Law such conclusions as would re-enforce the permanent relevance of Scripture and the legitimacy of the moment's needs for adequate and immediate attention...To paraphrase a remark of the Gaon Saadia: No generation was left without the necessary resources for deriving from the Torah the guidance and the practices which were appropriate to the age.[6]

Some midrashim deal with halakhah, some with aggadah, some discuss specific verses, others biblical narratives and themes. Still others are grouped around the Jewish liturgical calendar.
Halakhic midrash is a group of midrashim focusing mainly on halakhah, but aggadah is also discussed. In agaddic midrash this ratio is reversed. Neither deal solely with one or the other.[7]
The aggadic midrashim we posses (which are numerous) date to no earlier than the fifth century CE, the majority being later than that. For example, in the group of midrashim known by the attachment of "rabbah" to their title[8], the earliest, Genesis Rabbah, dates to sometime after 400 CE. Numbers Rabbah, the latest, reached its final form in 11th c. Narbonne.[9]
When it comes to midrash, "early" and "late" are very relative and subjective, complicated further by the process of textual transmission and repeated redaction.
This problem plagues a good deal of Jewish texts written before the early modern era.[10]
Bowman hasn't discussed this important aspect of Jewish literature in his blogpost. It significantly weakens his case, as will be shown later on.
Apart form older ideas, late midrashim are known to contain entire pericopes much older than the work itself.
A work entitled "Midrash haGadol" illustrates the phenomenon, as well as the dangers of making assumptions based on the date of a work's appearance.
Composed by the Yemenite rabbi David b. Amram Adani in the 14th century, according to Bowman's thinking the "Midrash haGadol" would simply be a late medieval work. This it certainly was, but we would fall into the trap of oversimplifying the issue.
It was written by a medieval rabbi, quoting from indisputably medieval sources such as Maimonides, but it also includes a great deal of extremely old material. The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimeon bar-Yohai was reconstructed from quotations found in the "Midrash haGadol" and corroborated by findings in the Cairo Genizah which predate Adani's work.
Saul Lieberman provides a specific example of ancient material found in it, from Midrash haGadol Wa-Yegash, p. 688.

And Joseph made ready his chariot (Gen. 46:29). This was not because he lacked slave or servant who could make it ready for him, but to inform you that Joseph rejoiced much and did not take greatness unto himself in that hour for the heart is carried away by joy, etc., and he did not appear to him [Jacob] that selfsame day, but sent five other horses by his first son. Jacob said "Is this him." [Joseph] sent five other horses by his second son. Jacob said "Is this him," and only after that did he appear, so his [Jacob's] soul would not fly away causing him to die.

The Genizah yielded the following, which, if anything, is fuller than Adani's midrash.[11]

It is written And Joseph made ready his chariot and also for the heart is carried away by joy and by hatred a convention is broken, for you find it in Pharaoh as it is written and he made ready his chariot (Ex 14:6), for by hatred convention is broken.
The king does not go out to meet a man, but Joseph honours him, for he went up to meet his father, as it is written and presented himself unto him. Joseph appeared on the third day, he did not appear that selfsame day but sent on the first day five horses. Jacob said "This is Joseph," and on the second day [Joseph] sent ten horses and Jacob said "this is Joseph," but after that he appeared unto him, so his soul should not fly away causing him to die, and thus the Holy One, blessed be He, will do in the future to come, first sending the messenger, as it is written (Isa. 52:7) How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings and afterwards that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Adani's work is medieval, but many of his sources and quotes are far older. He compiled and redacted them, resulting in a new work, but it would be folly to judge all the parts based on the date of the work's composition.[12]
Deuteronomy Rabbah is another case in point.
It was thought to have been a medieval work from the 10th century. On the basis of many Greek loanwords and the lack of any references to the Babylonian Talmud this has been shown to be an early work, but as Strack and Stemberger have noted, "due to its turbulent textual history... a more precise dating between c. 450 and 800 is extremely difficult."[13] There is also material in it which is demonstrably old.
One of the midrashim in that work relates to a cunning plan by Hiel, an Israelite collaborating with the prophets of Baal.

And the prophets of Baal knew that Baal as unable to cause fire to come forth of its own accord. What did Hiel do? He stood before the Prophets of Baal and said to them, "Take courage and oppose Elijah and I will make it seem to them that Baal sent fire for you." What did he do? He took two stones in his hands and hatcheled flax and entered inside of Baal, because he was hollow. And he struck the stones one against the other so that the flax was ignited.[14]

This fresco is from the synagogue wall at Dura Europos, a town on the right bank of the Euphrates, and dates from the middle of the 3rd century CE.
It depicts the prophets of Baal around a hollow altar with a man inside it. A snake is about to bite the man in the altar. This detail is found in the continuation of the same midrash.

Elijah, enlightened by the Divine Spirit, said to God, "Lord of the Universe, I asked a great thing of you and you did it—to restore the spirit of the woman of Zarfat`s son. But now I ask that you `raise up` this villain within the Baal." God immediately ordered a snake to bite Hiel in his heel, and he died. Thus it is written: If they should hide at the summit of Mt. Carmel (Hosea 9:3).

As I said above, "late" and "early" are relative terms when it comes to midrash. When compared to halakhic midrash, the "Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva" would be a late midrash. If compared to an aggadic midrash it is neither particularly late nore particularly early, but it is early for a mystical midrash. A late date for a midrash does not necessarily mean that the individual concepts and components contained in it are as late.
There is an important aspect of the Oral Torah which we haven't discussed yet- the strong aversion to writing it down.
The Oral Torah was the counterpart of the Wriiten Torah, or the Pentateuch. It consisted of the teachings of the sages, passed down by the authority of tradition.
One of the aversions to writing it down had to do with the function of memory and oral recitation in ancient society, which might seem counterintuitive to us.
There is a famous story in Plato's "Phaedrus" illustrating the difference between true memory and mere reminders.[15]

The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.” But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess.
For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.
You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.

Written reminders are useful but there is the distinct risk that they will become crutches to students who rely on them too much. Oral teaching required a teacher and this would ensure the proper transmission of tradition and wisdom.
This attitude was shared by at least some Jews, as seen in a group of texts known as the Sar Torah texts. They relate how a student is unable to retain anything in his memory may summon an angel known as the Sar Torah, or prince of the Torah.
Here is one example.

He adjured me by the great seal, by the great oath, in the name of Yad Naqof Yad Nakuy Yad Heras Yad Suqas; by his great seal, by Zebudiel Yah, by Akhtariel Yah, by heaven and by earth. As soon as I heard this great secret, my eyes became enlightened. Whatever I heard- Scripture, Mishnah, anything else- I forgot no more. The world was made new for me in purity, and it was as if I had come from a new world. Now: any student (talmid) who knows what he learns does not stay with him should stand and say a blessing, rise and speak an adjuration, in the name of Margobiel Giwat’el Ziwat’el Tanariel Hozhayah Sin Sagan Sobir’hu, all of whom are Metatron.[16]

According to Michael Swartz, "these texts are an indication of the centrality of memorized knowledge in the scholastic society formed by rabbinic Judaism."[17]
This being said, there was another reason why it was better that the Oral Torah an oral, rather than a written teaching.
In the Pesiqta Rabbati 14b we encounter the following.

The Holy One, blessed be He, knew that the Nations would translate the Written Torah and read it in Greek. And they would say: 'The Jews are not Israel!' Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: "O, Moses! The Nations will say, 'We are Israel! We are the children of the Omnipresent!' And Israel, too, will say, 'We are the children of the Omnipresent!' And the scales are in balance!"
Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to the Nations: "You claim to be my children, but I recognize only the one who holds my mystery in his hands! He alone is my son!" They said to Him: "What is this mystery?" He said to them: "It is the Mishnah!"[18]

You weren't Israel if you did not participate in God's mystery- the Oral Torah.
Jaffee looks a little closer at written vs. oral authority.

The rabbinic insistence upon oral, memorized mastery of learned tradition is part of a larger cultural discourse about the nature of books and learning that occupied both pagan and Christian intellectuals of the late Roman and early Byzantine East. All granted that books contained important knowledge. At issue was whether the book was the essential vessel of knowledge or, to the contrary, the
book's knowledge was most authoritatively represented in the person of the teacher of the book... In some settings, the book was clearly the key and the teacher merely the occasion for opening the mind of the student to the venerable words of the author.
In others, the book was but a stepping stone to the living teacher, who authoritatively embodied the teaching of the book. In the former setting, the student was the disciple of the book's (often long-dead) author, and only through convenience associated with the living teacher who taught the book.
In the latter, the student was the disciple of the living teacher; the author of the book effectively effaced by the authoritative embodiment of the book in the Master.
Rabbinic discipleship in Roman and Byzantine Palestine, as it is reflected repeatedly in texts generated from Galilean discipleship circles, is clearly at home in the latter camp. Torah was certainly found in the Book authored by Moses. And all rabbinic Sages and their disciples were, in this sense, disciples of Moses who knew him through his book. But mastery of Moses' written Torah was preliminary to the mastery of an unwritten Torah, knowledge of which was possible only by immersing oneself in a web of human relationships constituted by the discipleship circle of a particular living Torah Master.
The traditional embodiment of Torah was not found in a written collection of wise teachings offered by Sages, although there is growing reason to suspect that such written collections existed at an early stage.
Rather, real Torah was found in the mouth of the Teacher, the Sage whose own discipleship to a previous master now entitled him to represent himself as an authoritative teacher.[19]

If an oral tradition took precedence over a written one, then not just anyone could lay claim to it like they could with a written text. Of course the traditions were written down in private notes, but these had no authoritative status.
Lest Rob Bowman accuse me of using a late source, here is a quote from the Babylonian Talmud, t. Sanhedrin 59a, which indicates that the Torah was a mystery in the techinal sense.

How do we know that even an idolator who studies Torah is like the high priest? The verse says, "Which if a man do them, he shall live by them." It is not said priests, levites, Israelites—but man. Hence you learn that even a gentile who studies Torah is like a high priest.

If the reluctance to commit the Oral Torah to writing was strong, all the more so its avowedly esoteric teachings. Even their oral teaching followed certain restrictions among sages.
This is stated in the Mishnah, t. Hagigah 2:1.

The laws of incest may not be expounded before three persons,
nor the Account of the Creation before two, nor the Chariot before one unless he is wise and able to understand on his own.

There is one more point that Rob made regarding midrash which needs correction. The talmuds didn't grow out of midrash per se. They revolve around the Mishnah, the ancient codification of halakhah, and discuss it and its applications and implications in more detail.
My next post will examine the Ottiyot de-Rabbi Akiva and its central concepts, as well as deification in ancient Judaism.
To sum up this post, Rob Bowman is incorrect in stating that midrash generally reffers to a body of Jewish literature rather than the process of relating the biblical text to the needs and mood of the age (and vice-versa). Midrash has never really died out.[20]

[1]http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology-and-joseph-smith%E2%80%99s-doctrine-of-exaltation/

[2]http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

[3]Rob Bowman corrected his statement after some criticism from Bill Hamblin and myself. The original read as follows.
"The term midrash is usually (though not always) used in religious scholarship to denote a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that dated before and around the time of the Mishnah (compiled ca. AD 200) and thus well before the Talmud (compiled in two editions centuries later). When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."
That statement was then corrected to this. "The term midrash generally refers to a body of Jewish exposition of the Torah that began to be compiled in the second century AD, much of which eventually led to the publication of the Talmud (in two major compilations, ca. 400 and ca. 500). When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."

[4]Reuven Hammer, "The Classic Midrash: Tannaitic commentaries on the Bible,
Classics of Western spirituality (vol. 83)," (Paulist Press, 1995), p. 14.

[5]Hammer, "Classic Midrash", pp. 20-21.

[6]Judah Goldin, "Studies in Midrash and Related Literature," eds., Barry L. Eichler and Jeffrey H. Tigay; (Philadelphia: JPS, 1988), p. 237.

[7]Hananel Mack "The Aggadic Midrash Literature," (Heb.) (M.O.D Publishing House: Tel-Aviv, 1989), pp. 10-15. There is also an English translation available, but I haven't read it.

[8]An Aramaic word meaning "great" or "large" or "major."

[9]See H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, "Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash," trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), p. 279.

[10]There are many examples. To name but one, the Sefer Yetsirah had five major recensions, the last as late as the 18th century,, and a bewildering array of variant readings.

[11]Saul Lieberman, "The Yemenite Midrashim: Their Character and Value," (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1940), p. 4.

[12]For more examples, see Lieberman's monograph "Yemenite Midrashim," pp. 5-7 in particular.

[13]Strack & Stemberger, "Introduction," p. 308.

[14]Midrash Numbers Rabbah, 11:20, Lieberman's edition. http://www.tali-virtualmidrash.org.il/ArticleEng.aspx?art=14 .
See also H. Kraeling, "The Synagogue: The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report VIII, Part 1" (Ktav, 1979), p. 140.

[15]Plato, "Phaedrus," 274e-275a. The translation is from "Plato in Twelve Volumes," Vol. 9, trans. H. N. Fowler. (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925).

[16]David J. Halperin, "The Faces of the Chariot," (Mohr Siebeck, 1988), pp. 378-379. Swartz says of the Sar Torah traditions that “the earliest explicit indications of the Sar-Torah phenomenon, then, date from the tenth century. However, there are other elements of the phenomenon that have earlier origins. The archangel figure of Metatron appears in the Talmud and in the seventh–century Babylonian incantation bowls, although not as the Sar-Torah.” Swartz, "Scholastic Magic: ritual and revelation in early Jewish mysticism," (Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 213.

[17]"The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature,"
Ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, p. 212.

[18]Martin S. Jaffee "Oral Transmission of Knowledge as Rabbinic Sacrament: An Overlooked Aspect of Discipleship in Oral Torah" in "Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought," Vol. 1, ed. Howard Kreisel (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 2006), p. 71. Jaffee goes on to say this.
"While in its other rabbinic contexts it seems to bear the meaning of a hidden or secret message, its usage in the present polemical context suggests another dimension of its meaning. Here Mishnah, rabbinic oral tradition, is raised to the
theological level of a ritual mysterion, a sacramental medium the incorporation of which secures a participation of the believer in the life of the Church, the Mishnah has the power to convey transformative blessing to the individual."

[19]Jaffee, "Oral Transmission," pp. 72-73.

[20]See "Modern midrash: the retelling of traditional Jewish narratives by twentieth-century Hebrew writers" by David C. Jacobson, 1987. Israeli writer Meir Shalev had a column in which he examined contemporary events through biblical narrative and vice-versa. In 1985 they were published in book form as "Tanakh Achshav!" (Bible Now!). As an example, Shalev relates Isaiah's naming of his son Mahershalalhashbaz to a Bedouin in 1979 who named his newborn twin sons Begin and Sadat. Midrash also has a strong presence in the pop culture of my generation of Israelies. To name but a few, the songs of Meir Ariel, Ehud Banai and Idan Riachel are often very midrashic. I intend on posting in the future about severalof them, a glimpseinto traditional modes of expression in modern garb.

Seder Eliyahu Rabbah on Eternal Marriage

2011-05-03T20:17:00.000-07:00

I promised to post an ancient Jewish source supporting the notion of eternal marriage. This is in the interest of fairness.

In the future, God will be seated in His great academy, and seated before him will be the righteous of the world, they and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters, and their manservants, and their maidservants, their household needs will be taken care of for them. As it says: "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My spirit, etc.," and "And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids, etc. (Joel 3:1-2)"
"Rise up, ye women that are at ease. (Isa. 32:9)"
-Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 4:19.

Seder Eliyahu Rabbah purports to be a series of instructions on the history and destiny of the world, given by Elijah the prophet to R. Anan, a Babylonian amora.
God presides over his heavenly academy (beit-midrash). The righteous participate in its study sessions. They are organised according to the same social units they had on earth. The family (or rather household to a modern audience) still exists as an individual unit. Father, mother, children, and household servants. The organisation of the heavenly family may be identical to the earthly one but there are some important differences in other aspects.
All equally participate in God's academy. The prooftexts from Joel and Isaiah show that even female servant, a low rung on the social ladder, will receive an outpouring of God's spirit. To eliminate distractions from Torah study with God, all needs are provided for, presumably by the angels, since the Seder Eliyahu depicts them as less privileged than the righteous.
All in all, a remarkable picture.

Did Saadia Gaon & Maimonides Believe in Eternal Marriage?

2011-04-29T06:40:00.000-07:00

I'm very much in favour of using sources from the ancient world to explore our scriptures and doctrines.
They deepen and enrichen our understanding because, lets face it, we live in a time far-removed from that of the scriptures. Our understanding is not necessarily their understanding.
If you were to give a Russian a dozen roses they would ask who died. An even number of flowers in Russian culture is used for mourning, not for romantic or thoughtful gifts. Hilary Clinton commited a major faux pas when she sent birthday congratulations to the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych before his birthday. For Russians and Ukrainians, this is considered very bad luck, nd a possible jinx. It simply isn't done. Many years ago, when I was a little kid, some BYU Jerusalem professors had been with the students to a cemetary in Israel. My Dad asked them how it had been. It was alright, the professor said, but the cemetary was in a terrible condition, little rocks all over the graves! We spent most of the time clearing them off.
Dad had to explain that leaving small rocks on a grave is a Jewish custom and not a lack of proper maintenance.
These are all examples of how easy it is to misunderstand a living culture, let alone a dead one several millenia removed from us.
What I find problematic is trying to force our own understandings unto the past. Particularly doctrinal understandings. Mormonising the sources, so to speak.
To avoid any misunderstanding, let me state that I believe in the doctrines of the Restoration. What I don't believe in is making texts say something that they don't.
This gives us a distorted view of both past and texts.

This colloquy between Jesus and his Sadducean detractors does not question or throw doubt, in proper cases, on the eternal verity that the family unit continues in the resurrection. Jesus had previously taught the eternal nature of the marriage union. "What therefore God [not man!] hath joined together, let not man put asunder." That is, when a marriage is performed by God's authority—not man's!—it is eternal. See Matt. 19:1-12. "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever." (Eccles. 3:14.)

Indeed, almost the whole Jewish nation believed that marriage was eternal, and that parents would beget children in the resurrection. Those few who did not believe that marriage continued after death and among such were the Sadducees, who could not so believe because they denied the resurrection itself—were nonetheless fully aware that such was the prevailing religious view of the people generally. Without doubt Jesus, the apostles, the seventies, and the disciples generally had discussed this doctrine.

The Sadducean effort here is based on the assumption that Jesus and the Jews generally believe in marriage in heaven. They are using this commonly accepted concept to ridicule and belittle the fact of the resurrection itself. They are saying: 'How absurd to believe in a resurrection (and therefore in the fact that there is marriage in heaven) when everybody knows that a woman who has had seven husbands could not have them all at once in the life to come.'

A most instructive passage showing that the Jews believed there should be marriage in heaven is found in Dummelow. "There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life," he says. "A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said, 'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade. There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendor of the Divine Majesty.' But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection. The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands. The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says, 'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says, 'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink, and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfill their functions.' The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'" (Dummelow, p. 698.)

How much nearer the truth were these Jews, on this point, than are the modern professors of religion who suppose that family love, felicity, and unity cease simply because the spirit steps out of the body in what men call death!
Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary

The very first problem to present itself is one of chronology. Saadia Gaon was born in 882 AD and died in 942. If we assume that Jesus died somewhere between AD 28-33, then Saadia is separated from him by almost eight hundred and fifty years! Maimonides was a couple of centuries later even than that, from 1138-1204.
Such late sources by themselves are very poor indicators of what beliefs 1st-century Jews would have held.
If this was the extent of the problems posed by this source, then things might not be so bad. My blog post would certainly be shorter.
No such luck.
I might be a little hard on McConkie. Most of this is not so much his fault as the fault of his source- Dummelow's commentary.
The whole thing is available for free through google books.
The Reverend John Roberts Dummelow in 1908 had edited a work entitled "The One Volume Bible Commentary." This was a fairly critical work for 1908, but in terms of Jewish and New Testament scholarship anything that old tends to be positively primeval. So many new directions and, indeed, new sources had opened up since then that our understanding of those topics is vastly improved.
Dummelow's provides no citations for the quotes listed above. By modern standards that is entirely unforgiveable in a scholarly source. I did however manage to track down the sources used.
The first source is the only one to predate Jesus' mortal ministry.

I shall destroy all iniquity from upon the face of the earth, and every evil work shall come to an end; and there shall appear the plant of righteousness; and it shall be a blessing, and deeds of righteousness shall be planted with joy for ever.
And now all the righteous shall escape, and shall live till they beget thousands; and all the days of your youth and of your old age you shall fulfil in peace. Then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and it shall all be planted with trees, and filled with blessing. And all luxuriant trees will be planted in it; and they will plant vines in it, and the vine which they plant will produce a thousand measures of wine, and of all seed which is sown upon it.
Each seah will produce a thousand seah; and every seah of olives will produce up to ten baths of oil. And as for you. cleanse the earth from all uncleanness, and from all injustice and from all sinfulness and godlessness; and all the unclean things that have been wrought 'on the earth' remove from the earth. And all the children of men are to become righteous and all nations shall serve and bless me, and all shall worship me.
And the whole earth shall be freed from all defilement and from all uncleanness, and wrath and castigation: and I shall not again send a Deluge upon it unto generations of generations and for ever.
-1 Enoch 10:16-22, trans. Matthew Black.

This passage does not imply eternal marriage in the LDS understanding of the term.
As William R. G. Loader wrote, "the images of the future do not include sexuality as a theme, although some statements imply it. The abundant fruitfulness to which 10:17-19 looks forward, when Michael rejuvenates the earth, will include that people “will live and beget thousands and all the days of their youth and their old age will be completed in peace” (10:17). This means that the author does not envisage that human beings will live like undying angels, without further need for procreation, nor that they will be in the kind of holy context where sexual activity would be out of place."[1]
Likewise, Nicklesburg, in page 49 of his commentary on 1 Enoch, explained the biblical imagery underlying 1 Enoch's concept of the future, "most of the major sections of 1 Enoch– drawing on Isaiah 65-66 for their inspiration– envision a renewed earth and a restored Jerusalem as the setting for the long life that the righteous will enjoy after the judgment."
What presents us here, then, is an ideal, rejuvenated earth in which the righteous will live as long as the antediluvian patriarchs, if not longer, and will beget thounds of children. The trees will be just as productive, yielding colossal quantities of fruit and oil. After living a long life, the righteous will die.
Nothing so far about eternal marriage.
As for the so-called Rabbi Raf, he seems to be Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, known by the honorific Rav. Rav was the chief (though not the only) compiler and redactor of the Mishnah and one of the most significant authorities among the ancient sages. Rabbi Raf is pointless tautology, much like saying Rabbi Rabbi.

In the world to come there is no eating nor drinking nor begeting nor give and take nor jealousy nor hatred nor competition, but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads feasting on the brightness of the divine presence (Shekhinah), as it says, "And they beheld God, and did eat and drink (Ex. 24:11)."
-Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 17a.

This talmudic passage is a little ambiguous. Rav might have been referring to a corporeal state or he might have meant a bodiless one. Be that as it may, Rav is saying that the existence of the righteous in the world to come will be extremely different than what we know from earthly experience. The prooftext is meant to show that basking in God's splendour is what replaces physical meat and drink.

Or shall he ponder and say, 'Those in this world, shall they eat, drink and be married, or no?'
We should know that they will eat and drink like us, and be married, as is elucidated by the Sareptan widow's son and the Shunamite's son, who lived in this world, ate, drank and were worthy of marriage. One of the sages said that he was of the seed of one of them.
-Saadia Gaon, the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, the seventh article, chapter five.

I've rendered a fairly literal translation, following R. Yosef Qafih's first-rate Hebrew translation. Saadia Gaon, one of the most influential figures in Judaism, was embroiled in a polemic against those who denied the resurrection and particularly against those who spiritualised it. Any brief sketch According to Saadia, the resurrection takes place in this world. Here on earth, not in heaven. Not a general principle, the resurrection is restricted to the righteous and penitent among the children of Israel. It is a reward for the righteous. For him the resurrection is also an indication of God's power and preeminence, because if he once created us ex nihilo, then he can certainly recreate us from the same even after our bodies have entirely decayed away. This world, the world of the resurrection, is a transient and corporeal one and we will be transfered from it into the world to come, which is in heaven. There we neither eat, drink, nor live a married life. Saadia uses Moses as an example. Moses ate and drank before ascending Mt. Sinai, but while there he went without those things. Moses' experience symbolises what is to come. When he ascended Mt. Sinai and was directly, but temporarily, in the presence of God then eating, drinking and sex were a non-issue for him. They played no part at all in that experience. If that held true for the mortal Moses the more so when we will live permanently in God's presence.
Yosef Qafih says that he couldn't find a source for Saadia's statement regarding the two sons, but thinks that it might be emmendated to read "as is elucidated by the Sareptan widow's son and the Shunamite's son, and the dead which Ezekiel brought to life." The sage mentioned by Saadia is R. Judah b. Bathira, who declared that he was descended from the dead in Ezekiel's vision.[2]
At any rate, Saadia's concept of marriage was not eternal marriage. Marriage was a condition of this world. It lasted as long as people were in this world.
Saadia was very insistent that resurrection was part of this world, not the one to come.
Marriage was what legitimised sexual activity. Sexual activity was a bodily function (or appetite), like eating and drinking. Resurrection, after all, related first and foremost to the body. Eating, drinking and sex were (indeed, are) the epitome of earthly life.[3]
The last quote is the most problematic of all. It is distorted almost beyond recognition.

We can see from those treatises that the people whose souls shall return to their bodies will eat, drink, copulate, beget children and die after a very long life, a life as long as life is in the days of the Messiah. Indeed, the life after which there is no death is the life in the world to come, since there is no body in it. We believe, as any man of understanding verily does, that in the world to come souls are bodiless as the angels are. This explanation, that the body is the sum of instruments required for the soul's actions, has already been explained in an examplary fashion... Here it has been explained that the entire purpose of the body is the recption of food for sustaining the body, and begeting similar ones for the continuance of that body's kind. When that purpose is removed then it [the body] becomes unnecessary. That is, in the world to come, which is what our sages of blessed memory have elucidated, that in it is neither eating, nor drinking, nor usage[4], which is explained by the absence of a body. The Blessed One would not invent things in order for them to remain unused, and would not do anything without a reason, and heaven forbid that his acts would be like those who worship idols, "Eyes have they, but they see not, they have ears, but they hear not; noses have they, but they smell not (Ps 115:5-6)."
-Maimonides, the Treatise on Resurrection.

Maimonides had written a book entitled The Guide of the Perplexed. This book reconciled traditional Jewish beliefs with the mysteries of Aristotelian philosophy.
His book inspired many who were far more radical than he himself. They were embroiled in a sharp disoute with the traitionalists, who assumed that Maimonides was just as radical and that he denied the reality of the resurrection. He wrote the Treatise on Resurrection in order to defend himself from those charges.
Maimonides was not only a reknowned philosopher but also a gifted physician. I ommited the passage describes the three groups of functions the body is divided into.
For Maimonides, like Saadia, marriage wasn't eternal. It lasted only until man went to the heavenly realm, which is entirely bodiless. The resurrection isn't permanent. It is followed by another death, and then entry into perfect world which is that of the disembodied spirit.
None of what McConkie used support his claim.
This is not to say that there aren't Jewish sources indicating a belief in an eternal marriage.
There are some, but Dummelow's didn't include them. For the sake of fairness, I'll dedicate a future blog post to at least one of them.
My post though is more about the use of sources than eternal marriage in ancient Judaism.
To sum up my post, never use Dummelow's, there are far too many better ones out there, and McConkie's commentary should be used only with great caution. Elder McConkie being an apostle of the Lord had many good spiritual insights and he could bear powerful witness of the atonement, but he was not a great New Testament scholar.

[1]Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on sexuality: attitudes towards sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees, pg. 80.

[2]Babylonian Talmud, t. Sanhedrin 92b.

[3]I'm indebted to my friend Walker for that phrase.

[4]Usage was a rabbinic euphemism for sex.

Nine Thousand Myriads of Angels

2011-04-18T20:04:00.000-07:00

Every Jewish community's Passover Haggadah contains the following statement.

"And the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt," not by means of an angel, and not by means of a seraph, and not by means of a messenger. On the contrary, the Holy One, blessed be He, by His own glorious self [did it]...
"For I will go through the land of Egypt," I, and not an angel.
"And will smite all the firstborn," I, and not a seraph.
"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgements," I, and not a messenger.
"I the Lord," it is I and none other.

The Yemenite Jews follow a slightly different Haggadah, one based on R. Saadiah Gaon's rescension in the 9th century CE. Theirs contains an additional midrash on the same topic. Despite a reference in Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, it isn't that well known, undeservedly so.
I transcribed this from a 1953 Folkways recording of a Yemenite Passover in Jerusalem.

Our rabbis of blessed memory say: When the Holy One, blessed be He, went down against the Egyptians in Egypt, nine thousand myriads of angels went down with Him; some of them angels of fire, some of them angels of hail; some of them angels of shaking; some of them angels of quaking; some of them angels of trembling. Trembling seized all who beheld them.
They said unto Him: 'Master of the World, when a king of flesh and blood goes down to battle, his ministers and servants surround him lest harm befall him.
Now, Thou art the King of Kings and Thou knowest full well that we are Thy servants and they [the Israelites] are the children of thy covenant. Let us go down and make war with them [the Egyptians].'
But He replied: 'I will have no peace of mind until I Myself go down.
I myself in My glory, I Myself in My grandeur, I Myself in My holiness. I am the Lord, I am he, and none other [will go down].

Who is Like Unto Thee Among the Gods

2011-04-11T21:02:00.000-07:00

Popular wisdom has it that when gods (elohim or elim) appear in the Bible, and does not refer to God, that it was a term designating judges or magistrates.
I have several other blog posts showing why this was not so, but one can never have enough primary sources. Here is another, rather an important one, which explains what the word gods could mean in early Judaism.
The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael is a midrashic collection of treatises and homilies grouped around the book of Exodus. The traditions in it are mainly Tannaitic, that is, dating from before the early 3rd century AD.
A sizeable treatise inside the Mekhilta is the Shirta, which expounds the Song at the Sea (Exodus 15). The topic of course is celebrating God's might and his deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh's army. When the midrash reaches Exodus 15:11, it naturally discusses what the word elim meant.
The translation is Judah Goldin's.

Another interpretation of WHO IS LIKE UNTO THEE, O LORD, AMONG THE ELYM: Who is like unto Thee among those who minister before Thee on high, as it is said, "For who in the skies can be compared... A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones... O Lord God of hosts, who is a mighty one, like unto Thee, O Lord" (Ps. 89:7-9).

This reference to the celestial retinue and the courts on high are a clear indication that elim did refer to divine beings, though usually understood as angels. This is borne out by Hebrews 2:5-9 where the Hebrew elohim is rendered as angels.
Shirta contains four other explicit interpretations of the word elim. Out of these, two are word plays (mighty men and mutes, respectively) and are irrelevant to this discussion. The other two read "Who is like unto Thee among those who call themselves divine?" and "Who is like unto Thee among those whom others call divine and there is absolutely nothing to them?"
The first is a polemic against the cult of emperor worship so prevalent in late antiquity. The additional proof texts list Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Prince of Tyre.
Those whom others called divine yet are worthless are idols. People see them as something divine when they really are not.
All three of these interpretations sees elim as divine beings, whether they truly are divine such as angels, or rulers who call themselves divine, or idols which men call divine.

The Heavenly Coronation of King David

2011-04-03T20:50:00.000-07:00

One of the songs I learned as a child was this one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PPkOEIKYZ0 , though the melody we sang it to is more like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKgHLBAtCdA&feature=related
The words are David melech Israel khai ve-kayyam (David, king of Israel, is alive and well). They are taken from an incident related in the Babylonian Talmud (t. Rosh ha-Shanah 25a) regarding the blessing of the new moon. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi sends R. Hiyya to bless the new moon and report back if all goes well by sending a signal containing the phrase "David, king of Israel, is alive and well."
The link between King David and the moon did not originate with R. Judah. It is found in Ps. 89:37-38. "His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon; and be steadfast as the witness in sky."
In early Judaism David was considered by many to still be alive, and that he would be the messiah. Others considered him more than a messiah, but a divine figure, if not a secondary god.
"One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9) and another
passage says: Until thrones were placed; and One that was ancient of days did sit - there is no contradiction; One (throne) for Him, and one for David:
this is the view of R. Akiba.
Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: 'Akiba, how long will you profane the Divine Presence [Shekhinah]!
Say rather, one for justice and one for mercy.'
Did he accept this from him, or did he not accept it? - come and hear: 'One for justice and one for mercy'; this is the view of R. Akiba."
-Babylonian Talmud, t. Hagigah 14a.
More on this controversy can be found in pg. 47-48 of Alan Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven" and in Daniel Boyarin's "Border Lines" pg. 140-145.
The following source should illustrate my point on David's role as a divine co-ruler with God.
Eleh Ezkerah, or the Midrash on the Ten Martyrs, was one of the most popular and influential texts in Judaism. it was composed in Geonic times, but based on several earlier traditions. The "Ten Martyrs" relates how the Roman emperor decreed that ten leading Jewish sages were to be seized and put to death. They were to be punished vicariously for the sin of their ten ancestors. They sold their brother Joseph into slavery, an act which Torah states is punishable by death.
Rabbi Nehunia ha-Qanah sends his disciple R. Ishmael on a heavenly ascent to
discover if the decree was decreed in heaven as well. If it were an earthly decree, then they could overturn it by their piety and mystical powers.
R. Ishmael discovers that God has allowed the decree to stand in order to fulfil the demands of justice, and in return for the deaths of the ten sages, Rome will be obliterated.
When R. Ishmael returns, the ten sages submit to the yoke of heaven and are cruelly executed by Rome.
Eleh Ezkerah is, historically-speaking, a jumbled mess. The ten martyrs did not all live and die at the same time, and the political and religious reality of life under the Byzantine Empire rubs shoulders with those of the Bar-Kochba Revolt and the Hadrianic persecutions.
What follows is part of the earlier Eleh Ezkerah material included in the mystical text Heichalot Rabbati.
Heichalot Rabbati, Apocalypse One, translated by Morton Smith. I ammended the translation slightly to better fit the biblical references in the original.

[Segansegael, the Prince of the Presence, said to R. Ishmael] “My friend, sit in my bosom and I shall tell thee what is to come upon Israel.”
I sat in his bosom and he gazed upon me and did weep, and his tears ran down continually from his eyes and fell upon my face.
I said to him, “Why does your Excellency weep?”
He said to me, “My friend, come, and I shall take thee in and teach thee what is laid up for Israel, the holy people.”
He grasped me by my hand and took me in to the inmost chambers and to the most secret rooms and to the treasuries. He took tablets and opened them and showed me letters written with griefs each different from the other.
I said to him, “For whom are these?” He said to me, “For Israel.”
I said to him, “And can Israel bear them?”
He said to me, “Come tomorrow and I shall teach thee of griefs yet different from these.” On the morrow he took me in to the inmost chambers and showed me griefs more bitter than the first: "Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity (Jer. 15:2)." I said to him, “And did then, your Excellency, Israel alone sin?”
He said to me, “Griefs more bitter than these are laid on them anew each day. And when, assembling in synagogues and schools, they say, ‘Amen. Let the great name be blessed,’ we do not permit these [griefs] to go forth from the inmost chambers.”
When I went down from before him I heard a voice speaking in the Aramaic language, and thus it said:
“The holy shrine shall be a ruin;
and the temple, a fire burning;
“And the dwelling of the king, desolation;
and she in whom the king rejoiced shall mourn as a widow;
“And the virgins and the youths shall be spoiled;
and the servants of the king, be killed;
“And the pure altar, polluted;
and the table which was set before the Lord, taken as spoil by the enemy;
“And Jerusalem shall be desolation;
and the land of Israel trembling.”
When I heard the voice of this vision I was terrified and struck silent and fell backwards. But then came the angel Hadariel and gave me breath and spirit and stood me upon my feet. He said to me, ”My friend, what came over thee?” I said to him, “Your Excellency, is there no restoration for Israel?”
He said to me, “Come, and I shall bring thee in to treasuries of consolations and to treasuries of salvations and shall show thee.” He brought me in to treasuries of salvations and to treasuries of consolations and I beheld the companies of ministering angels, that they were sitting and weaving garments of salvations and making crowns of life and fixing in them precious stones and pearls and compounding all manner of spices and perfumed wines for the righteous. And I beheld one crown which differed from all the [other] crowns, and the sun and the moon and the twelve signs of the zodiac were fixed in it. I said to him, “Your Excellency, for whom are these crowns?”
He said to me, “For Israel.”
“And that different crown, for whom is that destined?”
He said to me, “For David, the king of Israel.”
I said to him, “Your Excellency, show me the glory of David.”
He said to me, “My friend, wait for three hours until David cometh hither and thou shalt behold his greatness.”
He took me and seated me in his bosom.
He said to me, “What dost thou see?”
I said to him, “I see seven lightnings which strike as one.”
He said to me, “My son, close thine eyes that thou not be shaken by those that shall go forth to meet David.” At once, all ophanim and seraphim and the holy beasts and treasuries of snow and treasuries of hail and clouds of glory and planets and stars and ministering angels and fiery spirits of the fourth heaven cried out in tumult, saying: “For the chief musician, a psalm of David. The heavens are telling the glory of God (Ps. 19:1-2).”
And I heard a sound of a great uproar which came from Eden, saying: “The Lord shall reign forever and ever (Ex. 15:18).”
And behold David, the King of Israel, came first, and I beheld all the kings of the house of David following after him, and each had his crown on his head and the crown of David was more brilliant and differed from all the other crowns and its splendor went forth from one end of the world to the other.
When David went up to the great temple which is in the firmament, there was set for him a throne of fire which was forty parasangs in height and double in length and double in breadth.
And when David came and sat down upon his throne which was prepared for him opposite the throne of his Creator (and all the kings of the house of David sit before him, and all the kings of the house of Israel stand behind him) at once David arose and uttered songs and praises [such as] ear hath not heard from [the creation of] the world.
And when David began and said, “The Lord shall reign forever and ever!" Metatron and all his servants began and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, all the earth is full of His glory (Isa. 6:3),” and the beasts praise God saying, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His [dwelling] place (Eze. 3:12),” and the firmaments say, “The Lord shall reign forever and ever,” and all the earth saith, “The Lord has been King (Ps. 93:1), the Lord is King (Ps. 10:16), the Lord shall be King, forever and ever (Ex. 15:18),” and all the kings of the house of David say, “The Lord shall be King over all the earth, in that day shall the Lord be one and His name One (Zech. 14:9).”

The angel Sagansegael (one of the titles of Metatron) weeps over the woes awaiting Israel. R. Ishmael leaves the treasury and hears a bath kol (a voice serving as heavenly oracle) reciting an Aramaic lament over Jerusalem and its temple. Aramaic, as shown by the Babylonian Talmud, t. Sotah 33a, served as a direct conduit of revelation between God (or his Shekhinah) and man. Aramaic bypassed the ministering angels, who only know Hebrew. R. Ishmael is overwhelmed by the horrific news until he is revived by an angel, who shows him a scene of consolation and salvation. The Revelation of St. John and the later, Gnostic "Dialogue of the Saviour" both have new garments given to God's people when salvation occurs, but the imagery can be found as early as Zechariah 3. Revelation 2:10 describes a crown (as do several other New Testament books) given to those that overcome.
While it can't be emphasised enough that crowns weren't pretty little trinkets, but had definite associations of dominion and victory, I don't see the need to labour the point.
The similarity between Revelation and this passage of Heichalot Rabbati doesn't point to any direct dependance, but to shared aspects of culture and historical circumstance.
David's crown differs from all the other crowns, and it contains emblems of the agents through which God ruled the universe.
"And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good (Gen 1:16-18)." At the end of Genesis Rabbah 6:9 we read about Joshua's greatness in commanding the sun and moon to be still "which are they who rule the world from one end to another."
Just like the sun, the glory of David's crown shines from one end of the world to another.
David is accompanied by the same heavenly beings that accompanied God's merkabah in Ezekiel 1. He is then seated upon an enormous throne of fire. Psalms and other scriptures applied to YHWH are recited, but YHWH is nowhere to be seen in all this.
That thrones belong to both earthly and heavenly kings is self-evident. As can be seen from the talmudic passage quoted above, both R. Akiba and R. Jose saw in the interpretation of Daniel 7:9 as a throne for David the implication that David was a divine figure, participating in God's rule and kingship. A secondary god, as I stated earlier. In Heichalot Rabbati, so do all the kings of Judah and Israel to a lesser degree, as well as the children of Israel.
One final aspect of David's coronation that I would like to consider is the material which the throne is made of- fire.
Daniel 7:9 says that throne which the divine figure is seated on is fire. Shiur Qomah, a mystical text closer in time to Heichalot Rabbati draws on the same imagery in Daniel, describing a fiery throne used by Metatron, God's viceroy. This is in addition to a description of God as a fiery being.
In parting, I would like to share a statement in Shiur Qomah regarding Metatron that sums up the attitude of the mystics towards man sharing in God's power.
"The name of the lad is the name of his master."

2011-02-02T08:53:00.000-08:00

This quote by Michael Fishbane is absolutely essential in gaining an understanding of the biblical tradition and its interpretation.

Even in the language of the prophets, speaking under divine revelation, we can detect inner biblical exegesis. In Isaiah 29, the prophet is denouncing the people of Judah; they have been the object of his scorn throughout the preceding oracles and no new subject has been introduced. In Isaiah 29:9–11 we would expect to find that it is the people of Judah who are referred to as drunk and who totter and who cannot fathom the prophetic visions given to them. But by the addition of a few words the oracle becomes—by inner biblical exegesis—a rebuke of false prophets. The passage is not easy and requires a close reading; the inner biblical exegesis—the words added by an interpreter—are italicized in the following quotation from Isaiah 29:9–11:
“9. Be astonished and dazed, revel and be, blinded: you have drunk, but not from wine; totter, but not from drink;
10. For YHWHa has poured over you a spirit of stupefaction: He has closed your eyes—namely, the prophets—and your heads he has cloaked—the seers;
11. All prophetic visions shall be sealed from you ….”
Without inclusion of the italicized words it is YHWH who has closed your eyes and cloaked your heads. The object of the denunciation is unspecified. Because of what preceded, however, it would seem that the object was the people of Judah. By the addition of the italicized words—“namely, the prophets” and “the seers”—the object of Isaiah’s scorn has shifted from the people to (false) prophets and seers who do not speak with the true word of God.
Moreover, by the addition of the italicized words, a common biblical literary construction called chiasmus has been disrupted. Here is another clue that we are in the presence of inner biblical exegesis. Chiasmus derives etymologically from the Greek letter chi, which looks like an x; chiasmus refers to a rhetorical construction of an a, b; b’, a’ type. In such a construction, the linguistic features of a second line invert (usually by means of synonyms) those of the preceding one.
In Isaiah 29, without the words added by inner biblical exegesis, we have a perfect chiasmus in which a second line is inversely parallel to a first line, literally:
“He has closed your eyes;
Your heads he has cloaked.”
Here—in the original—it is the people who do not see. In this quotation of Isaiah 29:10, without the inner biblical exegesis, we can identify the preserved original oracle. By the explicatory addition “the (false) prophets” and “the seers,” they—the false prophets and the seers—become the cause of the people’s blindness. The result is that an oracle condemning the people is transformed into a rebuke of false prophets.
Without going into further detail (but relating to this same example), we simply observe that in the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Bible, parts of which may date from the third century B.C., this process of exegesis within the text of Isaiah was taken further, for there the abruptness of the intrusion was smoothed over. And a later Greek version, known as the Lucianic recension, went still further in an effort to improve on the Septuagint version without (apparently) ever consulting the Masoretic Hebrew version.
From the viewpoint of the exegetical process, the textual strata represented by the Masoretic text and by the Septuagint and its Lucianic recension reflect continuous rereadings of the original oracle. Moreover, this example represents the most invasive exegetical procedure, which, in the final Hebrew text, transforms the meaning of the passage and disturbs its syntactic balance—a matter later translators into Greek tried to rectify.
Moreover, this striking transformation of an oracle against the people into one against false prophets shows the extent to which the interpretive tradition might introduce a new authority into a received tradition, so that these human comments compete with and ultimately transform the focus of the ancient, divine words. The privileged voice of divine revelation and the human voice of instruction have become one. That this paradox not always perceived is a measure of the scribes’ success in subordinating their voice to that of the tradition. Even more paradoxically, in the end it is their interpretations that have become the received tradition; their oral traditions are the written text given to the community.

Fishbane, Micheal. “The Earliest Biblical Exegesis is in the Bible Itself.” Bible Review, Fall 1986, 42-45.

What did the Stone Tablets look like?

2011-01-29T08:17:00.000-08:00

I am doing some research into the interpretation of the stone tablets which Moses brought down from Sinai, and came across an interesting tangent. Try imagining Moses at and advanced age (or Even Charleton Heston in his prime) walking down a steep mountainside with those two stone whoppers! He then throws them down with enough force to smash them.
We could say that God gave Moses superhuman strength (the text does not indicate such), or we could look for a reasonable interpretation, even if it means relinquishing some of our favourite images.
Writing on stone was very common in Egypt of the late Bronze Age. Hundreds of examples have been found. Papyrus was very expensive, so for scrap paper or scribal excersizes, pottery shards and stone flakes were used instead. Here is but one example, recovered at the Valley of the Kings (Deir el-Medina).

Stone flakes of this size could contain around twenty lines of text on both sides, could be easily carried, and easily broken.

Milk and Meat- Why Not?

2011-01-28T07:49:00.000-08:00

Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk.
-Exodus 23:19.

This short injunction forms a major part of the dietary (kashrut) laws in Judaism. Even people who are otherwise lax in their observance of those laws will generally not eat meat and dairy products together (or pork, but we won't go into that).
Regardless of whether or not someone accepts the latter rabbinic interpretations as valid, a significant question still remains. What was the reasoning behind the biblical injunction?
Maimonides, in the 12th, century proposed an ingenious solution, similar to the ones he came up with for other strange prohibitions in the Bible. It was meant to counter idolatrous practices.

As for the prohibition against eating meat in milk, it is in my opinion not improbable that— in addition to this being undoubtedly very gross food and very filling— idolatry had something to do with it.
Perhaps such food was eaten at one of the ceremonies of their cult or one of their festivals
-The Guide to the Perplexed 3:48.

In 1929, archaeological discoveries at Ugarit seemed to prove that Maimonides was right.
Claude Schaeffer discovered a Canaanite religious text which read in part "t\b[h g]d\bh\lb. annh[.]bhm’at". Charles Virolleaud translated the first three words as "Cook a kid in milk."[1]
H. L. Ginsberg picked up the ball and ran with it.
He wrote that the reason the Bible forbade cooking a kid in milk was because it had to do with pagan gods and goddesses. The ritual described in the Ugarit text
“symbolizes the suckling of the newborn gods!”[2]
Unfortunately, Ginsberg and his followers were quite wrong about the connection between the Ugarit text and the biblical injunction.
Basically, the entire reading is wrong. There is no room for an 'h', TBH means to slaughter, not to cook, and GD is coriander.[3]
There have been many other attempts to solve the biblical puzzle, ranging from it being a prohibition on incest, to animal cruelty prevention, to being a mere practicality.
Ethnoarchaeologist Gloria London has an intriguing theory on the reason for the prohibition. In Cyprus, observing how traditional potters work, she was approached by an old woman who told her that “you never put meat into a clay pot with milk.”
London explains that "in times when people used porous clay pots to cook, everyone avoided cooking meat in containers used for milk products."
She goes on to say that "Not only did “others” refrain from mixing meat and milk in antiquity, they do so to this day. From about 300 B.C.E. in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), the Hebrew word for “milk” was translated to the Greek word galaktos. To this day, traditional Cypriot potters make a goat-milking pot used by women, the galaftiri. It has an open mouth and side spout unlike jars used to process meat products. These pots are never used for meat. Nor are cooking pots ever used for dairy. The shape of the pot says it all—milk or meat. Rather than a dietary restriction limited to a single group of people, it was common practice to keep all ceramic pots used for milk versus meat separate...
Normally in antiquity, as in the Troodos Mountain villages of Cyprus to this day, meat is reserved for special occasions with family and friends. It would be terrible to ruin a fine meal with sour meat as a result of boiling it in a dairy pot. Simple logic kept dairy pots separate from pots used to cook meat. It’s possible that the Bible’s commandment to separate meat and milk boils down to good housekeeping. The straightforward, practical understanding of the Biblical passage originates in the prosaic perspective of a kitchen. It comes from those who make the pots, feed the animals, milk the goat, make the yogurt and cheese, cook the meat, and serve family, friends and community."[4]
The theory, interesting as it is, suffers from some fatal flaws.
First of all, if this was such a commonsensical and practical matter, "good housekeeping", why would it need to be regulated? Why include it in a list of laws governing a covenant relationship? Why the specific mention of kids and mothers instead of milk and meat?
The answer seems to lie in a different direction entirely.
Philo, the Jewish Alexandrian philosopher of the 1st century CE, nailed it on the head.
The reason was to avoid mixing life and death, for it is “grossly improper that the substance which fed the living animal should be used to season or flavor it after its death.”[5]
Jacob Milgrom expands this thought.
This prohibition is, thus, simply another instance of the emphasis on opposites characteristic of biblical ritual and practice: to separate life from death, holy from common, pure from impure, Israel from the nations. The reverence for life and Israel’s separation from the nations are ideas reflected throughout the dietary laws. For example, the reverence for life is reflected in the blood prohibition. Separating Israel from the nations is reflected in the prohibition against eating certain animals such as pig and crustaceans.
Thus the prohibition against cooking a kid in its mother’s milk conforms neatly with Israel’s overall dietary system.
The command not to boil a kid in mother’s milk is first set forth in Exodus, where the context in which it appears shows that it probably applies only to kids sacrificed on one of the Israelites’ pilgrimage festivals. By the time the command appears again in Deuteronomy, however, it is apparent that it has been transformed into something much broader, a new dietary law.
It is easy to see why this prohibition would have been so quickly integrated into the Israelites’ dietary system. It embodies two common biblical themes: reverence for life, even dumb animal life, and Israel’s separation from the nations.
This life-versus-death theory also completely and neatly elucidates the other biblical prohibitions mentioned earlier that, heretofore, have been explained as having humanitarian motives. However, the common denominator of all these prohibitions is that they prevent fusion of life and death. Thus, the life-giving process of the mother bird hatching or feeding her young should not be the occasion of their joint death (Deuteronomy 22:6). The sacrifice of the newborn may be inevitable, but not for the first week while it is constantly at the mother’s breast (Leviticus 22:27); and never should both the mother and its young be slain at the same time (Leviticus 22:28). By the token, the mother’s milk, the life-sustaining food her kid, should never become associated with its death."[6]

[1]Ugaritic Texts, 52:14.

[2]H. L. Ginsberg, The Ugarit Texts, pg. 77.

[3]Milgrom, Jacob, You Shall Not Boil a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk, Bible Review, Summer 1985, pg. 48-55.

[4]London, Gloria, Why Milk and Meat Don't Mix, Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2008, 66-69.

[5]Philo, De Virtute, 143.

[6]Milgrom, BR, Summer 1985, pg. 48-55.

John the Baptist and the Essenes

2011-01-22T22:46:00.000-08:00

One of the riddles posed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is what John the Baptist's relationship to the Essenes and the Qumran community would have been like. Was he a member of that community or not? Even if we approach this question cautiously, it seems a strange and striking coincidence that two groups in the same region (the Judaea, wilderness) at the same time (the early part of the first century CE) would be teaching a similar ideology (repentance, ritual purification, and an imminent eschatology), yet not have any contact or relationship one with another, be it positive or negative.
In a classic study, Otto Betz proposed that John the Baptist grew up in the Essene community, but left it to act as a prophet, preaching repentance to the wider Jewish community.[1]
I find this view not only appealing, but very persuasive too. It takes into account not only the similarities but also the differences between John and the Essenes.
I see no reason to believe that John lived in a cultural vacuum. Where and who we grow up around influences the path we take and the way in which we view things, be we prophets or be we laymen.

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
-Matthew 3:1-4.

The Gospel of Matthew describes John the Baptist in terms reminiscient of the prophet Elijah's physical appearance, but also as the fulfilment of Isaiah 40:3.
The Essene community saw the same Isaiah verse as a call to separate themselves from the community at large and live in the wilderness as part of God's true society.

When such men as these come to be in Israel, conforming to these doctrines, they shall separate from the dwelling-place of the men of perversion in order to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of truth, as it is written (Is.40:3): ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God!’—this means the expounding of the Law, decreed by God through Moses for obedience, that being defined by what has been revealed for each age, and by what the prophets have revealed by His holy spirit.
-Manual of Discipline 8:12–16.

This Manual of Discipline (Serech ha-Yahad, or the Community Rule) contains the rules of conduct to be followed by all those associated with the Essenes.
Josephus writes that although the Essenes did not utterly reject marriage, they would seek out "other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, esteeming them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners."[2] It seems more than likely that if John was brought up in an Essene environment then the same Isaiah verse that formed a large part of the Essene identity would shape the way that John (and his followers) conceived of his own mission.
Ritual purification was important to all Jewish groups, and Qumran was no exception, with several ritual pools (mikveh) being found there. still, the mere ritual of immersion was considered ineffective if the individual did not repent and accept upon himself God's commandments, as interpreted by the Yahad (the way the Essenes seemed to have refered to their community).

So shall all together comprise a Yahad whose essence is truth, genuine humility, love of charity and righteous intent, caring for one another after this fashion within a holy society, comrades in an eternal fellowship...
Yet he cannot be justified by what his willful heart declares lawful, preferring to gaze on darkness rather than the ways of light. With such an eye he cannot be reckoned faultless. Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence, neither cultic waters his purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers, nor purified by mere ritual bathing. Unclean, unclean shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society.
-Manual of Discipline 2:24-25, 3:3-6.

Josephus writes of John the Baptist that he was "a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to for the remission of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."[3]
Otto Betz described another common thread between John and the Essenes, the combination of the priestly and the prophetic.
"In ancient Israel the spirit of prophecy often opposed the theology of the priests (see, for example, Amos 5:22; Isaiah 1:11–13; Jeremiah 7:21–26). The prophets warned the people not to rely too heavily on the Temple and on the atoning effect of sacrifice. Both the Essenes and John the Baptist, however, succeeded in combining the prophetic and the priestly ideals in a holy life, ritually pure but characterized by repentance and the expectancy of the final judgment. John’s disciples were known to fast (Mark 2:18) and to recite their special prayers (Luke 11:1). These two acts of piety also appear in the Qumran texts. Infraction of even minor rules was punished by a reduction in the food ration, which meant severe fasting (Manual of Discipline 7:2–15). And there are several special prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among them are the beautiful Thanksgiving Hymns from the scroll found in Cave 1. Cave 11 also produced a scroll of psalms in which new prayer were inserted into a series of Psalms of David.
The Qumran Essenes separated themselves from the Jerusalem Temple and its sacrificial cult. The Temple’s offerings of animals were replaced by the “offerings of the lips” (that is, prayers) and by works of the Law. Man must render himself to God as a pleasing sacrifice; he must bring his spirit and body, his mental and physical capacities, together with his material goods and property, into the community of God. In this community all these gifts will be cleansed of the pollution of selfish ambition through humble obedience to the commandments of God (Manual of Discipline 1:11–13)."[4]
In ancient Israel, the temple linked God and man and the sacrifices in it atoned for Israel's sins and transgressions. The Essenes considered the contemporary priests who officiated at the temple to be corrupt and perverse. The separatist community of the Essenes saw itself as truly holy, and applied the role of the temple to their community.

When such men as these come to be in Israel, then shall the party of the Yahad truly be established, an "eternal planting" (Jubilees 16:26), a temple for Israel, and- mystery!- a Holy of Holies for Aaron; true witnesses to justice, chosen by God's will to atone for the land and to recompense the wicked their due. They will be "the tested wall, the precious cornerstone" (Isa 28:16) whose foundations shall neither be shaken nor swayed, a fortress, a Holy of Holies for Aaron, all of them knowing the Covenant of Justice, and thereby offering a sweet savor. They shall be a blameless and true house in Israel, upholding the covenant of eternal statutes. They shall be an acceptable sacrifice, atoning for the land and ringing in the verdict against evil, so that perversity ceases to exist.
-The Manual of Discipline 8:4-10.

John taught a similar doctrine.

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
-Matthew 3:8-9.

Acording to Betz, "this famous saying contains a marvelous play on words in Hebrew. “Children” is banim; “stones” is abanim. The saying thus presupposes the idea of a living temple “of men.” John is saying that God can create genuine children of Abraham “from these stones” and build them into the sanctuary of His community. In the Temple Scroll from Qumran, God promises that he will “create” a sanctuary at the beginning of the new age; this he will do according to the covenant made with Jacob at Bethel (Temple Scroll 29:7–10). At Bethel, Jacob had declared: “This stone [the pillar that Jacob had erected] shall become the house of God” (Genesis 28:22). Both the Qumran community and John the Baptist believed in the creative power of God that will manifest itself at the end of time, as it did in the beginning. Then God will establish the true sanctuary and the ideal worship, which are anticipated both in the life of the Qumran community and in the life that John preached."
There are many more similarities between the life and teachings of John and the Essenes, but there are also some important differences which need to be pointed out.
The Essenes were a closed community within Israel, concerned with their own salvation, whereas John saw himself as a reforming prophet reaching out to all his people.
He didn't turn the people into monks living in the wilderness, but after repenting and being baptised they went back to their lives, their families and their jobs. John was the voice in the wlderness, the people weren't.
John also was outspoken in his politics, attacking the Herodians for their moral depravity, something the Essenes do not appear to have done.
I will leave Otto Betz the final word.

Both biblical traditions—the priestly one and the prophetic one—influenced the Essenes just as they did John the Baptist.
I believe that John grew up as an Essene, probably in the desert settlement at Qumran. Then he heard a special call of God; he became independent of the community—perhaps even more than the Essene prophets described by Josephus. With his baptism of repentance, John addressed all Israel directly; he wanted to serve his people and to save as many of them as possible.
The Essenes of Qumran no doubt prepared the way for this prophetic voice in the wilderness. They succeeded in combining Israel’s priestly and prophetic heritage in a kind of “eschatological existence.” The Essenes radicalized and democratized the concept of priestly purity; they wanted a true theocracy and sought to turn the people of God into a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:5–6).
A particular motif of their peculiar piety was the eschatological hope. In the age to come, they believed, there would be only one congregation of holy ones in heaven and on earth; then angels and men would worship together. Therefore, the liturgy and the sacred calendar used in heaven for the time of prayer and the celebration of the feasts served as a model for Essene worship even in the present. In heaven, animals are not sacrificed and offered to God; the angels use incense and sing hymns of praise. Therefore, on earth they had no need of the Jerusalem Temple. The Essenes believed that a living sanctuary of holy men could render a more efficient ministry of atonement than animal sacrifices, offered by an unclean priesthood (Manual of Discipline 8:6–10; 9:4–5).
But the Essenes also incorporated the traditions of the prophets into their beliefs. The prophet had little if anything to do with the Temple and sacrifice; the prophet tried to accomplish atonement through his personal commitment and effort to change the hearts of his audience. Because the Essenes were a movement of repentance, they adopted the prophetic tradition, despite their leadership of priests. Their Teacher of Righteousness was a priest who acted in a prophetic way.
This was true as well for John the Baptist. He was the son of a priest and practiced the laws of priestly purity in a radical way. But in his ministry for Israel he acted as a prophet, as the Elijah redivivusf to announce the coming of the Messiah. In his baptism, both traditions were combined, just as they were in the Essene philosophy: the priestly laws of ritual purity were combined with the prophetic concern for repenting, returning to God and offering oneself to Him. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that John the Baptist was raised in the tradition of the Essenes and may well have lived at Qumran before taking his message to a wider public.
-Otto Betz, Was John the Baptist an Essene?

[1]Betz, Otto. Was John the Baptist an Essene?. Bible Review, Dec 1990, 18-25.

[2]Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 2.8.2

[3]Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2.

[4] Betz, BR, Dec 1990.

Introducing the Synagogue

2011-01-13T13:42:00.000-08:00

Last week in Sunday school someone commented that "Jesus never taught in the synagogues. He went out to the people."
I held my peace.
Laying aside the fact that the gospels do state that Jesus taught in synagogues, I want to address the assumption that synagogues were some sort of stronghold of a distant, detached religious elite. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In Hebrew a synagogue is beit-kneset, or the place of the assembly, or congregation. Knesset Israel is one of the epithets frequently applied to the entire Jewish community. Another term for synagogue was beit ha-am, or place of the people.
The synagogue was a building for the community, built and maintained by the community.

Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and
an archisynagogos (head of the synagogue), son of an archisynagogosgrandson of an archisynagogos, built
the synagogue for the reading of
Torah and for teaching the commandments;
furthermore, the hostel, and the rooms, and the water
installation for lodging
needy strangers. Its foundation stone was laid
by his ancestors, the
elders, and Simonides
-The Theodotus Inscription.

This inscription shows the dual role of the synagogue both as a religious building and as a secular one. The scriptures were read and expounded in it, but it also contained guest rooms for lodging strangers. Lee I. Levine describes the synagogue as "the Jewish public building par excellence," and states that it functioned "first and foremost as the central communal institution in each community."[1]
The synagogue was where the community gathered, where meetings of all kinds were held, where children were given an education, where the community dealt with internal discipline and legal squabbles, where communal feasts were given, and where visitors could be lodged. On sabbaths and holidays people would gather to the synagogue to offer prayer and to read and expound portions of the Pentateuch and other biblical writings.[2] This was particularly important for members of the community in an age where literacy rates were lower than today, and where scrolls were rare and costly.
The synagogue readings were their most frequent exposure to the scriptures.
Rabbis, as we understand them, did not exist during Christ's day. They grew out of a Pharisaic movement led by Yohanan ben Zakkai in Jamnieh after the temple was destroyed. Even during the 3rd century the rabbis did not control the synagogue.
Rabbi Simeon would translate (and expound in the process) the Bible verses read in the synagogue of Tarbanat. The congregation requested that he only translate half a verse at a time, so they could explain it to their children. When R. Simeon refused, the congregation had him dismissed from his role as preacher.[3]
This would have been unimaginable if the people did not control the synagogue.
There is much more that could be written about ancient synagogues, but this introduction should be enough to dispell some common misconceptions encountered by the reader of the New Testament.
A final word on the picture at the beginning of my post. This is part of the synagogue discovered at Capernaum. It is several centuries later than Jesus, but is probably built over the one he frequented.

[1]Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity, pg. 139.

[2]Lee I. Levine, From Community Center to 'Lesser Sanctuary': The Furnishings and Interior of the Ancient Synagogue, Cathedra 60.

[3]Lee I. Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, pg. 212.

The Power of Names

2011-01-13T11:05:00.000-08:00

The Maaseh Buch is a sixteenth-century collection of Yiddish legends revolving around Rabbi Judah ha-Hasid (the pious), a leader of the mystic movement known as the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz). This movement was started by members of the Kalonymide family- Samuel ha-Hasid, his son the aforementioned Judah ha-Hassid, and his cousin, Eleazar Rokeah of Worms. The Kalonymides had arrived in the Jewish communities of the Rhineland after leaving Italy during the 9th century. They brought with them the teachings, writings, and traditions of the Merkabah mystics. Some of these have been preserved only in the writings of the Pietists and those influenced by them[2].
The Italian families in the Rhineland also brought with them many piyyutim (hymns) originating in Byzantine Palestine, such as El Adon, and Untaneh Tokef[3].
Merkabah mysticism was spread throughout Italy thanks to men like Aharon of Baghdad, but its roots are in Palestinian synagogues of the first few centuries CE, among priestly circles. This point will be discussed more fully in a later post.
In the Maaseh Buch is a tale of how R. Eliezer, son of R. Amnon of Mayence, wishes to study with R. Judah, despite instructions from his father never to leave Mayence. R. Judah reluctantly takes R. Eliezer in, yet refuses to teach him mystical knowledge until R. Eliezer decides to return to Mayence for the Passover Seder. He would not be able to make it back from Regensburg in time, so R. Judah intervenes.

"Then R. Judah took his staff and wrote holy names in the sand. He told R. Eliezer to read those words, and when he did, R. Eliezer found that he knew as much as R. Judah himself. But a moment later R. Judah covered the words with sand, and at that instant R. Eliezer forgot everything. R. Judah the Pious did this three times, and three times R. Eliezer was filled with great knowledge, and three times he grieved when it was gone. The fourth time R. Judah wrote the words in the sand, he told R. Eliezer to eat the words of sand. And when R. Eliezer swallowed the sand on which those words were written, the knowledge remained with him, and he never forgot it again. Then R. Judah pronounced the priestly blessing, followed by a pair of holy names. And a moment later, R. Eliezer found himself at the door of his home in Mayence."[4]

R. Judah uses holy names- the various names of angels and God- in order to impart knowledge to R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer is in possession of this knowledge only as long as he is in possession of those holy names[5].
After using the names to impart knowledge, R. Judah says the priestly blessing,[6] and a pair of holy names, enabling R. Eliezer to travel great distances in no time at all.
Part of the use of holy names of holy names in earlier Merkabah mysticism was to enable the mystic to ascend into the heavens[7].
In Jewish lore the ability to cover long distances almost instantaneously by the use of holy names is fairly widespread, attributed among others to R. Shimon ben Tzemah Duran[8] and the Baal Shem Tov[9].
A name was considered to carry with it power.
Gershom Scholem wrote that, “the magic quality of the name relies on the fact that a close and substantial relation exists between the name and the name's bearer.
The name is a real, non-fictitious quantity. It contains a declaration about the nature of its bearer or at least something of the potency attaching to it; it is, further, identified with the nature and essence of what is named by it.”[10]
Ephraim E. Urbach went as far as to say that the name and the power were synonyms.[11]
It could be used either to wield power on its own, or to compel the bearer of the name to accomplish some task.
A classic example is that of the Sar Torah, or prince of the Torah. This was an angel who, when summoned, would reveal the secret of how to master the Torah and its secrets, as well as make it that the student would never forget the things he was taught.
The Chapter of R. Nehuniah b. ha-Qanah relates how R. Ishmael at thirteen years of age was unable to commit to memory any of the teachings of R. Nehuniah, his teacher.
R. Nehuniah took R. Ishmael to the chamber of hewn stone (lishkat ha-gazit) in the temple grounds, and there instructs him on how to summon the Sar Torah.

"He adjured me by the great seal, by the great oath, in the name of Yad Naqof Yad Nakuy Yad Heras Yad Suqas; by his great seal, by Zebudiel Yah, by Akhtariel Yah, by heaven and by earth. As soon as I heard this great secret, my eyes became enlightened. Whatever I heard- Scripture, Mishnah, anything else- I forgot no more. The world was made new for me in purity, and it was as if I had come from a new world. Now: any student (talmid) who knows what he learns does not stay with him should stand and say a blessing, rise and speak an adjuration, in the name of Margobiel Giwat’el Ziwat’el Tanariel Hozhayah Sin Sagan Sobir’hu , all of whom are Metatron. Marg[obiel] is Metatron; Giw[at’el] is Metatron; Tanariel is Metatron; Hozhayah is Metatron; Sin is Metatron; Sagan is Metatron; Sobir’uhu is Metatron. Because they love him so much in heaven, they call him Ziwat’el servant of Zebudiel Yah, Akhatriel Yahweh God of Israel, Yahweh, Yahweh, merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and full of faithfulness and truth (Exodus 34:6). Blessed be the wise one who knows secrets, the master of mysteries…
R. Ishamel said: When I was thirteen years old, I pondered this matter, and went back to my teacher, R. Nehuniah b. ha-Qanah. I said to him, “What is the name of the prince of Torah (sarah shel torah)?” He said to me, “His name is Yofiel.” I then arose and afflicted myself for forty days, and spoke the great name until I brought him down. He came down in a flame, his face like the appearance of lightning (cf. Daniel 10:6)."[12]

The Sar Torah is extremely belligerent, threatening and insulting Rabbi Ishmael.
Without the ability to control an angel summoned from above (again, by use of holy names and through personal preparation and purity) the results are potentially devastating.
An early 19th century folktale from Holland relates how a certain scholar was a master of Kabbalah, particularly the Zohar. If he did not know the answer to a question, he would pronounce a holy name, summoning a spirit who would reveal the mystery. One night the scholar fell asleep, and four of his best students decided to pronounce the name themselves. The spirit teaches them what they wanted to know, but not one of them remembers the name which would release the increasingly furious spirit, who threatens to destroy them if he is not released.[13]
Another danger arises from a careless pronounciation of a name, which, as in the case of the story about the Baal Shem Tov and R. Adam’s son, where the prince of fire is summoned instead of the Sar Torah.[14]
Maayan Hochma is a midrash relating how Moses ascended into heaven in order to receive the Torah. The angelic sentinels initially oppose him, until God himself defends and protects Moses and reveals to him the Torah and the proper way of reading it. The angels then become the friends of Moses rather than his enemies. Mayan Hochma serves as an introduction to a text known as Shimushei Torah (theurgic uses of the Torah), which, when read in the proper order, is actually the secret name of God himself.[15]
The Mishnah (t. Sukkah 4:5) relates how, “Each day they [the priests] made one circuit around the altar and they would say: "Please O Lord, save; Please O Lord, save us!" (Ps. 118:25). R. Yehudah states: [they would say] Ani wa-Ho, save us! Ani wa-Ho, save us!” Urbach surmised that this is a mumbled version of ana (please) and the Tetragammaton.[16] It was mumbled so that the unrighteous would not hear it because of the power inherent in it. As seen above, careless pronounciation of a name was dangerous, deliberate, malicious use was far worse. Cursing someone (always done by invoking a divine name) was punished severely, no matter what name was used. In the Qumran community it resulted in permanent expulsion from the group. When the curse used the ineffable name the results were considered deadly. Literally so.[17]
Using a name to wield power over its bearer is an essential feature of many sorts of amulets.
Hayyim David Yosef Azulai, in his Yosef ba-Seder 6, relates a tradition about the origin of amulets protecting against the demoness Lilith, who seeks to harm women and children.
“Lilith said, “O lord, release me from your curse and I swear by God’s Name to forsake my evil ways. As long as I hear or see my own names I will retreat and not come near that person.
I shall have no power to injure him or do evil. I swear to disclose my true names to you.”
Elijah said, “Tell me what your names are.”
Lilith said, “These are my names: Lilith, Abiti, Abizu, Amrusu, Hakash, Ode, Ayil, Matruta, Avgu, Katah, Kali, Batub, and Paritasha.”
Let them be written and hung about the house of women who are bearing a child, or around the child after it has been born.
And when I see those names, I shall run away at once. Neither the child nor the mother will ever be injured by me.”
And Elijah said, “So be it. Amen.”[18]
These beliefs are nothing new, but are rooted deep in biblical times.
The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible has this to say in its entry on names. “The name of a person or deity is especially closely associated with that person or deity, so that knowledge of the name is connected with access to and influence with even magical control of-the named… Certain deities in the Ancient Near East are celebrated for the multiplicity of their names or titles. e.g. the 50 names of Marduk in Enuma Elish, the 74 names of Re in the tomb of Thutmosis III and the 100-142 names of Osiris in Spell 142 of the Book of the Dead. The deities may also have hidden or secret names so as to emphasize their otherness and to guard against improper invocation by devotees. (Note the story about how Isis persuaded Re to divulge his secret name, thereby lending great power to her magic; ANET 12-14.).[19]

[1]More on the Pietists can be found in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism.

[2]See for instance my earlier post on Enoch the shoemaker.

[3]Untaneh Tokef is one of those rare instances in which a text is dated later than it really is, rather than earlier. Popular legend ascribes it to R. Amnon of Mayence, martyred in the 12th century. The piyyut though has been found in old manuscripts of the Cairo Genizah.

[4]Howard Schwartz, Gabriel’s Palace, The Words in the Sand, pg. 171-172. See also the note on pg. 322.

[5]In practice, holy names were only imparted after preparation, involving fasting, ritual purification by water, and prayer. See Scholem, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, pg. 135-137.

[6]Numbers 6:23-27. Gersonides, in his commentary on this verse, sees the priestly blessing as another form of God’s name. “It should be said, the priests will place the mystery of My name on My people in such a way that all will know it, and then I will bless them…”

[7]Rachel Elior, The Priestly Nature of the Mystical Heritage in Heykalot Literature, in Experience et Écriture Mystiques dans les Religions du Livre, edited by Paul Fenton and Roland Goetschel.
“The knowledge and command of arcane divine names (shemot) was perceived as a prerequisite for mystical ascent, for conjuring the angels and for gazing upon the divine chariot.”

[8]Schwartz, Gabriel’s Palace, Rabbi Shimon’s Escape, pg. 126-127.

[9]Ibid, The Tree of Life, pg. 192-193.

[10]Scholem, The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala, Eranos lecture, 1970.

[11]E. E. Urbach, The Sages, pg. 124. In Acts 4:7 the question the high priest and his circle asked the apostles was “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?”

[12]David J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, pg. 378-379. A work dealing solely with Sar Torah traditions is Michael D. Swartz’s Scholastic Magic.

[13]Schwartz, Gabriels Palace, The Secrets of Kabbalah, pg. 155-156.

[14]Ibid, The Prince of Fire, pg. 187-189.

[15]Yehudah David Eisenstein, Otzar Midrashim, pg. 306-307.

[16]Urbach, Sages, pg. 127-28.

[17]Ibid, pg. 131-33. Several traditions are mentioned where a Persian cursed his child by the ineffable name, resulting in the child’s death.

[18]Howard Schwartz, The Tree of Souls, Lilith and Elijah, pg. 224-225.

[19] For more on Isis and Re, see David Tayman’s superb blog post at http://visionsofthekingdom.com/?p=393

We're Alike

2011-01-12T09:01:00.000-08:00

My friend Walker recently posted an excellent essay on how the Jewish sages conceived of the trishagion (holy, holy, holy) being said to the righteous in the world to come.
http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2011/01/spirit-babies-afterlife-worship.html
It is not the only example of such sentiments in a monotheistic environment.
Judah Goldin has the following to say in an article entitled “Of Midrash and the Messianic Theme.”[1]

One particularly daring passage in the Sifra deserves more than paraphrase; it is the comment on “I will be ever present (we-hithalakti) in your midst” of Lev. 26:12 (and see also Deut. R. 1:12 and 5:8, 110c) –

It is to be expressed by means of parable; to what may this be likened? To a king who went out to stroll in his orchard (pardes[!]) with his tenant farmer, and [out of respect] that tenant kept hiding himself from the presence of the king. So the king said to that tenant, “Why do you hide from me? Behold, I, you- we’re alike!”
Similarly in the Age to Come the Holy One, blessed be He, will stroll with the righteous in the Garden of Eden, but when the righteous see Him they will tremble before Him; and the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them, “Why is it that you tremble before me? Behold, I, you- we’re alike!”

Here is a dizzying prospect, God describing Himself as hareini kayotzeh bachem, I, you- we’re alike! (This may mean: You and I have the same interests, or, the same terms of praise are applied to God and to the righteous,) No wonder the Sifra adds immediately, “Is this to say that you will no longer have fear/reverence of Me? The verse [ibid.] reads, ‘I will [still] be your God, and you shall be my people.”

That God and the righteous were alike and could be praised almost alike was not a repugnant sentiment to ancient Jewish monotheists.

[1]Judah Goldin, Studies in Midrash and Related Literature, pg. 369-370.

The Prophetic High Priest

2011-01-01T13:37:00.000-08:00

But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
-John 11:46-53.

Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, which alarmed the religious and political elite. Raising the dead was a distinctly messianic act, and the leaders were afraid that the majority of people would follow Jesus as the king and probably attempt to reestablish a Jewish kingdom. The Romans most certainly would come down like a ton of bricks on anything they considered a threat to their political hegemony. In the ancient world, where religion was public and political, this would mean that Jewish practices, such as temple worship, dietary laws, festivals and circumcision would have been abolished. The reign of the seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes and the disastrous aftermath of the Jewish revolts against the Romans bear ample witness that such fears were justified.
Caiaphas, the high priest at the time, spoke up, offering realistic political advice. By killing Jesus you would stop the popular movement. The author of John, however, interprets this as an unconscious prophecy of Jesus' true role.
John connects Caiaphas' ability to prophecy true prophecies with his role as high priest.
This is in keeping with how the high priesthood was understood in the Judeo-Hellenistic millieu, as the following quotes will show.
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the mid 9th century AD, compiled the Bibliotheca, reviews of a couple hundred books he had read. He provides many extracts, including one from the Roman historian Diodorus, quoting On the Egyptians, a work of ethnography by Hecataeus of Abdera, a member of Ptolemy I's court.

Authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man high priest [archierea], and believe that he acts as messenger [angelon] to them of God's commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained.
-Diodorus, Library of History, 40.3.

Josephus relates an incident involving the Hasmonean high priest and ruler John Hyrcanus.

Now a very surprising thing is related of this high priest Hyrcanus, how God came to discourse with him; for they say that on the very same day on which his sons fought with Antiochus Cyzicenus, he was alone in the temple, as high priest, offering incense, and heard a voice, that his sons had just then overcome Antiochus. And this he openly declared before all the multitude upon his coming out of the temple; and it accordingly proved true; and in this posture were the affairs of Hyrcanus.
-Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 13.10, 3.

Josephus also describes an earlier incident of prophecy which occuredwhen Alexander the Great fought at Tyre and Gaza. The high priest Jaddua, a vassal of Darius, was reluctant to aid Alexander. This naturally did not sit well with Alexander, who planned to march on Jerusalem and punish its inhabitants. Jaddua called for public penitence and supplication in hope that God would avert the approaching disaster.

Whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king.
-Josephus, Antiquites, 11.8, 4.

.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, says of high priests that they were also prophets.

The real genuine priest is at once also a prophet, having attained to the honor of being allowed to see the only true and living God, not more by reason of his birth than by reason of his virtue. And to a prophet there is nothing unknown, since he has within himself the sun of intelligence, and rays which are never overshadowed, in order to a most accurate comprehension of those things which are invisible to the outward senses, but intelligible to the intellect.
Philo, The Special Laws, 4.36.

In contrast with John description of Caiaphas prophesying, the above accounts are all positive, revolving around pious, virtuous high priests. This contrast shows how intertwined the idea of prophecy with the high priesthood was in John's time, that even a wicked high priest could make true prophecies.

Is Not This the Carpenter?

2010-12-14T11:49:00.000-08:00

The traditional image of Christ's profession is that of a carpenter. Through the ages this image has been featured in works of art[1], literature[2], music[3], and even film[4].
In the 1970s, Geza Vermes challenged this understanding of Christ as a carpenter.

Those familiar with the language spoken by Jesus are acquainted with a metaphorical use of 'carpenter' and 'carpenter's son' in ancient Jewish writings. In Talmudic sayings the Aramaic noun denoting carpenter or craftsman (naggar) stands for a 'scholar' or 'learned man' :
'This is something no carpenter, son of carpenters, can explain.'
'There is no carpenter, nor a carpenter's son, to explain it'
Thus, although no one can be absolutely sure that the -sayings cited in the Talmud were current already in first-century AD Galilee, proverbs such as these are likely to be age-old. If so, it is possible that the charming picture of 'Jesus the carpenter' may have to be buried and forgotten. -Geza Vermas, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 21-22.

On the face of it, Geza Vermes presents a strong case. Is it though?
The talmudic passage geza Vermes refers to begins at the very end of the Balynoian Talmud, m. Avodah Zarah, 50a.

R. Joseph b. Abba said: Rabbah b. Jeremiah once visited our town. When he came he brought with him this teaching: If an idolater took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are permitted; if one of Israel took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are prohibited; and there is no carpenter nor carpenter's son who could dismantle it. R. Shesheth said: I am neither a carpenter nor a carpenter's son, yet I will dismantle it.
אמר רב יוסף בר אבא איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין ואתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וטרטיאות
מותרות ישראל שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וסרטיאות אסורות ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה אמר רב ששת אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא ופריקנא

The phrase we-leyith naggar we-la bar naggar diparkeina literally means there is no carpenter or son of a carpenter to dismantle it.
The context is of a rabbinic debate in Babylon over the propriety of a Jew taking stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and using them in construction. If a Jew does it, the road he paved is forbidden for Jewish use, yet the same thing done by an idolater is permitted. This is said by the Amoraic rabbis to be such a difficult question that there is no carpenter or son of a carpenter to dismantle it. We are obviously dealing here with a proverb, one that seems to mean a problem none can solve. Rav Sheshet says that though he is no carpenter or son of a carpenter, he can solve the problem. Rav Sheshet was a Torah scholar addressing other Torah scholars! If a carpenter was a metaphor for scholar, then the use of it here is rather bewildering. Geza Vermes' interpretation seems to be drawn from what Rashi had wriiten centuries earlier in his commentary to the Babylonian Talmud.

Carpenter... carpenter's son - scholar... scholar's son.
Diparkeinah - who could explain it and explain why the matter before us is difficult.
נגר בן נגר - חכם בן חכם
דיפרקינה - שיוכל לתרצה ולקמן מפרש מאי קא קשיא ליה

Elsewhere in the Talmuds, whenever the word naggar appears, it is always in the context of an actual carpenter or woodworker. Even Rashi explains bar naggara (carpenter's son) as an ordinary woodworker[5].
The context of Mark 6 does not fit a metaphorical reading of the word carpenter either.

And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. -Mark 6:1-3.

The people of Nazareth hear Christ teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath and are surprised, indeed, startled by his wisdom (and perhaps his originality as well). Why would that come as a surprise if carpenter were a metaphor for learned scholar? The surprise of the people is due rather to their not expecting one of the regular guys, a carpenter whose family everybody knows, to be able to expound scriptures like that.
An added factor to consider is that next door almost to Nazareth was the big, bustling city of Sepphoris, which was undergoing a building boom during Christ's lifetime. A carpenter would be a logical choice of profession. In those days, a carpenter was more of a contractor, he helped with blueprints, and tricky, technical work, such as hinges and shutters. It was one of the only professions to be paid in money. By today's standards, Christ was probably lower middle class.
All in all, I think the "charming picture" stands.

[1]Luca Cambiaso, "The Holy Family in the Carpenter's Shop: Jesus hold a lamp while Joseph carves a design."

[2]Elizabeth Linton, "The True History of Joshua Davidson."

[3]Christopher Wren, "Jesus Was a Carpenter."

[4]Owen Wilson's character in "Meet the Parents."

[5]See Rashi's commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, m. Baba Bathra, 73b.

[6]Miriam Feinberg Vamosh, Daily Life at the Time of Jesus, pg. 51.

Ramhal on the Path of the Upright

2010-11-23T11:22:00.000-08:00

I have written this work not to teach men what they do not know, but to remind them of what they already know and is very evident to them, for you will find in most of my words only things which most people know, and concerning which they entertain no doubts. But to the extent that they are well known and their truths revealed to all, so is forgetfulness in relation to them extremely prevalent. It follows, then, that the benefit to be obtained from this work is not derived from a single reading; for it is possible that the reader will find that he has learned little after having read it that he did not know before. Its benefit is to be derived, rather, through review and persistent study, by which one is reminded of those things which, by nature, he is prone to forget and through which he is caused to take to heart the duty that he tends to overlook.

A consideration of the general state of affairs will reveal that the majority of men of quick intelligence and keen mentality devote most of their thought and speculation to the subtleties of wisdom and the profundities of analysis, each according to the inclination of his intelligence and his natural bent. There are some who expend a great deal of effort in studying the creation and nature. Others devote all of their thought to astronomy and mathematics, and others to the arts. There are those who go more deeply into sacred studies, into the study of the holy Torah, some occupying themselves with Halachic discussions, others with Midrash and others with legal decisions. There are few, however, who devote thought and study to perfection of Divine service - to love, fear, communion and all of the other aspects of saintliness. It is not that they consider this knowledge unessential; if questioned each one will maintain that it is of paramount importance and that one who is not clearly versed in it cannot be deemed truly wise. Their failure to devote more attention to it stems rather from its being so manifest and so obvious to them that they see no need for spending much time upon it. Consequently, this study and the reading of works of this kind have been left to those of a not too sensitive, almost dull intelligence. These you will see immersed in the study of saintliness, not stirring from it. It has reached the stage that when one sees another engaging in saintly conduct, he cannot help but suspect him of dullwittedness. This state of affairs results in evil consequences both for those who possess wisdom and for those who do not, causing both classes to lack true saintliness, and rendering it extremely rare. The wise lack it because of their limited consideration of it and the unwise because of their limited grasp. The result is that saintliness is construed by most to consist in the recitation of many Psalms, very long confessions, difficult fasts, and ablutions in ice and snow - all of which are incompatible with intellect and which reason cannot accept.

Truthful, desirable saintliness is far from being conceptualized by us, for it is obvious that a person does not concern himself with what does not occupy a place in his mind. And though the beginnings and foundations of saintliness are implanted in every person's heart, if he does not occupy himself with them, he will witness details of saintliness without recognizing them and he will trespass upon them without feeling or perceiving that he is doing so. For sentiments of saintliness, fear and love of God, and purity of heart are not so deeply rooted within a person as to obviate the necessity of his employing certain devices in order to acquire them. In this respect they differ from natural states such as sleep and wakefulness, hunger and satiety, and all other reactions which are stamped in one's nature, in that various methods and devices are perforce required for their acquisition. There is also no lack of deterrents which keep saintliness at a distance from a person, but then again there is no lack of devices by which these deterrents may be held afar. How, then, is it conceivable that it not be necessary to expend a great deal of time upon this study in order to know these truths and the manner in which they may be acquired and fulfilled? How will this wisdom enter a person's heart if he will not seek it? And since every man of wisdom recognizes the need for perfection of Divine service and the necessity for its purity and cleanliness, without which it is certainly completely unacceptable, but repulsive and despised - "For God searches all hearts and understands the inclination of all thoughts" (I Chronicles 28:9) - what will we answer in the day of reproof if we weaken in this study and forsake that which is so incumbent upon us as to be the very essence of what the Lord our God asks of us? Is it fitting that our intelligence exert itself and labor in speculations which are not binding upon us, in fruitless argumentation, in laws which have no application to us, while we leave to habit and abandon to mechanical observance our great debt to our Creator? If we do not look into and analyze the question of what constitutes true fear of God and what its ramifications are, how will we acquire it and how will we escape wordly vanity which renders our hearts forgetful of it? Will it not be forgotten and go lost even though we recognize its necessity? Love of God, too - if we do not make an effort to implant it in our hearts, utilizing all of the means which direct us towards it, how will it exist within us? Whence will enter into our souls intimacy with and ardor towards the Blessed One and towards His Torah if we do not give heart to His greatness and majesty which engender this intimacy in our hearts? How will our thoughts be purified if we do not strive to rescue them from the imperfections infused in them by physical nature? And all of the character traits, which are in such great need of correction and cultivation -who will cultivate and correct them if we do not give heart to them and subject them to exacting scrutiny?
-Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto (Ramhal), the introduction to Mesilat Yesharim.

Hillel and the Donkey Driver

2010-11-22T09:59:00.000-08:00

A story is told about a donkey driver who came to Hillel the Elder. He said to him: ‘Rabbi, see how we are better off than you (Babylonians), for you are put to great trouble with all this travelling when you ascend from Babylon to Jerusalem, but I go forth from the entrance of my house and lodge in the entrance to Jerusalem’. He waited a bit and then said to him: ‘For how much would you rent me your donkey from here to Emmaus’? He answered: ‘A denarius’. ‘How much to Lod?’ He answered: ‘Two’. ‘How much to Caesarea?’ He answered: ‘Three’. He said to him: ‘I see that, in so far as I increase the distance, you increase the price’. He answered: ‘Yes, price is according to distance’. He said to him: ‘And should not the reward for my own feet be (at least) the equivalent of a beast’s feet?’ This is what Hillel used to maintain: ‘According to the painstaking, the reward’...
-Avot de Rabbi Nathan B”, Anthony Saladrini, trans., Leiden, 1975.

The above gives a rough idea of distances in the first centuries CE, and what a donkey driver might have charged for the journey. Each stage of the journey is roughly a day's distance, and would cost a day's wages.

El-Amarna Letters Online

2010-11-22T09:29:00.001-08:00

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html

The El-Amarna Letters come from a diplomatic archive in Egypt, correspondence from Egypt's Canaanite vassals, and are an unparralelled resource for studying the geo-political background to the world of the Bible and ancient Israel. They can be read online now, at the link provided above! Enjoy.

Ritual Curses Then and Now

2010-10-18T10:12:00.000-07:00

If against a man his companion lifts the tongue, or if he
invokes the gods against him, this is the ritual suitable for him: They
bring out to the grassland a loaf of bread and a jug of wine. He
breaks the loaf on the left and puts it on the ground, then he offers
wine on the left, and speaks in the following way: “Whatever
person has lifted the tongue before the gods, whoever invoked
the gods against me, as this grass is dry, let himself and his house in
the same way go dry too.
-KUB 17.28 ii 33-47

The above is part of an ancient Hittite ritual invoking a simile curse against slanderers and cursers. Imagine my surprise the other day when my Ukrainian wife mentioned similar rituals in Slavic magic, as practiced by village znakhari*
A search of the internet revealed one example which I'll reproduce here.
http://www.belmagi.ru/azag/otvragov2.htm

In your garden pick some weeds and recite over them:As this grass becomes dry, thus shall every tongue cease to speak of me and spread slander about me. The grass shall become dry and my enemy shall cease from troubling me. Amen.
When the grass becomes dry, cast it to your enemies. They will forget about you- they will have their own troubles to overcome.

Of course the two are not identical, nor is there any reason to suppose that spells are stationary, yet the combination of tongues, grass and dryness in context of a ritual involving a curse is remarkable.

*A znakhar or znakharka is both a healer, fortune-teller and witch.

Enoch the Shoemaker or Why God Took Up Enoch

2010-10-12T07:11:00.000-07:00

And I asked my teacher Rabbi Yehudah the Preacher Ashkenazi, of blessed memory, what the matter of Enoch was, by virtue of which he had merited all this[1], for the matter of Elijah was known, but why Enoch?
He said that he recieved[2] that Enoch was an ushkaf, that is, he sewed together shoes, and with every incision and incision that he would make using the stitching awl, he would bless with a whole heart and perfect intent the Name, be blessed[3], and extended the blessing to Metatron the exalted, and never did he forget during even a single incision to bless, but would always do so, until because of so much love he was not, for God took him and he merited being called Metatron and his virtue is very great indeed.

ושאלתי את פי מורי הר׳יהודה הדרשן אשכגזי ז״ל מה היה עניין חגוך שעל ידו זכה לכל זה, כי עניין אליהו ז״ל ידוע, אבל חנוך למה, ואמר שקבל שחנוך היה אישכף כלומר תופר מנעלים, ובכל נקיבה ונקיבה שהיה נוקב במרצע בעור, היה מברך בלב שלם ובכוונה שלימה לשם ית׳, וממשיך הברכה למטטרון הנאצל, ומעולם לא שכח אפי׳ בנקיבה אחת מלברך אלא תמיד היה עושה כן, עד שמרוב אהבה איננו כי לקח אותו אלהים (בראשית ה׳) וזכה להקראות מטטרון ומעלתו גדולה עד מאד.

Rabbi Isaac of Acre, in Meirat Einaim, pg. 47

Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel of Acre was an early kabbalist who lived between 1250-1340, and lived in the port city of Acre until it was captured by the Mameluk sultan al-Ashraf Khalil in 1291. R. Isaac himself was taken prisoner. After his release he moved to Italy and Spain. He is perhaps best known through the controversy over the origins and antiquity of the Zohar, the central book of the Kabbalah. His testimony amounts to the only contemporary historical evidence on the publication of the Zohar, so its importance cannot be overrated. For more on that, see I. Tishby's The Wisdom of the Zohar, pg. 13-18.
R. Isaac belonged to the main branch of Kabbalah, the theosophical-theurgical one. In other words, the contemplation of the upper reaches and also of how man affected them. The above quote from R. Isaac is a clear theurgical statement. God in kabbalistic thought is represented by a series of emanations, the ten sephirot, each with its unique names and attributes. Metatron the exalted was considered to be malchut, the tenth and lowest sephirah. This Metatron is distinct from the created Metatron, Enoch, who is merely given that title.
Enoch, who lived before the commandments were given to Moses, loved God and served him whole heartedly, focusing his love and intents on God during such a mundane and menial act as sewing together shoes. This blessing caused power to flow downwards to the lowest sephirah. Because of this great love of Enoch for God, he was taken up and exalted. Abstract emotion and devotion, without accompanying acts, do not suffice to cause a change in the world. The opposite also holds true.
Moshe Idel surmises that although it is filtered through R. Isaac's kabbalistic leanings, this story reflects a rich but lost Enochic tradition in the possesion of the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz) of the 12th century, which itself preserves older material. He points out that the German R. Yehudah recieved this traditions from an anonymous master, presumabely also a German. Idel further points out that in some Muslim legends Idris (Enoch) is a tailor.[4]

[1]His ascent. Unlike Elijah, where we are given his story before his ascent, the Bible records of Enoch merely that he walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. This brevity puzzled R. Isaac.

[2]Heb. kibel, which implies a teaching or saying given to one by one's teacher or master.

[3]A common term for God in medieval Jewish literature.

[4]See chapter 4 of Moshe Idel's The Angelic World- Apotheosis and Theophany, Miskal, 2008, from where I have drawn most of the material for this post.

The Philosophical Statement of the Mishnah

2010-09-21T08:41:00.000-07:00

I was reading Jacob Neusner's "Scriptures of the Oral Torah", and in the chapter on the Mishnah (whatever opinion one might hold of the author) there is an excellent overview of this key work of Judaism, and the philosophical message in it. The following, then, is an extract from Neusner's book.

The Division of Agriculture treats two topics, first, producing crops in accord with the scriptural rules on the subject, second, paying the required offerings and tithes to the priests, Levites, and poor. The principal point of the division is that the Land is holy, because God has a claim both on it and upon what it produces. God's claim must be honored by setting aside a portion of the produce for those for whom God has designated it. God's ownership must be acknolwedged by observing the rules God has laid down for use of the Land. In sum, the Division is divided along these lines: (1) Rules for producing crops in a state of holiness- tractates Kilayim, Shebiit, Orlah; (2) Rules for disposing of crops in accord with the rules of holiness- tractates Peah, Demai, Terumot, Maaserot, Maaser Sheni, Hallah, Bikkurim, Berakhot.

The Division of Appointed Times forms a system in which the advent of a holy day, like the Sabbath of creation, sanctifies the life of the Israelite village through imposing on the village rules on the model of those of the Temple. The purpose of the system, therefore, is to bring into alingment the moment of sanctification of the village and the life of the home with the moment of sanctification of the Temple on those same occasions of appointed times. The underlying and generative theory of the system is that the village is the mirror image of the Temple. If things are done in one way in the Temple, they will be done in the opposite way in the village. Together the village and the Temple on the occasion of the holy day therefore form a single continuum, a completed creation, thus awaiting sanctification.
The village is made like the Temple in that on appointed times one may not freely cross the lines distinguishing the village from the rest of the world, just as one may not freely cross the line distinguishing the Temple from the world. But the village is a mirror image of the Temple. The boundary lines prevent free entry into the Temple, so they restrict free egress from the village. On the holy day what one may do in the Temple is precisely what one may not do in the village. so the advent of the holy day affects the village by bringing it into sacred symmetry in such wise as to effect a system of opposites; each is holy, in a way precisely the opposite of the other. Because of the underlying conception of perfection attained through the union of opposites, the village is not represented as conforming to the model of the cult, but of constituting its antithesis. The world thus regains perfection when on the holy day heaven and earth are united, the whole completed and done: the heaven, the earth, and all their hosts. This moment of perfection renders the events of ordinary time, of "history," essentially irrelevant. For what really matters in time is that moment in which sacred time intervenes and effects the perfection formed of the union of heaven and earth, of Temple, in the model of the former, and Israel, its complement. It is not a return to a perfect time but a recovery of perfect being, a fulfillment of creation, which explains the essentially ahistorical character of the Mishnah's Division of Appointed Times. Sanctification constitutes an ontological category and is effected by the creator.
This explains why the Division in its rich detail is composed of two quite distinct sets of materials. First, it addresses what one does in the sacred space of the Temple on the occasion of sacred time, as distinct from what one does in that same sacred space on ordinary, undifferentiated days, which is a subject worked out in Holy Things. Second, the Division defines how for the occasion of the holy day one creates a corresponding space in one's own circumstance, and what one does, within that space, during sacred time. The issue of the Temple and cult on the special occasion of festivals is treated in tractates Pesahim, Sheqalim, Yoma, Sukkah, and Hagigah. Three further tractates, Rosh Hashshanah, Taanit, and Megillah, are necessary to complete the discussion. The matter of the rigid definition of the outlines in the village, of a sacred space, delineated by the limits within which one may move on the Sabbath and festival, and of the specification of those things which one may not do within that space in sacred time, is in Shabbat, Erubin, Besah, and Moed Qatan. While the twelve tractates of the Division appear to fall into two distinct groups, joined merely by a common theme, in fact they relate through a shared, generative metaphor. It is, as I said, the comparison, in the context of sacred time, of the spatial life of the Temple to the spatial life of the village, with activities and restrictions to be specified for each, upon the common occasion of the Sabbath or festival. The Mishnah's purpose therefore is to correlate the sanctity of the Temple, as defined by the holy day, with the restrictions of space and of action which make the life of the village different and holy, as defined by the holy day.

From Sadness to Joy

2010-09-15T12:31:00.000-07:00

In recent years, the tradition of Breslov Hasidim to celebrate Rosh ha-Shanah at the tomb of Rebbe Nachman in the central Ukrainian town of Uman has become increasingly popular. Thousands make the pilgrimage each year. This recent Rosh ha-Shanah, however, culminated in disgraceful, riotous behavior on the part of some of the younger pilgrims. Football hooliganism should have no place in the conduct of any believer of any religion. Happily, the majority do live their lives in a way that honours God and respects their fellow man. Because of the international scandal, it is to be expected that more and more people are wondering who these Hasidim are, and what the pilgrimage is about. This is why I thought I would share a little on the founder of Breslov Hasidism, including excerpts from his teachings.

Rabbi Nachman of Breslov was the great grandson of the Baal Shem-Tov (or Besht), considered the founder of Hasidism. He blazed a new path in the world of Hasidism, at the same time a path he paradoxically considered to be old as well. "It is impossible for there not to be controversy over me, for I am walking along a new path that man has never ever walked in before, even though it is a very old path, but nevertheless it is entirely new."[1]
R. Nachman revelled in the paradoxical. He alternated between saintly behaviour and foolish pranks. Perhaps more than any other Hasid, R. Nachman found in stories and music a path to God. His stories are elaborate, mysterious, Kafka-esque constructions of stories within stories, so much that one loses sight of where he started and where he was going. The point, one might with some justice say, is in the world created by the story, more than anything else.
R. Nachman's path brought him into conflict with everyone. He attacked the Haskalah, or Enlightenment, despite being influenced by them and agreeing somewhat with their programme. What he considered dangerous was not the particulars, but their outlook on life, and what their path would lead to in the spiritual life of Jews. Indeed, he set up his residence in Uman, which was a centre for the Haskalah movement. This is also where, three weeks before his death, he instructed his followers to celebrate Rosh ha-Shanah each year.
The other Hasidic masters R. Nachman accused of complacency and spiritual stagnation. They in turn considered him and his followers dangerous heretics, persecuting them both during and after his lifetime. Many are the accounts of bans, beatings, and being informed on to Tsarist and Soviet authorities.
R. Nachman apointed no succesor, and his followers are often known as the Dead Hasidim, for having no living tsaddik to lead them.

"A great mitzvah[2] is to be ever joyful."[3]
One of R. Nachman's main preoccupations was with finding joy, or, rather, that sorrow gets in the way of worshipping and drawing closer to God. One of his better known statements is one in which he compared life with crossing a narrow bridge. "And know, that a man must pass over a narrow, narrow bridge, and the point and principle is that he fear not at all."[4]
The following is a further example of his philosophy, of how he sought to find the joy in even what appeared to be hopeless situations.

"And you have withheld some of God from him, and have crowned him with honour and splendour."
(Psalm 8)

It is known that whatever is missing in man, be it spiritual or be it temporal, is because of the lack of the Shechinah,[5] which is as God. And this is [the meaning of] 'And you have withheld', certainly, some of God, that is, the lack is certainly on God's part, that is, the Shechinah. But when a man knows that the lack is from above and from below, he will definitely have great sorrow and sadness, and wont be able to worship Ha-Shem Yitbarach[6] with joy. Because of this he must answer to himself what am I and what is my life, for the King himself is telling me his shortcoming, and can there be a greater honour than that? From that he comes to a great joy, and his mochin[7] are become new again. And this is [the meaning of]: 'and have crowned him with honour and splendour.' That is, by the honour and splendour which he has, that the King himself tells him of the lack, you have crowned him with new mochin.

-Likuttey Moharan, 89.

[1]Shivchey Moharan, Inyan ha-Machloket 1, 17a.

[2]Lit. a commandment, but also with the added meaning of an act of piety.

[3]Likuttey Moharan Tanina, 24.

[4]Likuttey Moharan Tanina, 48.

[5]Or Divine Presence. In the Kabbalah the Shechinah is personified as God's wife, who, as a result of going into exile when the temple was destroyed, became separated from her husband. The world will not return to a perfect state until the two are reunited.

[6]The Name, may He be blessed. Another term for God, used so as to avoid profaning God by too frequent a repetition of his name.

[7]Lit. brains. In Hasidism the term refers to states of consciousness.

Cast All Their Sins into the Depth of the Sea

2010-09-15T08:02:00.000-07:00

As a result of an interesting online correspondence with David Larsen (well, I commented on his blogpost and he replied), I felt like posting a little something on the custom of tashlich.

In Hatzor, the town I grew up in, there was a small mountain spring in which every Rosh ha-Shanah tashlich was done. I went there a few times myself as a child. Standing at the edge of the water, after saying a prayer that includes Micah 7:19, pockets and hems are shaken of crumbs (or just shaken, the custom varies), which symbolises sins being cast into the depths of the ocean. Hayyim Vital, Isaac kabbalist Isaac Luria’s disciple, mentioned an additional, mystical significance, that the Accuser would be cast into the depths.

The Ashkenazi custom of going on the first day of Rosh ha-Shanah, after the minhah prayer just prior to the setting of the sun, to the big sea, or to the spring, or to a well of living water, a custom termed tashlich, is a fine custom, though it is best to hold it outside the city. And a man stands on the shore, or at the edge of a well, or at a fountain and exclaims three times 'Who is a God like unto thee, &c. (Micah 7:18), Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, &c. (Micah 7:20)' which are at the end of Micah the Morashtite... And when you say 'And cast all of their sins into the sea (Micah 7:19)', focus your intentions on having all your sins and transgressions cast [into the depths] and on the Accuser on High being cast into the depths of the sea on high*, for this cause it must be said at the sea or at living waters.

"עניין המנהג שנהגו האשכנזים לילך ביום ראשון דר"ה אחר תפלת המנחה מעט קודם שקיעת החמה אצל הים הגדול, או אצל המעיין, או באר מים חיים וקורים אותו תשליך, הנה הוא מנהג יפה ויותר טוב הוא אם יהיה חוץ לעיר.
ויעמוד על שפת הים, או על שפת הבאר, או המעיין ויקרא שם ג' פעמים מי א-ל כמוך כו' תתן אמת ליעקב כו' שבסוף מיכה המורשתי... וכשתאמר ותשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם תכוון שיושלכו כל חטאתיך ועונותיך וגם המקטרג העליון יושלך במצולות הים העליון, כי לסבה זו הוצרך לאמרו על הים או על המים החיים"... (שער הכוונות עניין ר"ה).

-Shaar ha-Kavvanot, Inyan Rosh ha-Shanah.

Although entering the water is frowned upon generally, but as reported by the 19th c. Jewish traveler, Israel ben Joseph Binyamin, the Jews living in remote mountain villages of Kurdistan used to be in the habit of swimming in the water, but this died out after they emigrated to Israel.
Nobody knows when tashlich first appeared. The first literary mentions are relatively late, going back only to the late 14th century, but on the other hand, the custom is found in practically all Jewish communities, and seems to hearken back to older days. There are intriguing links with a hypothetical enthronement festival that Sigmund Mowinckel proposed took place every year between Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur. An example is the tradition in the Babylonian Talmud that kings were anointed only at a river, drawing upon David's instructions on how his son Solomon was to be made king. David Larsen mentioned a theory that the king was immersed in the Gihon at Jerusalem, which represented a death and resurrection. Another link with days gone by and the tashlich is baptism, or ritual immersion, extremely popular since at least the Second Temple period. Josephus in Antiquities 14.10 cites a decree by the city of Halicarnasus allowing Jews to build synagogues by the sea. This is not direct evidence for tashlich existing as far back as that, but the reason synagogues were built by the sea is for reasons of ritual purity. This is at the heart of the tashlich. The Mekhilta contains several references to prophets recieving prophecies only by bodies of water when the land was impure or they were in exile.
Tashlich was originally a folk tradition, invoking the ire of scholars, because the people considered that they were casting their actual sins into the water.

It is best to avoid the people who are as light-minded as women and say, Ich vil geyn mayn aveyres shiteln [I will shake off my transgressions], and, taking hold of the folds of their clothing, shake them, thinking to themselves that by so doing a mman can shake off the transgressions that he commited all the year before. And he ought not to to think so, for it really is a desecration of the great Name of God before the nations that know of the custom. For when they see Jews going to the river, they say laughingly, The Jews are going shiteln ire zind in vasser [to shake their sins into the water]. But if a person wants to observe the custom, let him say, Ich vil geyn tashlikh makhen [I will perform the Casting]. For the principal purpose of the custom is to pray to God, to cast out our iniquities into the depths of the sea, because in sayings these verses we are contemplating Teshuvah [repentance]... And the custom of shaking the hems of our clothing is symbolic, too; we do it to shake off the shells of the evil spirits that cling to us because of the filth of our iniquities...

-Abraham ben Sabbatai Sheftel ha-Levi Horovitz of Prague, Emek Berakhah, Cracow 1597, as included in S. Y. Agnon's Days of Awe.

*Or the sea of the upper realms.

Amos in Later Jewish Tradition

2010-09-07T12:47:00.000-07:00

What follows is a selection of texts and traditions, by no means exhaustive, relating to Amos and the book of Amos, in the Judaism of late classical and medieval eras, as well as in Qumran.

All the selections from the Zohar I’ve included are to be found in Isaiah Tishby’s “The Wisdom of the Zohar”. When his footnotes are included, I’ve indicated so by his initials in square brackets.
The Damascus Document is from Wise, Abegg, and Cook’s “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation”.

*Amos and the Dead Sea Scrolls*

The book of Amos played a small but crucial role in the formulation of Essene thought and teachings. The very first Dead Sea scroll discovered was the Damascus Document, or Zadokite Fragments. In 1896 Solomon Shechter discovered two medieval manuscripts in the genizah, or repository, of a Cairo synagogue. Schechter considered them a work of the first century B.C., but it wasn’t until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that his position was proved correct.
The Damascus Document seems to have been one of the fundamental texts of the Dead Sea sect, outlining their history and position as God’s true covenantal people.
The Dead Sea Scrolls often use symbolic pseudonyms for members of the sect, for its enemies, and for the world surrounding it. Thus it is doubtful that the Damascus of the text is the actual city, but rather a code word for either Babylon[1] or Qumran[2].
Damscus is drawn from Amos 5:26-27 “So shall ye take up Siccuth your king and Chiun[3] your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves; Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith He, whose name is the LORD God of hosts.”
The group dramatically recast these verses in allegorical terms of their own sacred history.

…All who backslid were handed over to the sword, but all who held fast escaped to the land of the north, as it says, “I will exile the tents of your king and the foundation[3] of your images beyond the tents of Damascus” (Amos 5:27. The books of Law are the tents of the king, as it says, “I will re-erect the fallen tent of David” (Amos 9:11). The “king” is the congregation and the “foundation of your images” is the book of the prophets whose words Israel despised. The star is the Interpreter of the Law[4] who comes to Damascus, as it is written, “A star has left Jacob, a staff has risen from Israel” (Num 24:17). The latter is the Leader of the whole nation; when he appears, “he will shatter all the sons of Sheth” (Num. 24:17). They escaped in the first period of God’s judgement, but those who held back were handed over to the sword. And such is the verdict on all members of the covenant who do not hold firm to these laws: they are condemned to destruction by Belial…

-4Q266, 7:13-8:2.
Damascus is where the new covenant was set up after the period of exile. The history of Israel’s rebellion against God and the subsequent destruction and exile is made personally relevant to those of the sect, for their lives run according to the pattern set in scripture.

In 4Q174, a text known as “The Last Days: A Commentary on Selected Verses”, Amos 9:11 is again used, but the “fallen tent of David” is here a reference to “the fallen Branch of David, [w]hom He shall raise up to deliver Israel”. That is, the Davidic Messiah.

The Jeremiah Apocryphon (4Q387) describes the last days, in which Israel will suffer under a false priesthood and will be “fighting against one another because of the law and because of the covenant.” In other words, false interpretations of the law and covenant will lead to strife and bloodshed, which, according to the author of this text, is the meaning of Amos 8:11: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD”.

*Amos in Early Rabbinic Judaism*

The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (ARNA) is a very early commentary on a mishnaic tractate, Sayings of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot). The latter is a collection of teachings and maxims of the early sages. ARNA expands on those themes and ideals, particularly on the study of Torah.
Pirkei Avot 1:1, perhaps one of the best known statements in the work, quotes the members of the great assembly[5] as saying, “Make a hedge about the Torah.”
ARNA 2 poses the question, “What the hedge which the prophets made about their words?” One of the examples provided is from Amos.
“The lion hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophecy? (Am. 3:8): [yet God is] not merely like one lion but like all the lions in the world.” Judah Goldin, on pg. 180-181 of his translation of ARNA, explains the hedge of the prophets as their having employed “some metaphor in the description of God who, strictly speaking, is beyond description and comparison.”

The Babylonian Talmud (t. Yoma, 86b) quotes rabbi Yose bar Yehudah as saying that, “A man transgresses once, and he is forgiven; twice, and he is forgiven; thrice, and he is forgiven; [but if he transgresses] a fourth time, he is not forgiven, as it says: “Thus saith the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, yea, for four, I will not reverse it” (Amos 2:6).”

When our rabbis entered the orchard of Yavneh they said that Torah is destined to be forgotten in Israel, as it is said: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD” (Amos 8:11). And it is written: “And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it” (Amos 8:12).
The word of the LORD- This is Halakhah.
The word of the LORD- This is the end time.
The word of the LORD- This is prophecy.
And from where will they roam seeking the word of the LORD? They said a woman is destined to take a portion of terumah and go to synagogues and study houses to know if it be impure or pure, but none shall know if it be impure or pure…
Shimeon ben Yohai says heaven forbid that Torah should be forgotten by Israel[6], as it is said: “For it shall never be lost from the mouth of their offspring” (Deut. 31:21). It is to fulfill, “they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it”, that is, they will not find a clear doctrine and a clear halakha in one place.

–Babylonian Talmud, t. Shabbat 138b.

The prophetical activity of Amos commenced after Hosea's had closed, and before Isaiah's began. Though he had an impediment in his speech[7], he obeyed the call of God, and betook himself to Beth-el to proclaim to the sinful inhabitants thereof the Divine message with which he had been charged. The denunciation of the priest Amaziah, of Beth-el, who informed against the prophet before King Jeroboam of Israel, did him no harm, for the king, idolater though he was, entertained profound respect for Amos. He said to himself: "God forbid I should think the prophet guilty of cherishing traitorous plans, and if he were, it would surely be at the bidding of God." For this pious disposition Jeroboam was rewarded; never had the northern kingdom attained to such power as under him. However, the fearlessness of Amos finally caused his death. King Uzziah inflicted a mortal blow upon his forehead with a red-hot iron. Two years after Amos ceased to prophesy, Isaiah was favored with his first Divine communication.

-Louis Ginzberg, “The Legends of the Jews” vol. IV, part IX.

S. Y. Agnon, a preeminent Israeli writer of the 20th century and Nobel laureate, was asked by a relative of the Archbishop of Canterbury if there was anything in Judaism comparable to the power and drama of Easter. Agnon in response drew upon his vast storehouse of knowledge of traditional Jewish texts and rituals to compose “Days of Awe”, which although technically is an anthology of texts dealing with then period from Rosh Ha-Shanah to Yom Kippur, is far more than that. It is a journey through the days leading up to Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the day of judgment, the time when people remember and reflect on their sins, their follies, mistakes and shortcomings, a time for reparation and restitution, of drawing nearer to God and man. Yom Kippur is perhaps the day of the Jewish calendar. Agnon wrote “The liturgical poem beginning “These I do Remember,” which is recited after the description of the Temple service, is in memory of the ten who were martyred by Rome, who were killed for the sake of the unification of the Name of God. For when the temple still stood and the altar stood in its habitation, sacrifices were offered upon the altar every day. But now what is offered are the souls of the righteous.
It is cited in the Midrash: Why were the ten martyrs, the sages of Israel, given over to be slaughtered at the hands of the wicked kingdom of Rome? Because his brothers sold Joseph into slavery. For the quality of divine justice brings charges every day before the throne of glory, and says, “Is there any superfluous letter in your Torah? You have said, ‘And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death’ (Exod. 21:16). The ten brothers sold Joseph, and yet You have not punished them or their seed” [Ele Ezkerah][8]. Therefore the decree against the ten sages of Israel was passed, in punishment for the sake of Joseph.”
The book of Amos lies at the heart of this tradition.
As a different recension of the midrash about the ten martyrs explains it, “Israel would not have come to this[9] had they not taught the emperor Torah, as once when he was sitting and studied Torah he found it written: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 21:16). And he went and plastered all his walls with shoes, sticking them to the walls and sent for Rabbi Shimeon ben Gamliel and his friends, and said unto them: Whosoever kidnapped a man from Israel and sold him, what is his penalty? They replied that he must be put to death, and he said unto them: If that be so, then you must be put to death, accept the judgement of heaven. They asked him what for, and he replied for the brothers of Joseph who sold him, as it is written: “And sold Joseph” (Gen. 37:28). It is further written: “Because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes” (Amos 2:6). That is why that evildoer plastered his home with footwear, so that they would know for what Joseph was sold, for when it says for shoes it means for the price of shoes… They said if Joseph’s brothers sold him, what is our crime and why will you execute us? He replied unto them that if Joseph’s brothers were alive today then I would catch them and execute judgment upon them, but since they are not alive I will do so upon you…”
Joseph quite probably is a veiled reference to Jesus, a popular accusation in anti-Jewish polemics was that the Jews sold and betrayed him. See the section below for a later example.

*Amos in Medieval Commentaries*

Saadia Gaon (882-942)
Saadia was born in Egypt but moved to Iraq, where he became the head of the academy in Sura, and was one of the most prominent and influential leaders in the Jewish world. He polemicised greatly against the Karaites, and introduced philosophical, rational interpretations into his defence of rabbinic Judaism.
"Amos 1:3.
I have forgiven him three sins, but this, the fourth one, I will not forgive."

Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1164)
One of the premier Spanish commentators, grammarians, and poets.
He wrote extensively on the scriptures, particularly from the standpoint of grammar plain, unallegorical or homiletical interpretation.
"Amos 3:3.
Before I [the Lord] shall afflict you I will inform you of it by my prophets, perhaps you shall return unto me. Had I not appeared to my prophet and revealed to him my secret with which to reprove you, he would not have prophecied of himself, for how should he know what I am going to do, and thus are his words not by chance. See this, is it possible for two men to go simultaneously to the same place for the same thing if they did not agree to do so beforehand? And so, when you see that the words of the prophet are true, know that I have sent him, how then can he disobey me and not prophecy just because you said unto him prophecy not?"
"Amos 3:4.
If even the lion does not roar except over his prey, have I [the Lord] roared in vain?"
"Have you seen prey able to escape from a lion when he rises from his thicket and roars? How then do you think to escape my [the Lord’s] decrees?"

David Kimhi
Kimhi perhaps exerted more influence over non-Jewish translations of the Bible than any other Jewish exegete. When the Bible known as the King James Version was prepared, the translators frequently consulted Mikraot Gedolot (the Rabbinic Bible), an Old Testament printed with several commentaries, including Kimhi’s ones on the prophets.
"Amos 2:1.
This is about what is said in the book of Kings: “Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was a great indignation against Israel.” The indignation was from the king of Edom against Israel from that day forth, because the king of Moab burnt the son of the king of Edom during the war, for he was with Israel, as we have interpreted there, for this God, may he be blessed, punished him [the king of Moab]. And the interpretation of la-sid – burnt them completely, until the ashes were like lime… And Jonathan[10] translated it as, “for burning the bones of the king of Edom and using them to whitewash his house.” This means that he used those ashes to whitewash his house out of spite and vengeance. "
"Amos 3:6.
As the targum[10] states: “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city outside its proper time”, because a trumpet is sounded many times in the city without the panicking, during celebrations or for singing, or to assemble the people for the establishment of municipal ordinances, that is why this was translated as “outside its proper time”, since it is known that when none of these are taking place, [the trumpet] is to warn the people of an enemy, so how shall the people not be terrified when they hear it. So shall you not be terrified by the words of the prophet which I [the Lord] send unto you?"
"Amos 3:6.
Why do you suppose that a calamity should overtake your city which has not been done by God, may he be blessed, after the prophet has said unto you [that it would happen] before it occurred, and since you will see the prophet’s words coming true, how is it that you will not return unto me [the Lord]?"

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508)
Abravanel was a member of the most renowned Jewish family in Portugal. He served as treasurer to Afonso V, but his successor, Joao II, implicated Abravanel in a plot, as a result of which Abravanel fled to Spain and served as a minister under Ferdinand and Isabella. Despite his great influence he was unable to prevent the expulsion of the Spanish Jews, and went into exile with them.

“The Christian sages thought to use this verse as proof of their faith, and interpreted the three sins of Israel the same as I did, idolatry, bloodshed, and incest, but with the fourth being “they sold the righteous for silver”, that is Jesu the Nazarene.
The refutal of their proof is made up of two parts: The first is that this section was said of none other than the kingdom of Israel, and they know very well that the matter of Jesu the Nazarene was not in the First Temple period when the kingdoms were divided, but took place during the Second Temple period, and Israel had been exiled for over X years.
The second refutal is that Amos himself repeated his prophecy, and said: “Hear this, O ye that would swallow the needy… making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances of deceit; That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes…” (Amos 8:6). Here it is made clear that he was not speaking of any particular person, but of many poor, whose judgment was perverted for bribes of silver or of shoes, which is why Amos used the plural.”
-Commentary on the Prophets and Writings.

*Amos in the Kabbalah*

The book of Amos is used in two main ways by the Zohar, the premier book of the Kabbalah, which appeared during the 13th century.
The first way is to ground a unique doctrine in the biblical framework, or perhaps it was even suggested by the verse in the first place.
The second way is to enhance the prestige, authority, and reputation of Simeon bar Yohai, and, by extension, the teachings of the Zohar itself.

Zohar I, 183b.

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Jose were in the presence of Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Hiyya said: We have learned that an uninterpreted dream is like an unread letter[11]. Does this mean that it will be fulfilled without [the dreamer] knowing, or that it will not be fulfilled at all?
He said to him: It will be fulfilled without being disclosed, because the dream has its own power[12], and [the dreamer] need not know whether it will be fulfilled or not. Everything that happens in the world is first of all intimated by a dream or a herald, for it has been made clear that everything that happens in the world is first of all announced in the firmament, and from there it spreads out into the world and is transmitted by a herald. And this because it is written “For the Lord God will do nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). This is the case when there are prophets in the world. But, if not- even if prophecy does not exist[13]- the sages are the next best to the prophets. And if not, it is intimated in a dream. And if not, the matter may be found in the birds in the sky[14].

Zohar I, 191a.

Rabbi Judah began by quoting “Will a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Will a young lion utter a sound from his den if he has captured nothing?” (Amos 3:4). Come and see how attentive men must be to the worship of the Holy One, blessed be He, for whoever occupies himself with the study of the Torah and the worship of the Holy One, blessed be He, instills in everything awe and fear of him. When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He made every creature in the world in the likeness that was suited to it, and afterward He created man in the most exalted likeness[15], and gave him dominion over all the others because of this likeness; for as long as man remains in the world, all the creatures in the world will raise their heads and gaze upon man’s exalted likeness, and then they will be in fear and awe of him, as it is said “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air…” (Genesis 9:2). In what circumstances?[16] –When they look up and see that he has this likeness with the neshamah within him.
Rabbi Eleazar said: Even if the neshamah is not within him, the righteous do not change from their original state when they had the likeness. But if man does not follow the ways of the Torah the holy likeness vanishes from him[17], and the beasts of the field and the birds in the air can then rule over him. Once the holy likeness disappears, man’s likeness also disappears.

Zohar III, 15a.

One day [Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai] was sitting at the gateway to Lydda. He raised his eyes and saw the sun shining, but its light was blotted out three times. As the light grew dark, black and green colors appeared in the sun.
He said to his son, Rabbi Eliezer: Follow me, my son, and let us see, for a decree has certainly been proclaimed in the world above, and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not act before informing the righteous, as it is said, “For the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants, the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

Zohar II, 15a, Midrash ha-Ne’elam.

When Rabbi Hiyya came and related all this to Rabbi [Judah ha-Nasi], he was amazed, and his father, Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel, said to him; My son, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai is a lion, and Rabbi Eleazar, his son, is a lion. But Rabbi Simeon is not like other lions. Of him it is written, “The lion has roared. Who will not fear?” (Amos 3:8). And since the worlds above tremble before him, how much more should we? He is a man who has never had to ordain a fast for something that he really desired. But he makes a decision, and the Holy One, blessed be He, supports it. The Holy One, blessed be He, makes a decision, and he annuls it.

*Amos in Early Modern Jewish Preaching*

Saul ha-Levi Morteira (1596-1660)
A Venetian Jew by birth, Morteira moved to Amsterdam in 1616 and served as one of the rabbinic leaders there until his death. He was part of the court which excommunicated the philosopher Spinoza. Morteira preached a sermon every year on a verse from the weekly Torah lesson, his main concern being the proper ethical conduct of his congregation, both towards the gentiles and among themselves. Although this is a common theme for preachers of all times and persuasions, in affluent 17th c. Amsterdam, Morteira's focus was particularly relevant. Marc Saperstein[18] notes that Morteira emphasised that "arrogant behavior, ostentatious apparel, and high living by Jews angers both God and their Gentile neighbours", something which would have resonated with people who were 3rd or 4th generation exile from Iberia. The trauma of the Spanish expulsion had not yet gone away completely.Saperstein further notes that the Dutch Calvinist preachers vigorously denounced a life of luxury, indeed "were certain that such behaviour would arouse God's wrathful punishement".
A few words more from Saperstein before delving into the sermon itself:
"The art of the sermon is expressed in the way the preacher derives his thesis from the traditional sources. In this case, Morteira argues that his contemporaries were courting disaster by making precisely the same mistake their ancestors had made in Egypt... Despite the extensive use of biblical and rabbinic material, this is not a sermon intended primarily to elucidate the classical sources for their own sake. Here we see a preacher marshalling the ancient texts in order to address what he considers to be a pressing problem of his time."

R. Isaac said, Whoever takes pleasure in an optional banquet will eventually be exiled, for the Bible states, Who feasts on lambs from the flock, and soon after Now they shall head the column of exiles (Amos 6:4, 7).
"Our rabbis taught, Whoever feasts excessively anywhere will eventually destroy his household, make his wife a widow and his fledglings orphans, and forget what he has learned. He will be the center of many conflicts, and his words will not be heeded.
He profanes the Name of Heaven and the names of his father and his teacher; he gives a bad name to himself, his children, and his children's children to the end of time. Abbaye said, They call him 'oven heater.'
Raba said, 'tavern dancer.'
R. Papa said, 'dish licker.'
R. Shemaiah said, 'one who folds and lies down' (Bab. Talmud, t. Pes 49a)...
The prophet Amos Amos denounced such behavior when he said, They lie on ivory beds, stretched upon their couches (Amos 6:4), reproaching them for their splendid beds, costing fortunes. Stretched upon their couches refers to the large cloths that overhang the couch on every side, serving absolutely no function except in their appearance, not to mention the other costly accoutrements of the bed.
Then he said, Feasting on lambs from the flock, and on calves from the stall (Amos 6:4). Here he was referring to the various kinds of food with which they contrive to fill their bellies. They drink from the wine bowls (Amos 6:6), calling out to each other until they empty the barrels, hurting both those who provide the wine and their own health...
While all of this is bad in itself, it is doubly bad when they are not concerned about the ruin of Joseph (Amos 6:6), meaning that they forget they are in exile, forget that some of their brothers have no bread at all for themselves or their children. It would be better for them to spend their money inviting the poor and providing them with food and other necessities. But they curse the poor and spend their money on trivial luxuries that can do them no good, giving money again and again to men who mock them as soon as they leave their homes. They do no good to themselves, and they do great harm to their children.
As parents discipline their children, so did the sages not hesitate to give all manner of ethical instruction that would discipline us, for our own benefit. They touched upon this subject directly in the passage cited at the beginning of the sermon, as is clear to all who understand their words. First, they prohibited all feasts and banquets unconnected with the performance of a commandment, saying, "Whoever takes pleasure in an optional banquet will eventually be exiled, for the Bible states, Who feasts on lambs from the flock, and soon after Now they shall head the column of exiles." A religious banquet is one for a circumcision, a wedding, completion of study of a talmudic tractate, Rejoicing in the Law (Simhat OTrah, redemption of a first-born sonPurim, Hanukkah, and other ordained festivals. All others are optional banquets.

-The People's Envy: Sermon on Shemot (Ca. 1622, Amsterdam).

Jonathan Eybeschuetz (Ca. 1690-1764)
Eybeschuetz was a noted scholar and rabbi of the 18th century, who became embroiled in a bitter controversy with Jacob Emden, who accused him of being a secret follower of Sabbetai Tzvi, the false messiah. Eybeschuetz was still recognised as a brilliant halakhist and preacher. Here is a small portion of a sermon preached in Metz.

Woe unto those who desire the day of the Lord... that day is darkness (cf. Amos 5:18). Many also do no discern the true nature of the New Year's Day. They look forward to it because they enjoy the sound of the singer, who chants melodious hymns with his beautiful voice. Woe unto those who do not know what occurs on the day of reckoning: that day is darkness! You know that fire is pitch dark, giving forth no light. Though the elemental fire is near the sphere of the moon, it bestows no light upon the world. And hell is all fire; it is darkness and gloom.

-Sermon of Ethical Rebuke Preached... during the Penitential Period Preceding the New Year's Day, 5505 [1744], to the Congregation of Metz.

[1] Thus Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, pg. 434. They argue for Damascus being a reference to the Babylonian captivity on the strength of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:43, in which Damascus is replaced by Babylon.

[2] Thus L. Schiffman, “Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls”, pg. 93-94.

[3] Chiun here is read not as a name of a deity, but as a variant of the Hebrew for a foundation or stand.

[4] According to Schifmann (pg. 93), the Interpreter of the Law is “the sectarian official who interprets Torah for the sect with divine inspiration.”

[5] An institution which according to Jewish tradition existed from the days of Ezra until Alexander the Great.

[6] There appears to have been some confusion as to whether or not the Torah reffered to by the sages in Yabneh meant their oral teachings or the Law of Moses. The consensus that was reached was that Torah meant halakhic rules, IE, the oral Torah.

[7] Leviticus Rabbah 10:2 employs a pun on the name Amos, which if read as amus would mean ‘laden’, or ‘burdened’.
The rest of the references employed by L. Ginzberg are Pesikta de-Rabbi Kahana 16, 125b, Pesikta Rabbati 33, 150b, and Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, 97.

[8] The date of composition for this midrash is uncertain, and there are at least four recensions.

[9] That is, the ten sages would not have been martyred.

[10] Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Prophets, an Aramaic paraphrase of portions of the Bible

[11] B.Talmud, t. Berakhot 55a. [IS]

[12] The dream has been linked to a supernal power that has decreed that it shall be fulfilled. [IS]

[13] Even now that prophecy has ceased. [IS]

[14] Birds can give information to initiates by their movements and chirping. [IS]

[15] In the image of God, which is the configuration of the sefirot, depicted as primordial man. [IS]

[16] According to the explanation that follows, the verse quoted from Amos is taken to mean that the beasts attack and seize man when the image of God is removed from him. [IS]

[17] In outward appearance even the sinner has a human form, but the sacred radiance of the sefirot that surrounds the human image has been taken away from him, and the other creatures see him merely as an animal. [IS]

[18] Saperstein, "Jewish Preaching, 1200-1800: An Anthology", pg.270-271.

He Gave His Cheek to Him that Smiteth Him

2010-07-26T11:17:00.000-07:00

My friend Walker posted on his blog something I had written for an online debate with a notorious evangelical anti-Mormon over the context of certain portions of the Sermon on the Mount.

There are five occurences of smiting the cheek in the Old Testament. Six, if you count a duplicate in Chronicles.

The implications of smiting on the cheek are made clear in the following two scriptures.

"They have gaped upon me with their mouth; they have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully; they have gathered themselves together against me." - Job 16:10.

"He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach." -Lam 3:30.

In these verses, smiting on the cheek is linked to insults. This holds true as well for the following three scriptures:

"And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of Imlah. And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them. And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the king's hand. And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good. And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak. So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD? And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee? And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself. And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king's son; And say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace. And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the LORD hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of you." - 1 Kgs 22:8-28.

At the city gates (centre of public life), in front of the leaders of the people, Zedekiah slaps Micaiah on the cheek, humiliating him, this for attempting to deceive the kings.

"Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek." - Micah 5:1 (4:14).

The besieging enemy will smite the ruler with a rod (symbol of authority) upon the cheek, an humiliating gesture of subjugation.

"I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about. Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly." - Psalm 3:6-7 (7-8)

The Psalmist calls upon the Lord to inflict a humiliating and crushing defeat on his enemies.

Now on to material from the rest of the ancient Near East:

In the "Descent of Ishtar into the Netherworld," Ereshkigal of the abode of the dead curses a eunuch (or government official) with a great curse and says:

"The food of the gutters of the city shall be your food;
The sewers of the city shall be your drink;
The shadow of the wall shall be your station;
The threshold shall be your habitation;
the besotted and the thirsty shall smite your cheeks."

The eunuch will live in the gutter, and be humiliated by the lowest of the low- the drunks and bums.

An Akkadian maqlu text preserves the following imprecation:

"I strike your cheek, I tear out your tongue." - G. Meier, "Die assyrische Beschworung Maqlu", 50, 8:101.

As part of the Akitu, or Babylonian New Year ritual, the urgallu, or priest, would do the following on day five:

"After reciting this, he shall remove the table; he shall summon the craftsmen together, he shall deliver the table with all that is on it to the craftsmen, and shall cause them to carry it to Nabu; the craftsmen shall take it, they shall go in the…to the bank of the canal; when Nabu arrives at ….they shall set it up for Nabu; when they have placed the table before Nabu, while Nabu is getting out of the ship Id-da-he-du, they shall offer the loaves of the table; then they shall place on the table water to wash the hands of the king. Then they shall conduct the king into Esagila; the craftsmen shall go out of the gate. When the king has come in before Bel, the urigallu shall come out of the chapel; then he shall receive from the hands of the king, the scepter, the ring, and the harpe, or ceremonial weapon; he shall take his royal crown; he shall bring these things in before Bel, and shall place them on a seat before Bel. He shall come out of the chapel; he shall strike the king's cheek; he shall place…behind him; he shall bring him before Bel; he shall pull his ears; he shall make him kneel on the ground; the king shall repeat the following once:

I have not sinned, lord of the countries; I have not despised thy divinity;
I have not destroyed Babel; I have not caused it to be scattered;
I have not shaken Esagila; I have not forgotten its rituals;
I have not smitten suppliants on the cheek;
I have not humiliated them;
I care for Babel; I have not broken down its walls."

- James Pritchard, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament", pg. 334.

Around 750 BC, the Aramaeans Mattiel, king of Arpad, and Bargayah, king of KTK entered into a parity treaty. On stela I from Sefire the following curses are recorded, to be heaped upon the violator of said treaty:

40. [Just as] this calf is cut in two, so may Mattiel be cut in two, and may his nobles be cut in two!
[And just as]
41. a [har]lot is stripped naked], so may the wives of Mattiel be stripped naked, and the wives of his offspring, and the wives of [his] no[bles!
42. And just as this wax woman is taken] and one strikes her on the face, so may the [wives of Mattiel] be taken [and…

The laws of eshnunna and the laws of Hammurabi both treat knocking out eyes, teeth, and slaps on the face as severe offences, for which large fines are levied.

A little after Christ’s time, we read in the Mishnah, t. Baba Kama 8:6 that, “If one boxes another man's ear, he has to pay him a sela. Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says, [He has to pay him] a maneh [i.e., one hundred dinar;]. If he slapped him he has to pay him two hundred zuz; [if he did it] with the back of his hand, he has to pay him four hundred zuz. If he pulled his ear, plucked his hair, spat so that the spittle reached him, removed his garment from upon him, uncovered the head of a woman in the marketplace, he must pay four hundred zuz.”

The Tosefta Baba Kama 9:31 expands the ruling:

"If one struck someone with the back of his hand… he must pay four hundred zuz, not because it is a painful blow but because it is a humiliating blow."

Smiting the cheek was part of the humliations Christ was subjected to after his arrest.

“And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.” - Luke 22:63-65.

Nahum Sarna, in his article "Legal Terminology in Psalm 3:8," relates an account from the life of Abraham Shapira:

“In modern times, Abraham Shapira (1870-1965), head watchman of Petah Tikvah and a keen student of the ways and customs of the Bedouin, once observed the trial of two members of a tribe. One had been accused of stabbing someone with a sword, the other of having smacked someone on the face. The presiding sheikh dealt leniently with the stabber but severely with the other one. In explaining his verdict, he stated: ‘The striking of the cheek is a graver offence than stabbing with a sword, for the latter enhances the dignity of a man, while striking him on the cheek humiliates him.’"

Earlier in the same study, Sarna comments that “the various contexts make it absolutely clear , beyond the peradventure of a doubt, that to be struck on the cheek was an intolerable insult, a deep humiliation, not a mere slight to be soon forgotten.”

From personal experience growing up in Israel, I remember that fights, both among Jewish kids and Arab ones, did not get truly nasty until someone spat on another, or slapped him on the face. If that happened, knifings or severe beatings would immediately follow. Things could be patched up at any moment BEFORE such insults. After them, impossible without third-party intervention and serious peace-making efforts.

Back to the Sermon on the Mount, we saw that eye, tooth and smote cheek are mentioned together. The context could not be any clearer: Christ talked of not returning the ultimate personal insults. Nowhere does he say that man must not defend himself, family and friends. Nowhere does he say that if one does not follow that one is not a Christian.

The Limitations of Archaeology

2010-07-16T12:36:00.000-07:00

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Perceptions of Deity

2010-07-11T16:55:00.000-07:00

Most of the information contained in the Hebrew Bible on idols and their worshippers is polemic. Isaiah 44:10-21, where the idol worshipper uses the same block of wood for fire and for bowing down to, is a classic example. It is worth noting that polemic rarely takes into account the meaning of the thing targeted to its devotees or adherents. In other words, the attitude of an idol worshipper to his idol might differ substantially from the portrait painted by Isaiah.

The Babylonian might have pointed out that for several centuries Yahweh, after emerging from the obscurity of a remote desert, had lived inside, or at the least in close association with, a decorated chest made of acacia wood. He was of rather uncertain temper, but in the main could be kept good-humoured by regular offerings of the smoke of burnt beef fat, of which he was inordinately fond. In contrast, Marduk was a spiritual being, creator of heaven and earth, and so transcendent that it was impossible to see or to comprehend him

H.W.F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (London: Athlone Press, 1978), p. 15.

Philo on Reviling Gods, or: Are Gods Really Magistrates

2010-07-10T22:57:00.000-07:00

Common wisdom has it that in the Bible that elohim, the Hebrew word for gods, can refer to human judges or magistrates.

As noted in a previous post (Ye are Gods), this notion stems from Targum Onkelos, was developed by medieval exeggetes, and reigned uncontested until the 1920s. It has been thoroughly debunked in academic circles, yet persists among fundamental evangelicals and orthodox Jews.

It is worth looking beyond ibn Ezra, beyond Onkelos, examining different sources and different voices. I found an intersting Philo quote referenced in an essay by Eliezer Segal. "Aristeas or Aggadah: Talmudic Legend and the Greek Bible in Palestinian Judaism," in: W. O. McCready and A. Reinhartz, eds., Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 159-172, 286-292. The chapter is available by Segal in a free PDF. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/PDFs/Aristeas.pdf

Philo of Alexandria was a prolific Jewish writer contemporary with Christ. Philo came from an important family, his brother Alexander even serving as one of Alexandria's top officials. The Septuagint, the Bible that he used, rendered Exodus 22:28 (thou shalt not revile elohim) as theous ou kakologeseis. Philo himself when interpreting this passage does not allude at all to magistrates.

"But, as it seems, he is not now speaking of that God who was the first being who had any existence and the Father of the universe, but of those who are accounted gods in the different cities; and they are falsely called gods, being only made by the arts of painters and sculptors, for the whole inhabited world is full of statues and images, and erections of that kind, of whom it is necessary however to abstain from speaking ill, in order that no one of the disciples of Moses may ever become accustomed at all to treat the appellation of God with disrespect; for that name is always most deserving to obtain the victory, and is especially worthy of love."
-Philo of Alexandria, The Life of Moses 2.205, trans. C. D. Yonge.

Philo reads the word gods as (surprise, surprise) refering to gods, divine beings. That he does not believe in their existence does not change the definition of the word for him. Theous means divine beings, which is also a title of God, hence respect should be shown it even if applied to beings that exist only as a figment of gentile imagination.

Monotheistic Declarations

2010-07-10T10:25:00.000-07:00

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
-Deutoronomy 6:4.

Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
-Isaiah 43:9-10.

The above are two oft-used prooftexts for monotheism.
Before concluding that they are absolutes, it is worth taking a look at similar statements from the ancient world. As these come from avowed polytheistic sourcs they make for most interesting reading indeed.

From the Sumerian world.

From the mountain of sunrise to the mountain of sunset,
There is no (other) lord in the land, you alone are king,
Enlil, in all the lands there is no queen, your wife alone is queen.

-Hymn to Enlil as the Ruling Deity of the Universe. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), 3rd ed. with supplement, pg. 576.

Heaven - he [Enlil] alone is its prince, earth - he alone is its great one,
The Anunna - he is their exalted god,
When in his awesomeness he decrees the fates, no god dares look at him...

-Hymn to Enlil, the All-Beneficent. ANET, pg. 575.

From the Ugaritic corpus.

I alone am the one who can be king over the gods,
Who can fatten gods and men,
Who can satisfy the multitudes of the earth!

-Baal IV. vii 50-53.

From the Egyptian Magical Papyrii.

This is the Consecration for All Purposes: Spell to Helios

"I invoke You, the Greatest God, Eternal Lord, World Ruler, who are over the World and under the World, Mighty Ruler of the Sea, rising at Dawn, shining from the East for the Whole World, setting in the West. Come to me, Thou who risest from the Four Winds, benevolent and lucky Agathos Daimon, for whom Heaven has become the Processional Way. I call upon Your Holy and Great and Hidden Names which You rejoice to hear. The Earth flourished when You shone forth, and the Plants became fruitful when you laughed; the Animals begat their Young when You permitted. Give Glory and Honor and Favor and Fortune and Power to this, NN, Stone which I consecrate today (or to the Phylactery [charm] being consecrated) for [or in relation to] NN. I invoke You, the greatest in Heaven, E'I LANCHYCH AKARE'N BAL MISTHRE'N MARTA MATHATH LAILAM MOUSOUTHI SIETHO' BATHABATHI IATMO'N ALEI IABATH ABAO'TH SABAO'TH ADO'NAI, the Great God, ORSENOPHRE' ORGEATE'S TOTHORNATE'SA KRITHI BIO'THI IADMO' IATMO'MI METHIE'I LONCHOO' AKARE' BAL MINTHRE' BANE BAI(N)CHCHYCHCH OUPHRI NOTHEOUSI THRAI ARSIOUTH ERO'NERTHER, the Shining Helios, giving Light throughout the Whole World. You are the Great Serpent, Leader of all the Gods, who control the Beginning of Egypt and the End of the Whole Inhabited World, who mate in the Ocean, PSOI PHNOUTHI NINTHE'R. You are He who becomes Visible each Day and Sets in the Northwest of Heaven, and Rises in the Southeast.

In the 1st Hour You have the Form of a Cat; Your Name is PHARAKOUNE'TH. Give Glory and Favor to this Phylactery.

In the 2nd Hour You have the Form of a Dog; Your Name is SOUPHI. Give Strength and Honor to this Phylactery, or to this Stone, and to NN.

In the 3rd Hour You have the Form of a Serpent; Your Name is AMEKRANEBECHEO THO'YTH. Give Honor to the God NN.

In the 4th Hour You have the Form of a Scarab; Your Name is SENTHENIPS. Mightily strengthen this Phylactery in this Night, for the Work for which it is consecrated.

In the 5th Hour You have the Form of a Donkey; Your Name is ENPHANCHOUPH. Give Strength and Courage and Power to the God, NN.

In the 6th Hour You have the Form of a Lion; Your Name is BAI SOLBAI, the Ruler of Time. Give Success to this Phylactery and Glorious Victory.

In the 7th Hour You have the Form of a Goat; Your Name is OUMESTHO'TH. Give Sexual Charm to this Ring (or to this Phylactery, or to this Engraving).

In the 8th Hour You have the Form of a Bull; Your Name is DIATIPHE', who becomes visible everywhere. Let all Things done by the use of this Stone be accomplished.

In the 9th Hour You have the Form of a Falcon; Your Name is PHE'OUS PHO'OUTH, the Lotus Emerged From the Abyss. Give Success and Good Luck to this Phylactery.

In the 10th Hour You have the Form of a Baboon; Your Name is BESBYKI. [Prayer for gift omitted?]

In the 11th Hour You have the Form of an Ibis; Your Name is MOU RO'PH. Protect this great Phylactery for Lucky Use by NN, from this Present Day for All Time.

In the 12th Hour You have the Form of a Crocodile; Your Name is AERTHOE'. [Prayer for gift omitted?]

You who have set at Evening as an Old Man, who are over the World and under the World, Mighty Ruler of the Sea, hear my Voice in this Present Day, in this Night, in these Holy Hours, and let all done by this Stone, or for this Phylactery, be brought to fulfillment, and especially NN matter for which I consecrate It. Please, Lord KME'PH LOUTHEOUTH ORPHOICHE ORTILIBECHOUCH IERCHE ROUM IPERITAO' YAI! I conjure Earth and Heaven and Light and Darkness and the Great God who created All, SAROUSIN, You, Agathon Daimonion the Helper, to accomplish for me everything done by the Use of this Ring or Stone!"

When you complete the Consecration, say, "The one Zeus is Serapis!"

-PGM IV.1596-1715

Moshe Weinfeld, in his book The Decalogue and the Recitation of "Shema": The Development of the Confessions, points out (pg. 128) that all these texts are hymnodal-liturgical, and that the Shema is confessional-liturgical.
On page 130 Weinfeld states that "there appears to be a deep connection between the definition of God as 'one'and the obligation to love him." He provides two passages from the Hebrew Bible which make the connection obvious.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest...
-Genesis 22:2.

My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her...
-Song of Solomon 6:9.

If people know of other, similar statements, please share!

Who Hath Stood in the Counsel of the Lord?

2010-07-08T21:36:00.001-07:00

For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?
כִּי מִי עָמַד בְּסוֹד יְהוָה וְיֵרֶא וְיִשְׁמַע אֶת דְּבָרוֹ מִי הִקְשִׁיב דברי [דְּבָרוֹ] וַיִּשְׁמָע.

-Jeremiah 23:18

Walker, this one is for you.

Medieval Jewish commentaries on the scriptures are fascinating. They often are very perceptive, as the following example shows.

The word rendered as counsel in the translation of Jeremiah 23:18 is sod. Not sod as in certain hostile instructions of the English language, but, as the Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testaments puts it, a circle of confidants. From this developed an abstract, secondary meaning of something confidential, a secret if you will. It corresponds fairly closely to the word mysteries. Indeed, Jewish mysticism such as kabbalah is termed in Hebrew torat ha-sod, or the doctrine of the mystery.

One might be tempted to conclude that medieval commentators were oblivious to the history of word development because they frequently projected backwards onto the text a current theological understanding, but it simply is not true that they always twisted the text to match their preconceptions. They were just as likely to examine the text with sound philological methods.

Metsudot (fortresses) is a commentary in two parts by Rabbi David Altschuler of Prague, completed after his death by his son Yehiel during the early part of the 18th century. There are to parts each named metsudah. Metsudat David deals with difficult phrases, Metsudat Zion with difficult words. None of the commentary is original, but is a distillation of prior works in lucid, popular form. This garaunteed its popularity, even a place in all editions of Mikraot Gedolot (the Rabbinic Bible) since the 18th century.

Metsudat David.

"Who has marked" - indeed he who has marked his word like Jeremiah who hearkened unto the Lord's voice and carried out his commandments is the one who hears the prophecy unlike the wicked.

"For who hath stood" - He [the prophet] gave a reason for why they [the wicked] would not hearken unto them when he said for who of these stood in the counsel (sod) to recieve prophecy and who saw the visions of prophecy and who among them heard his word for being wicked they aren't worthy of prophecy.

מצודת דוד
"מי הקשיב" - אמנם מי שהקשיב דברו כירמיהו שהקשיב בקול ה' ועשה מצותיו הוא השומע הנבואה ולא הרשעים האלה

"כי מי עמד" - נתן טעם למה לא ישמעו אליהם באמרו כי מי מאלה עמד בסוד ה' לקבל נבואה ומי ראה מראות הנבואה ומי מהם שמע את דברו כי בהיותם רשעים אינם ראויים לנבואה

Metsudat Zion.

"In the sod" - it should be said in the place wherein prophecy is effected.

"Marked (hikshiv)" - a matter of listening and recieving.

מצודת ציון
"בסוד" - ר"ל במקום השפעת הנבואה

"הקשיב" - ענין האזנה וקבלה

To Begin at the Beginning... of What?

2010-07-04T00:28:00.000-07:00

With apologies to Dylan Thomas.

In a recent online discussion with an evangelical fundamentalist over John 1:1, the claim was made that "in the beginning" means the ultimate beginning of everything.

"There is not a Greek word for prior to archE. This is in the original.

There you have it.

If in the Greek something was archE it was original. Grab your lexicon and look up archE. It means nothing like it prior to it (whatever the object is your speaking of)."

He continued in the same vein.

"Research archE and argue that there should be a word or phrase that mandates prior to archE in the Greek.

There is nothing in the Greek language that represents prior to or before archE.

This is the point of origin (originAL). This fact [sic] and not spin.

If you discover the word or term or phrase then I will stand down. Until then we are dancing and not singing. Just let me know what you discover. At this point the archE is the original and NOTHING before the original unless you discover a Greek arguement for what was mentioned."

When I asked the beginning of what, I recieved a reply which must stand as a masterpiece of reason and logic.

"The Beginning not a Beginning not your Beginnig BUT THE BEGINNING.

The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your eginning [sic]. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning. The Beginning not a Beginning not your beginning."

Several days have since passed, like so much water under the bridge, I chanced to be reading Rashi and came across this insightful exposition of the first verse of Genesis. The medival commentators contain some real gems. Sometimes, as is the case here, the methods used feel strikingly modern.

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki), a French rabbi of the 11th century, is to this day considered the premier Jewish commentator on the Bible and the Babylonian Talmud. His commentaries are frequently printed in the margins of said works. His were the first comprehensive commentaries. Much of them are drawn from aggadic and midrashic materials, but such are not used indiscriminately, but in order to shed light on difficult passages, or to explain the biblical roots of Jewish teachings and traditions. However, in the following extract from his commentary on Genesis, Rashi looks at the text of Genesis 1:1 and provides other biblical occurences of the wrod reishit (what in english is translated as the beginning) to support his perceptive interpretation of the phrase.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Bereshith bara. In the beginning God created. This verse says expound me only in the manner that our Rabbis explained it: God created the world for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Proverbs 8:22) "the beginning (reshith) of His way," and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jeremiah 2:3) "the beginning (reshith) of His increase." If, however, you wish to explain it in its plain sense, explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without form and void and there was darkness, God said, Let there be light. The text does not intend to point out the order of the acts of Creation -- to state that these (heaven and earth) were created first; for if it intended to point this out, it should have been written Barishona bara, "At first God created..." Because wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state. For example, Jeremiah 26:1, "In the beginning of (reshith) the reign of Jehoiakim," Genesis 10:10, "The beginning of (reshith) his kingdom," Deuteronomy 18:4, "The firstfruit of (reshith) thy corn." Similarly here you must translate bereshith bara Elohim as though it read bereshith bero, at the beginning of God's creating. A similar grammatical construction is in Hosea 1:2, "tehillat dibber [yahweh] beHosheah", which is as much to say, "At the beginning of God's speaking through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea." Should you, however, insist that it does actually intend to point out that these (heaven and earth) were created first, and that the meaning is, "At the beginning of everything He created these", admitting therefore that the word reshith is in the construct state and explaining the omission of a word signifying 'everything' by saying that you have texts which are elliptical, omitting a word, as for example Job 3:10, "Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb" where it does not explicitly explain who it was that closed the womb; and Isaiah 8:4 "He shall take away the spoil of Samaria" without explaining who shall take it away; and Amos 6:12 "Doth he plough with oxen," and it does not explicitly state, "Doth a man plough with oxen"; Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring from the beginning the end," and it does not explicitly state, "Declaring from the beginning of a thing the end of a thing" -- and if it is so, you should be astonished at yourself, because as a matter of fact the waters were created before heaven and earth, for lo, it is written, "The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters," and Scripture had not yet disclosed when the creation of the waters took place -- consequently you must learn from this that the creation of the waters preceded that of the earth. And a further proof that the heavens and the earth were not the first thing created is that the heavens were created from fire (esh) and water (mayim), from which it follows that fire and water were in existence before the heavens. Therefore you must needs admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of creation.

"בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא" – אין המקרא הזה אומר אלא דרשני, כמו שדרשוהו רבותינו ז"ל: בשביל התורה שנקראת (משלי ח כב) "רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ", ובשביל ישראל שנקראו (ירמיהו ב ג) "רֵאשִׁית תבואתו".

ואם באת לפרשו כפשוטו, כך פרשהו: "בראשית בריאת שמים וארץ, וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר". ולא בא המקרא להורות סדר הבריאה, לומר שֶאֵלו קדמו; שאם בא להורות כך, היה לו לכתוב: "בראשונה ברא את השמים" וגו', שאין לך "ראשית" במקרא שאינו דבוק לתיבה של אחריו, כמו: (ירמיהו כו א) "בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלְכוּת יְהוֹיָקִים", (בראשית י י) "רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ", (דברים יח ד) "רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ". אף כאן אתה אומר: "בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים" וגו', כמו "בְּרֵאשִׁית ברוא". ודומה לו (הושע א ב) "תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר ה' בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ", כלומר: תחילת דיבורו של הקב"ה בהושע, "ויאמר ה' אל הושע" וגו'.

ואם תאמר: להורות בא שאלו תחילה נבראו, ופירושו: בראשית הכל ברא אלו, ויש לך מקראות שמקצרים לשונם וממעטים תיבה אחת, כמו: (איוב ג י) "כִּי לֹא סָגַר דַּלְתֵי בִטְנִי", ולא פירש מי הסוגר, וכמו (ישעיהו ח ד) "יִשָּׂא אֶת חֵיל דַּמֶּשֶׂק", ולא פירש מי ישאנו, וכמו (עמוס ו יב) "אִם יַחֲרוֹשׁ בַּבְּקָרִים", ולא פירש "אם יחרוש אדם בבקרים", וכמו (ישעיהו מו י) "מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית", ולא פירש "מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית דבר אַחֲרִית דבר". אם כן תמה על עצמך, שהרי המים קדמו, שהרי כתיב: "וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם", ועדיין לא גילה המקרא בריית המים מתי היתה. הא למדת שקדמו המים לארץ. ועוד, שהשמים מאש ומים נבראו. על כרחך לא לימד המקרא בסדר המוקדמים והמאוחרים כלום.

Scripture Over All Else?

2010-06-10T00:36:00.000-07:00

The finally definitive move for the Rabbis was to transfer all Logos and Sophia talk to the Torah alone, thus effectively accomplishing two powerful discursive moves at once: consolidating their power as the sole religious virtuosi and leaders of "the Jews", aand protecting one version of monotheistic thinking from the problematic of division within the godhead. For the Rabbis, Torah supersedes Logos, just as for John, Logos supersedes Torah. Or, to put it into more fully Johanine terms, if for John the Logos Incarnate in Jesus replaces the Logos revealed in the Book, for the Rabbis the Logos Incarnate in the Book displaces the Logos that subsists anywhere else but in the Book. This move on the part of the Rabbis at the end of the rabbinic period effectively displaces the structure of western thought, embodied in the Fourth Gospel, whereby Logos is located most directly and presently in the voice of the speaker, Jesus, with the written text understood at best as a secondary reflection of the speaker's intention.

Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: the partition of Judaeo-Christianity, pg. 129.

Creatio Ex Nihilo in the Zohar

2010-05-27T10:29:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading Isaiah Tishby's The Wisdom of the Zohar (Mishnat ha-Zohar), an excellent anthology of material on different subjects from the Zohar, that key book of the Kabbalah, the predominant form of Jewish mysticism.
For beginners I would probably even recommend this over Daniel Matt's translation. This has the advantage of being organized thematically. Both of course are superb.
The following is a passage dealing with creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. This conception is not quite as straightforward as standard Christian teaching has it. According to this passage there are two forms of creation, beriyah (creation), which is creation from nothing, and asiyah (making), or creation from something substantive. The body comes from nothing, the form from something substantive, i.e. light from above.

Rabbi Tanhum began by quoting: "Thus says God, the Lord who created the heavens, and stretched them forth..." (Isaiah 42:5). When the Holy One, blessed be He, created His worlds, He created them from nothing, and brought them into actuality, and made substance out of them; and you find the word bara (He created) used always of something that He created from nothing, and brought into actuality.
Rav Hisda said: Were the heavens really created from nothing? Were they not created from the light above?*
Rabbi Tanhum said: It is so. The body of the heavens** was created from nothing, but their form from something substantive.*** And so it was with man.**** So you find "creation" used of the heavens, and subsequently "making": "To Him that made the heavens" (Psalm 136:5) - from something substantive, from the light above.
Rabbi Tanhum also said: "Making" is the provision of something with the size, stature, and quantity that it has, as it is said, "And David made a name for himself" (2 Samuel 8:13).

* From the light of the angels.
** The basic matter of the heavens.
*** From the supernal light.
**** Man's body is made from hylic matter, which is brought from potentiality into actuality, but his soul is derived from the light of the Throne of Glory.

-Zohar Hadash, Bereshit 17b, Midrash ha-Ne'elam.

On the Symbolic Lessons of Nature

2010-05-26T22:17:00.000-07:00

Kings are anointed only near a spring, that their kingship may run long and smooth, as it is said (1 Kings 1:33): 'And the king said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord... and bring him down to Gihon.'

- The Babylonian Talmud, Horayot 12a.

Whether or not kings were actually anointed only near a spring (which appears doubtful), this midrash shows how everything could be linked to a lesson, to a blessing.

A Curious Custom of Kurdish Jewry

2010-05-26T19:03:00.000-07:00

I saw a very curious custom in practice among the Jews of Kurdistan. On Rosh ha-Shanah they all go to a river that flows at the foot of a hill, and say the prayer of the Casting [Tashlich].
Afterward they all jump into the water and swim around like the fish of the sea, instead of only shaking the hems of their clothing on the bank of the river, as our brothers the children of Israel do in Europe. And when I inquired of them the reason for this curious custom, they answered that by this act they were purified of all their sins, for the waters of the river wash away all the sins they have commited during all the past year.

-Israel ben Joseph Benjamin, Masae Yisrael, Lyck, 1859.

Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself

2010-05-26T14:24:00.000-07:00

LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF (Lev. 19:18). R. Akiva says, "This is the great principle of the Torah." Ben Azzai says, "THIS IS THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM (Gen. 5:1), an even greater principle!"

-Sifra Weiss 88b.

R. Akiva hardly needs any introduction. Calling him one of the most significant figures of early Judaism is no exaggeration. More on him in later posts.
Simeon ben Azzai (or simply Ben Azzai) was a younger contemporary of Akiva's, and at one point betrothed to his daughter. Though he died young before he could be formally ordained as a rabbi, ben Azzai enjoyed long-lasting fame as a preacher and expounder of scripture.
In the midrash quoted above, r. Akiva defines the principle behind all of the Torah, or law, as loving one's neighbour. The laws contained in the Torah are meant to encourage love one for another. That is their raison de etre.
At first glance, Ben Azzai's scripture seems to have little relevance.
Why, indeed, how, is a book listing Adam's descendants a greater principle than loving one's neighbour as one's self?
for Ben Azzai, this verse refers to the Torah being about all of Adam's descendants. If one bears that in mind, the question won't arise, who is my neighbour? Ben Azzai does not contradict r. Akiva, but makes sure that there is no room for narrowly interpreting 'thy neighbour' as meaning only the house of Israel.

Moses vs. Moses, or Two Medieval Jews on Idolatry

2010-05-25T22:05:00.000-07:00

Towering over the history of Jewish thought in the medieval age are the two Moseses- the son of Maimon (Rambam), and the son of Nahman (Ramban). In the West they are known as Maimonides and Nahmanides, respectively.
I have introduced Maimonides in a previous post. Nahmanides was born in Girona, then part of Christian Spain. He was a mere child when Maimonides passed away, but in his adult years was embroiled in the controversies surrounding the supporters and detractors of Maimonides. He was heavily influenced by Maimonides' thought, but rejected his extreme rationalism and allegorisation of miracles. Here I'll let Josef Stern present one of the differences between their views.

We know what Maimonides thinks is wrong with idolatry. Even if the idolator does not believe that the idols themselves, the artificial icons, have power, he believes that they are images of gods or celestial beings who are worthy of worship because they have power over humans. In fact, however, Maimonides argues, these purported beings are powerless or unreal. Therefore, their worship is based on a false and empty presupposition. What is fundamentally wrong with idolatry, then, is that it is founded on a cognitive error of the highest magnitude (Guide of the Perplexed, I:36:82-83).

For Nahmanides, in contrast, what is wrong with idolatry is not that it is based on a false presupposition about its objects of worship.
Just the opposite: idolatry is forbidden (to Israel) precisely because its objects are real entities and powers.
In his Commentary on Exod. 20, 3, Nahmanides describes an elaborate metaphysical hierarchy, consisting of three classes of celestial beings each of which has dominion over certain peoples and places on earth, ranked in an order of power that also corresponds to the chronological order in which their representative kinds of idolatry historically emerged. The first, highest, and earliest objects of idolatry were the immaterial separate intellects, or angels. Some of these were originally believed to have power over specific nations and were therefore worshipped even when their respective nation recognized that there is a deity superior to them. Israel, however, was absolutely forbidden to worship any of these angels because it is the specially treasured people (segulah) of God who alone has power over them. Were the people of Israel to worship these “other gods” [‘elohim ‘aherim], it would be tantamount to a rejection of the one God for the others.

The second class of objects of idolatry were the visible heavenly bodies:
the sun, moon, stars, and constellations who were also known to have power over specific nations. Unlike the idolatry associated with the first class, this second kind was also theurgic: by worshipping their respective star or constellation, its worshippers believed that they could strengthen it and help it "victor" over its rivals, thereby improving their own fortune. These idolators were also the first to make physical shapes and idols whose timing was astrally significant. Through this elementary form of astrology, this brand of theurgic idolatry came to be associated with magic and to include the worship of certain humans whose power seemed closely linked to constellations.

The third species of idolatrous objects were the demons [sheidim], a class of spirits [ruhot] who, Nahmanides claims, are so-called because they dwell in destroyed or desolate [shadudim] places (C Lev. 17, 7).
These devils are material but invisible, compounded of fire and air, an ontologically intermediate kind of being with some angelic and some human properties. Thus they eat and drink, especially blood; decompose and die; fly and inhabit the sky; and know the near future (news of which they overhear from higher celestial beings). Like the higher powers, they are also assigned to specific peoples but with dominion only over ruined, wild places where they are empowered only to harm enemies and those who fall victim to them. Nahmanides treats these devils with some contempt, as nouveau deities who lack the power to benefit their worshippers, who were not worshipped by the ancients, and who were "discovered only by late Egyptian magicians. Yet he thinks that they are no less real than the others. Indeed the most important point about all three classes of objects of idolatrous worship is that they are all real beings with real power- which is precisely why they are forbidden to Israel who is commanded to worship only the one God.

--Josef Stern, Problems and Parables of Law: Maimonides and Nahmanides on Reasons for the Commandments (Ta'amei Ha-Mitzvot) (Albany, New York: SUNY Press, 1998), 144-145.

On Jews and Oath-taking

2010-05-23T22:48:00.002-07:00

When I served a mission in Russia, I lived for a few months in the city of Novorossiysk, along the shores of the Black Sea. Though the city itself was founded in 1840, the human history of the region stretches back far into antiquity.
Not far from Novorossiysk is the resort town of Anapa, built on the ruins of Gorgippia. This Greek city belonged to the kingdom of the Bosphorus which controlled most of the northern side of the Black Sea. Gorgippia, a wealthy city indeed, covered over 40 hecatres. Its wealth came mainly from the grain trade, but it also supplied Greece and Asia Minor with fish, fur and slaves.
Trade opportunities are what appear to have attracted the Jews to the Bosphoran Kingdom where, by Roman times, they had a substantial presence and influence.
Gorgippia's community was prosperous and seems to have had its own synagogue. Several decades ago, a rather intriguing inscription was found, which though brief, provides an unparalleled glimpse into ancient Jewish society.
I reproduce the translation given by Lee I. Levine in his book The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years.

To the Most High God, Almighty, blessed, in the reign of the king Mithridates, the friend of [?] and the friend of the fatherland, in the year 338 [= 41 C.E.], in the month Deios, Pothos, the son of Strabo, dedicated to the prayer-house, in accordance with the vow, his house-bred slave-woman, whose name is Chrysa, on condition that she should be unharmed and untroubled by any of his heirs under Zeus, Ge, Helios.

This inscription deals with manumission, or the freeing of a slave. It is a written testimony that Chrysa the slave-woman is now free and that Pothos' heirs have no claim on her.
The names of the two Jews mentioned in the text- Pothos and Strabo- indicate how Jews tended to adopt the names used by their neighbours, much like in 20th century North America, when a whole generation was named Irving and Ira.
While at first glance the typical Jewish formula of a threefold invocation of God's name might appear odd, nay, even shocking when combined with the blatantly pagan formula of an oath by Zeus, the earth and the sun, let us look at some other Jewish documents.

Maimonides, a staunch opponent of paganism and idoltary if there ever was one, in his Sefer Hamitzvot (the book of commandments) rules that swearing by astral bodies is acceptable if one has the Creator in mind.

In 1961, Yigael Yadin headed an archaeological expedition to the caves above the Dead Sea. The caves were the last refuge for some of Simeon bar Kosiva's (Bar-Kochba) rebels as they fled the Roman onslaught on Ein-Gedi. Among the astonishing finds in what became known as the "Cave of Letters" was an archive of documents belonging to Babatha, a wealthy widow and landowner in Ein-Gedi and Petra.
In the subscription to one document, we read, "I, Babtha, daughter of Simon, swear by the genius of our lord Caesar that I have in good faith registered as has been written above." Italics mine.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/babatha.html

In page 215 of his Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Saul Lieberman provides a translation of a responsum by a 9th century Babylonian, the Rab Hai ben Nahshon Gaon.

Heaven forbid that one should do so (i.e. to circumvent the law) in vow or oaths, for that is a serious matter. There came to us a pious, learned old man and taught in the school: It is written (Deut. 4:19), 'And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven and behold the sun' - that means to make a vow by it - 'and the moon' - that means to swear by it. If you transgress or circumvent either of them, then, 'thou hast gone astray' (ibid.) and are required to do the most severe penance. For the Lord will wreak vengeance upon you, and you will on this account be considered on a par with those who worship the sun and the moon. That is why it says further on (ibid. 26): 'I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that ye shall utterly perish.'

Lieberman logically surmises that ignorant or crooked Jews abused a loophole in these kinds of oaths by sun and moon, which their gentile neighbours considered binding, but they themselves did not.
In fact, the closing formula in the Gorgippia inscription was standard legal fare in the Bosphoran Kingdom, and as such, seems to have lost most of its pagan connotations.

A final source from the last decade of the first century AD, though not a Jewish one, which Lieberman provided.
Martial's Epigrams, book XI.

XCIV. ON A JEW, A RIVAL POET.

As for the fact that you are exceedingly envious and everywhere carping at my writings, I pardon you, circumcised poet; you have your reasons. Nor am I at all concerned that, while carping at my verses, you steal them; for this too, circumcised poet, you have your reasons. This however, circumcised poet, annoys me, that, though you were born in the heart of Jerusalem, you attempt to seduce the object of my affections You deny that such is the case, and swear by the temples of Jupiter. I do not believe you; swear, circumcised poet, by Anchialus.

Martial seems aware of a Jewish prediliction for not taking gentile oaths seriously, and demands a stronger one, one that Jews would find binding.

For those interested in further reading on the subject, I highly recommend Saul Liberman and Lee I. Levine's books, mentioned above.

Maimonides on the Trinity

2010-05-18T15:19:00.000-07:00

It is not rare that a person aims to expound the intent of some conclusions clearly and explicitly, makes an effort to reject doubts and eliminate far-fetched interpretations, and yet the unbalanced will draw the reverse judgment of the conclusion he sought to clarify. Some such thing occured even to one of God's declarations. When the chief of the prophets wished by order of God to teach us that He is One, without associates, and to remove from our hearts those wrong doctrines that the Dualists propound, he proclaimed this fundamental: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone [Deut. 6:4]. But the Christians utilized this verse to prove that God is one of three, teaching that Lord, our God, the Lord makes three names, all followed by one, which indicates that they are three and that the three are one. Far be God from what they say in their ignorance. If this is what happened to God's proclamation, it is much more likely and to be expected to happen to statements by humans.

-Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam or Maimonides, in his The Essay on Resurrection, trans. Abraham Halkin in The Epistles of Maimonides: crisis and leadership.

It is no exaggeration to state that the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), or Maimonides as he is commonly reffered to in English, is one of the major figures in Jewish history, culture and thought. One of the foremost physicians and philosophers of his day, his fame spread worldwide, and he was held in great esteem even by Christians and Muslims. When facing severe tribulations, Jewish communities as distant as Morocco and Yemen sought his help and advice. As he was court physician to the Ayyubids in Cairo, with his strong political connections the Rambam could also play a vital role in his community's life, and did.
The Rambam wrote many commentaries on the Torah and the Mishnah, that codification of the Halacha, or Jewish oral law, and explained the reasons (or ta'amei hamitzvot) for the 613 commandments of the Torah on rational, philosophical grounds. His thirteen articles of faith were adopted by all Jewish communities, indeed, the 12th of them- professing complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, even were he to tarry- has become a symbol of the unbreakable Jewish spirit, being on the lips of many Treblinka inmates marching to the gas chambers.
The Rambam's lifelong work, however was that of an educator. He seeks to draw the people away from ignorance and idolatry (the two, for him, are inseparably linked) and towards the true intent of the law- knowing God.
This for him is love, an exalted, all-consuming intellectual love, as is made clear from the following two selections.

For we live in a material world and the only pleasure we can comprehend must be material. But the delights of the spirit are everlasting and uninterrupted, and there is no resemblance in any possible way between spiritual and bodily enjoyments.
We are not sanctioned either by the Torah or by the divine philosophers to assert that the angels, the stars, and the spheres enjoy no delights. In truth they have exceeding great delight in respect of what they comprehend of the Creator (glorified be He!). This to them is an everlasting felicity without a break. They have no bodily pleasures, neither do they comprehend them, because they have no senses like ours, enabling them to have our sense experiences.
And likewise it will be with us too. When after death the worthy from among us will reach that exalted stage he will experience no bodily pleasures neither will he have any wish for them, any more than would a king of sovereign power wish to divest himself of his imperial sway and return to his boyhood's games with a ball in the street, although at one time he would without doubt have set a higher worth upon a game with a ball than on kingly dominion, such being the case only when his years were few and he was totally ignorant of of the real significance of either pursuit, just as we today rank the delights of the body above those of the soul.

-Introduction to Perek Helek, trans. Joshua Abelson, in "Maimonides on the Jewish Creed," Jewish Quarterly Revie 19(1906-07):38.

This chapter discusses serving God out of love and fear, how to teach Torah to children and ignoramuses, and those who study Torah solely for the sake of it.

1) One should not think to oneself that one will fulfil the commandments of the Torah and occupy oneself in its wisdom in order to receive the blessings mentioned therein, or to merit life in the World To Come, and to avoid the transgressions against which the Torah warns in order to be saved from the curses mentioned therein, or in order not to be cut off from life in the World To Come, for it is not fitting to serve God in this manner. Anyone who does serve in this manner is doing so out of fear. This was not the [spiritual] level of the Prophets and Sages. Only ignoramuses, women and children serve in this manner, for they are educated to do so until their knowledge has increased sufficiently so that they will serve out of love.

2) Anyone who serves out of love and occupies himself with Torah and mitzvot and follows the ways of wisdom should not do so for any earthly reason[s] or out of fear of the curses or to receive the blessings, but should fulfil the truth because it is the truth. Out of this he will receive goodness. This level is a very high one, and not every wise person attains it. This is the level of Abraham the Patriarch, whom God called His `friend', for the reason that he served God solely out of love. This is a level which God commanded, via Moses, us [to attain], as it is written, "And you shall love the Lord your God". Once a person loves God appropriately, he will fulfil the commandments out of love.

3) What is appropriate love? This is an extremely strong and profound love of God, so that one's soul is committed to the love of God and that one will be so preoccupied with it that one will appear to be lovesick, in which one's mind is perpetually occupied at all times with a particular woman. Apart from this, one's love of God has to be absolute and continuous, as we have been commanded: "...with all your heart and with all your soul"2. Solomon said by way of example, "For I am sick with love". The entire Song Of Songs is exemplary of this concept [of the love of God].

4) The first Sages said that to prevent us from [falling into the trap of] learning Torah in order to become rich or to be called a Rabbi or to be rewarded in the World To Come, the Torah says, "...to love the Lord your God", i.e. all that one does should be done purely out of love. The Sages said further that the verse, "Happy is the man who fears the Lord, who delights greatly in His commandments" refers to the commandments, and not to the reward. In this vein, the greater Sages commanded just their wiser students and told them not to be like a servant who serves his master solely for payment, but to be like a servant whose attitude is that because his master is the master it is fitting to serve him, i.e. to serve purely out of love.

5) Anyone who occupies himself with Torah in order to receive reward or to prevent any troubles is not doing so for the sake of it, whereas anyone who does so out of love for the Master of this world, and not with any ulterior motives, is doing so for the sake of it. The Sages said that one should always occupy oneself with Torah even if not for the sake of it, for out of doing so not for the sake of it one will come to doing so for the sake of it. Therefore, when one is teaching children, women and ignoramuses one should teach them to serve God out of fear and inn order to be rewarded. As their knowledge increases and they become more wise, we reveal this `secret' to them bit by bit and accustom them to this concept in repose until they totally understand it, and will serve out of love.

- Sefer Hamada', Hilchot Teshuva 10:1-5
(This translation is copyright (c) Immanuel M. O'Lvey, 1993. This translation may be distributed in any form (on disk, printed, etc.) provided that it is done so on a non-profit basis and that this copyright and conditions message is left attached. The text used for this translation was the Rambam Le'Am, published by Mossad Ha'Rav Kook, Jerusalem. Words in the text that are in square brackets do not appear in the Rambam's writings. British spelling has been used, and Sephardit pronunciation has been used for words and phrases that have been transliterated. Comments are welcome by email - imo@medphys.ucl.ac.uk.)

In chapter 1 of Maimonides' Empire of Light, Ralph Lerner describes the situation of the various Jewish communities in the Rambam's day. "Theirs is a time of physical and psychic distress, doctrinal and institutional controversy, and general perplexity. Repeatedly, the leaders or disputants in those far-flung communities turn to Maimonides. His writings that they have read and the reputation of works that they haven't seen convince them that he has the power to resolve their misgivings or confusion. They appeal to his learning, or rather to the authority he derives from his learning."
Indeed, there is hardly a more fitting description of the Rambam than the title of his most famous work, the Guide of the Perxplexed.
This philosophical treatise par excellence is directed towards those torn between the conflicting worlds of traditional Judaism as passed down by Moses through the sages on the one hand, and modern philosophy and science on the other. While one may seem incomprehensible as opposed to the logic of the other, the Rambam attempts to bridge the two. He showed that they were not implacable enemies to each other, but went hand-in-hand.
This work, written in Arabic, was translated by others into Hebrew and Latin, both during the Rambam's own lifetime. Its influence was huge, even on the development of Jewish mysticism, which seems at odds with much of the Rambam's own approach.
Rambam's style was terse. "If I could squeeze the entire Law of the Torah into one chapter, I would not write two for it." (from the essay on Resurrection).
This habit landed him in the midst of controversy.
Many had misinterpreted the statements in the Rambam's writings, and the rumours spread that he denied the reality of bodily resurrection. He paid them no heed, never being unduly perturbed by mere babblers, but when the Gaon, head of the Baghdad religious academy, and one the most significant figures of the Jewish diaspora, denounced him in writing for denying the resurrection, this could no longer be ignored. He had to respond, and respond he did through his Essay on the Resurrection.
The tone is perosnal. It is bitter, it is frustrated.
As David Hartman surmised in "Epistles of Maimonides", the "pettiness of the joy of resurrection relative to the joy of the world-to-come, i.e., the joy of intellectual love of God, was a major reason behind Maimonides' anger. Whereas his whole philosophy of Judaism centered around the lovesickness of one who strives after knowledge of God, he was now compelled to write a defense of the belief that God will miraculously restore our bodily existence so that we can enjoy the material pleasures of this world! ...The lover feels degraded when he is asked to discuss his relationship to his beloved in gross utalitarian terms.
The community's disproportionate interest in resurrection relative to more important aspects of his teachings on Judaism must have pained Maimonides deeply, for it was a sign that all that he had attempted to accomplish as a Jewish leader and educator might have failed."
The Rambam opens his essay by showing that if the very words of God, delivered by Moses, the greatest of all prophets, could have been misinterprated by the Christians, then it is no wonder that it happened to his own words by his fellow Jews.
I don't know what exactly the source for this argument using the Shema Israel was, whether maimonides encountered it directly through Christians, or idirectly via Muslim source, but Augustine, the source indicated by Halkin in his notes to this essay, is not making the same argument at all.

The divine generation, therefore, of our Lord, and his human dispensation, having both been thus systematically disposed and commended to faith, there is added to our Confession, with a view to the perfecting of the faith which we have regarding God, [the doctrine of] The Holy Spirit, who is not of a nature inferior to the Father and the Son, but, so to say, consubstantial and co-eternal: for this Trinity is one God, not to the effect that the Father is the same [Person] as the Son and the Holy Spirit, but to the effect that the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; and this Trinity is one God, according as it is written, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God.” At the same time, if we be interrogated on the subject of each separately, and if the question be put to us, “Is the Father God?” we shall reply, “He is God.” If it be asked whether the Son is God, we shall answer to the same effect. Nor, if this kind of inquiry be addressed to us with respect to the Holy Spirit, ought we to affirm in reply that He is anything else than God; being earnestly on our guard, [however], against an acceptance of this merely in the sense in which it is applied to men, when it is said, “You are gods.” For of all those who have been made and fashioned of the Father, through the Son, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, none are gods according to nature. For it is this same Trinity that is signified when an apostle says, “For of Him, and in Him, and through Him, are all things.” Consequently, although, when we are interrogated on the subject of each [of these Persons] severally, we reply that that particular one regarding whom the question is asked, whether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is God, no one, notwithstanding this, should suppose that three Gods are worshipped by us.

-St. Augustine, Of Faith and the Creed, chp. IX.

Be that as it may, the opening paragraph to the Essay on Resurrection is a fascinating look at the reaction of a fierce montheist and gifted philosopher to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ye are Gods

2010-05-04T08:51:00.000-07:00

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

John 10:28-36.

For years Christ's dramatic defence as recorded in the Gospel of St. John has been interpreteted as refering to human judges. I could provide many examples, but this, from the NASB, should suffice.

Observe here, 1. The power and honour of magistrates; they are the mighty. They are so in authority, for the public good (it is a great power that they are entrusted with), and they ought to be so in wisdom and courage. They are, in the Hebrew dialect, called gods; the same word is used for these subordinate governors that is used for the sovereign ruler of the world. They are elohim.

http://www.biblebrowser.com/psalms/82-2.htm

Christians interpretators have followed medieval Jewish exeggets such as Rashi and Abrhaam ibn Ezra in this.

The judges were called Elohim due to the fact that they enact God's laws on earth.

Ibn Ezra on the Torah, Mishpatim (Exodus 21:6).

I do not intend to deal in depth right now with the meaning of the biblical passage, or with how interpretation developed, that will have to wait for a future post. In the meantime, I highly recommend Daniel O. McLellan's insightful blog posts on Psalm 82. http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/psalm-82-2/

From a study of ancient Jewish literature, it becomes apparent that Jesus was not refering to human judges, but to a different tradition entirely. An early Amoraic work, the Midrash Numbers Rabba (or Bamidbar Rabbah) 16:24, relates the tradition that the Lord made the Children of Israel immortal, warning death not to touch them, but since they feared and would not accept the gift offered them the Lord made Israel as mere men again.
In John Jesus says "unto whom the word of the Lord came". Word, or davar, quite frequently meant a commandment, which commandment can be seen in this midrash.

They saw the counsel which the Lord decreed for them and straightaways ruined the counsel 40 days, for it is said (Proverbs 1): ye have set at nought all my counsel.
The Holy One, Blessed is He said unto them: I said that ye are not sinning and ye shall live and be as I am, as I liveth and am for Eternity and for Eternity of Eternities, for I decreed (Ps 82) gods are ye and sons of the Most High (Elyon) are ye all, and are as the ministering angels, which die not and yet after this great thing ye request to die, then die as man ye shall, even as the First Man (Adam) whom I commanded one commandment for to do and he should live and be for Eternity, as it is said (Gen 3): for the man was as one of us. And also: and created God the man in his own image, to live and be as he [God] is, but he [Adam] transgressed and nullified my decree, and ate from the tree, and I said unto him: for dust thou art.
So too are ye, as I said: gods are ye, yet have injured yourselves as man, so verily as man shall ye die.
ראו עצה, שיעץ עליהם הקדוש ברוך הוא ומיד קלקלו העצה מ' יום, לכך נאמר (משלי א): ותפרעו כל עצתי.
אמר להם הקב"ה: אני אמרתי, שאין אתם חוטאים ותהיו חיים וקיימים כמותי, כמו שאני חי וקיים לעולם ולעולמי עולמים.
(תהלים פב) אני אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כולכם, כמלאכי השרת, שאין מתים ובקשתם אחר הגדולה הזאת למות, אכן כאדם תמותון כאדם הראשון שצויתי אותו מצוה אחת, שיעשה אותה ויהיה חי וקיים לעולם, שנאמר (בראשית ג): הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו.
וכן: ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו, שיהיה חי וקיים כמותו, והוא חבל מעשיו ויבטל גזירתי, ואכל מן האילן, ואמרתי לו: כי עפר אתה.
אף אתם, אני אמרתי: אלהים אתם חבלתם עצמכם כאדם, אכן כאדם תמותון.

Bamidbar Rabbah, Parashat Hameraglim (16:24).

This tradition appears in the middle of a discussion on the misconduct of the 10 spies sent out by Moses, and how god's children frequently overturn God's counsel.

Greeks in the Kingdom of Judah

2010-03-17T19:04:00.000-07:00

The references for this post come from Scythopolis - a Greek City in Eretz Israel written by Gideon Fuks and published by Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi in 1983. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi is one of the most respectable academic publishing houses in Israel.
The book is somewhat dated, since more information has come to light and old assumptions have been reconsidered, but this is the most concise, accessable work I have a copy of. It is more than enough to show how the world of ancient Judah was far more polyglot than is popularly thought.
The author states that certain aspects of the Greek way of life were known to the inhabitants of Coele-Syria before Alexander the Great conquered the region in 332 BC. Fuks uses Coele-Syria loosely, to refer to everything from Damascus to Judea, inclusive.
He mentions Yigal Yadin's theory that some of the ostraca (pottery shards used for writing) from Arad, a biblical fortress in the south of Judah (which fortress at one point even had a temple), ostraca dating to the 7th century BC, are Greek.
Several ostraca from the same site in the 6th century refer to Chithtites, in all probability Aegean mercenaries employed by King Josiah. At least that is the explanation offered by the archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni.
He also considered the large amount of Greek pottery shards in Mesad Heshavyahu (a fort just north of Ashdod/Azotus) indicative of a further mercenary garrison employed by Josiah.
Several sites have revealed Greek pottery from as early as the 9th c. BC.
From the 7th c. onwards the amount increases.
The author notes that these finds are especially prevalent in layers from the middle of the 6th c. From about the same time come a few Greek coins as well.
The eminent archaeologist and scholar William F. Albright concluded that there were several minor Greek settlements along the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. It should be pointed out that the evidence isn't conclusive (rarely is in archaeology).
The author concludes that although it is hard to measure the Greek influence on the region, it certainly was aware of the Greeks, and Alexander's conquest did not entail a complete culture shock. Of course, the change Hellenism wrought upon all aspects can hardly be overstated, but Greek influence had been slowly creeping in for centuries.
To the above can also be added the presence of the Philistines and other Aegean peoples, as well as the Phoenicians, who had close contacts with the Greeks.

Joseph Smith and the Beginning

2010-01-19T09:05:00.000-08:00

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time.*

Jospeh Smith, in what has become known as the King Follett Discourse, was not the first to wrestle with the first three Hebrew words of Genesis- Bereishit bara Elohim. בראשית ברא אלהים

The usual translation is in the begining God created, but if rendered in a strict linear sequence the phrase reads in the begining created God (or gods). It is no longer clear that God is the subject rather than the object.
The rest of the verse should have cleared it up.
את השמים ואת הארץ
Et hashamayim ve'et haaretz (the heavens and the earth).
When a definite noun (here indicated by the prefix 'hey') is put into accusative, the particle 'et' is used to denote that. The rest of the sentence would be nonsensical if Elohim was the direct object and not the subject.
The fact that not much attention was paid to the rest of the verse surprises me, considering that Rabbi Akiva stressed the importance of each and every word and letter in the Torah, especially 'et', but more on that later.

The Babylonian Talmud (t. Megilah 9a) preserves a tradition about the 72 elders commisioned by Ptolemy of Egypt to translate the Torah (or Pentateuch) into Greek.
Each was placed in a separate house (or compartment, or room) and instructed separately to produce a translation. By a miracle from the Lord every translator translated certain difficult and controversial passages exactly as the others did.
The first passage was Genesis 1:1 which was rendered as God created in the begining.
That the Septuagint actually preserves the same order as the Hebrew is neither here nor there. This talmudic statement was a means of reinforcing a certain reading of the scriptures. In the case of Genesis 1:1 the reading was that God was the creator, not the created.

Purely speculative on my part, but I suspect that the story in the Babylonian Talmud was directed in part towards those who might be influenced by the creation accounts of the Mandaeans, a major 'gnostic' religion (though that term is not entirely accurate) in the western part of the Sassanian Empire. The Mandaeans were apparently often at odds with the large Jewish communities in the empire. The sages probably feared that improper readings of Genesis 1:1 would lead to dualism, or to a belief in something other than god being the source of creation.

Back to Genesis. The Masoretes, early medieval scholars who compiled grammatical rules for reading the text of the Hebrew Bible seem to have dealt with the problem presented by the opening sentence of Genesis through their system of cantillation marks. In an age where few people were more than semi-literate and even fewer had access to books, one would listen to the scriptures as they were read aloud in the synagogue. The scriptures weren't merely read from, but rather, were chanted, primarily as an aide to memorising the text. The Masoretes sought to systemise this chant, by creating set systems of what are known as cantillation marks. They are those little marks and signs which appear to clutter up the pages of the Hebrew Bible. They show the proper intonation, when to pause, when to lengthen the word, what to emphasise, and so on. They are an elaborate system of audible punctuation, which allows for ideas to be highlighted musically.
By a proper marking of the verses, problems like that of Genesis 1:1, ideally, would have no occasion to arise.

I said earlier that I was bewildered by the lack of serious attention given to 'et' in the context of Genesis 1:1, particularly because it formed an important part of r. Akiva's system for interpreting the scriptures. I should say though that it was used, bot not in connection with who created whom. Akiva's teacher, r. Nahum of Gamzo was apparently the chief proponent of this system, and even when Akivah innovated it, he always gave credit to his teacher.
The way the verse was used makes its absence in the aforementioned debate all the more intriguing.
In the Babylonian Talmud (m. Hagigah 12a) we find r. Akiva and r. Ishmael on a journey together. R. Ishmael was Akiva's contemporary, and in a certain sense, rival. He favoured the system whereby the Torah was given in the language of men, and thus one should focus on the plain meaning rather than spend too much time on what may be merely grammatical usage or literary forms.

[Said r. Ishmael to r. Akivah] you that attended Nahum of Gamzo for twenty and two years, the one who would expound every 'et' in the Torah, how would he interpret [et] the heavens and [et] the earth?
Replied he to him: were it the heavens and the earth I would have said the heavens- a title of the Holy One, blessed be he.
Since it says [et] the heavens and [et] the earth I would say that the heavens means indeed the heavens and the earth means indeed the earth.

But I digress. In Judaism, the predominant system became that of r. Akiva. Combined with his mystic inclinations (it is his interpretation of the Song of Songs which influenced Origen) it gave a legitimacy and impetus to later Jewish mystics, in their attempts to arrive at the hidden meaning of the scriptures.

In leaps and bounds from Akiva's generation (the middle of the 2nd century) we turn to the kabbalists of medieval Spain.

In brief, kabbalah was a Jewish mystical system originating in 12th century Provence, and heavily influenced by eastern gnosticism, but claiming far earlier origins.
It spread to Spain where it was further developed and spurred on by the mysterious appearance in the middle of 13th century Castile of a text called Sefer haZohar- the Book of the Radiance. It purports to be the mystical teachings of Rashbi (rabbi Shimeon bar-Yochai), a celebrated disciple of r. Akiva. It takes the form of an Aramaic commentary on the hidden meaning of the Torah, indeed, it is a mystical exploration of it and much more.
The Zohar became the central text of the kabbalah and a springboard for further speculation on the deeper mysteries of God.

For the kabbalists too, like for the earlier disciples of r. Akiva, each word, each letter, each sequence of the scriptures had a meaning. They appear to have taken that principle to lengths more radical than Nahum or Akiva appear to have attempted. Words not only became allusions to a mystical reality, but in some sense were that reality. In a way, the layout of the verse was a blueprint to the universe. As the late, great Gershom Scholem, the first scholar to tackle Jewish mysticism on its own terms, put it, "Kabbalists who differ in almost everything else are at one regarding language as something more precious than an inadequate instrument for contact between human beings...
Language in its purest form, that is, Hebrew, according to the Kabbalists, reflects the fundamental spiritual nature of the world; in other words, it has a mystical value. Speech reaches God because it comes from God.**"
Of particular significane to my topic is their belief that "man's common language... reflects the creative language of God. All creation- and this is an important principle of most Kabbalists- is, from the point of view of God, nothing but an expression of His hidden self that begins and ends by giving itself a name, the holy name of God, the perpetual act of creation. All that lives is an expression of God's language...
What I would like to emphasize is this peculiar interpretation, this enthusiastic appreciation of the faculty of speech which sees in it, and in its mystical analysis, a key to thee deepest secrets of the Creator and his creation.***"
Mysticism takes reality and seeks to transcend it to something deeper, to see beyond the mundane into the hidden and epic.
Elsewhere, Scholem has the following to say about the kabbalists and their relationship with the scriptures. "Mystics are men who by their own inner experience and their speculation concerning this experience discover new layers of meaning in their traditional religion... How cold their view of the world be brought into harmony with the view accepted by their own tradition? It is generally known that allegorical interpretations arise spontaneously whenever a conflict between new ideas and those expressed in a sacred book necessitates some form of compromise. What is true of allegorical interpretation is still more applicable to the specifically mystical interpretation of such texts...
Many productive minds among the Kabbalists found this [commentaries on the Bible] a congenial way of expressing their own ideas, while making them seem to flow from the words of the Bible. It is not always easy, in a given case, to determine whether the Biblical text inspired the exegesis or whether the exegesis was a deliberate device, calculated to bridge the gap between the old and the new vision by reading completely new ideas into the text. But this perhaps is to take too rationalistic a view of what goes on in the mind of a mystic. Actually the thought processes of mystics are largely unconscious, and they may be quite unaware of the clash between old and new which is of such passionate interest to the historian. They are thoroughly steeped in the religious tradition in which they have grown up, and many notions which strike a modern reader as fantastic distortions of a text spring from a conception of Scripture which to the mystic seems perfectly natural. For one thing that can be said with certainty about Kabbalists is this: they are, and do their best, to remain traditionalist.****"

What this has all been leading up to is the Zohar's interpretation of Genesis 1:1.
I'll follow Daniel Matt's excellent english translation of the strange and mysterious text.

Deep within the spark gushed a flow, splaying colors below, concealed within the concealed of the mystery of Ein Sof. It split and did not split its aura, was not known at all, until under the impact of splitting, a single, concealed, supernal point shone. Beyond that point, nothing is known, so it is called (Reshit), Beginning, first command of all.

The enlightened will shine like the (zohar), radiance, of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. (Daniel 12:3).

(Zohar), Radiance! Concealed of concealed struck its aura, which touched and did not touch this point. Then this beginning expanded, building itself a palace worthy of glorious praise. There it sowed seed to give birth, availing worlds. The secret is: Her stock is seed of holiness (Isaiah 6:13).

(Zohar), Radiance! Sowing seed for its glory, like the seed of fine purple silk wrapping itself within, weaving itself a palace, constituting its praise, availing all.

With this beginning, the unknown concealed one created the palace. This palace is called (Elohim), God. The secret is: (Bereshit bara Elohim), With beginning, ________ created God. (Genesis 1:1)

(Zohar), Radiance! From here all commands were created through the mysterious expansion of this point of concealed radiance. If created is written here, no wonder it is written: God created the human being in His image (Genesis 1:27).

HaZohar, parashat bereishit, 1:15a.
The Zohar, Pritzker edition, vol. 1, pp. 108-111.

The Zohar goes on to give many additional layers of meaning and interpretation to the verse, but interesting as they are, in order not to get bogged down, I won't provde them here, but refer all those interest to Daniel Matt's translation.

In brief, what is being described here is the process of creation through emanations, or as termed by the kabbalists- sefiroth.
The subject is one too vast to explain here in any detail or render it due justice, yet it is one of the most fundamental aspects of the kabbalah that at least something must be said of it.
A sefirah is one of the emanations of God. There are ten of them, all revealing a different aspect and all flowing into each other. They are usually structured as a tree or as Adam Hakadmon- the primeval man.

They are God's active power and attributes, they emanate from within him and seek to take on shape. They take on a different shape or attirbute at each level. Thow they flow out, they remain hidden deep inside and are the unity of God. They are how he reveals himself.
The kabbalist Abraham Herrera, in Shaar haShamayim (ca. 1620) gives a long description of the sefiroth. Here is an excerpt.

The sefiroth are emanations from the primal simple unity; making known His good which is without end; mirrors of His truth, which share in his nature and essence, which is above all, and that He is Himself the necesary being; structures of His wisdom and representations of His will and desire; receptacles of His strength and instruments of His activity; treasuries of His bliss and distributors of His grace and goodness; judges of His kingdom, bringig His judgement to light; and simultaneously the designations, attributes, and names of He who is highest of all and who encompasses all. These ten names are inextinguishable: ten attributes of His sublime glory and greatness;
And these are the ten utterances containg All.

Ein Sof (without end, infinite) is the concealed form of God. He sends out the emanations who create everything. Creation is not ex nihilo, it begins with a spark that sets out from Ein Sof that then reveals the rest of the sefiroth one after another.
The concealed of the concealed (or thhe hidden of hidden) is the first sefirah- Keter (crown).
From this is the first command IE the beginning.
The spark flashes to Hochma (wisdom) which flashes to Binah (understanding).
Hochma is the father, Binah is the mother, the rest of the sefiroth are their children.
By means of this beginning, Ein Sof creates Elohim, or the palace of Binah.
This is where Genesis 1:1 comes into play.
The prefix beith, which usually means 'in' can also mean 'with' or 'by means of'. So by means of beginning (reishit) Infinite created God.

This is a very different concept to that of Joseph's, though both use an eccentric interpretation of the text.

Joseph drops the 'beit' and the 'ith' leaving him with rosh- the head [of the gods]. The head creates the other gods and forms a divine council of gods, who are all separate beings.

The 'beit' and 'ith', on the other hand, are essential to the Zohar's concept of Ein Sof using an event termed the beginning in order to create a palace for one of his sefiroth and bring forth others, which are all manifestations of himself, not actual beings.

While it is entirely possible that Joseph somehow read or had been taught that portion of the Zohar which then led him to ponder the subject, due to the vast, fundamental difference, I find the notion highly unlikely. Far likelier in my opinion is that when reading the Hebrew it struck him as an evidence of a truth he already knew, so he used that verse to teach the concept of the council of the gods.

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.*****

Joseph had a difficult time trying to teach people truths they could not see with their understanding of the Bible.
In his own words:

The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, "If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason." How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains******

I find that the following quote supports my notion that this was something Joseph already had revealed him from above, yet in order to teach it he had to teach it from the Bible.

I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I [also] have the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony [James being Jacobus in the German Bible], were it not to back up the word rosh—the head, the Father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.*******

NOTES

*Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 348-349.
**Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, by Gershom Scholem, pp. 17.
***ibid, pp. 17-18.
****On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, by Gershom Scholem, pp. 32-33.
***** Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 349-350.
******ibid, pp. 349.
*******ibid.

A Parable on Repentance

2010-01-07T13:02:00.000-08:00

From a classic midrash, the Pesikta Rabbati:

Return, O Israel unto the Lord thy God. (Hosea 14:2)
A king's son was at a distance of a hundred days' journey from his father. Said his friends to him, "Return yo your father." He said to them, "I cannot." His father sent to him and said, "Go as far as you are able, and I shall come the rest of the way to you." Thus, the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Israel: (Malachi 3:7) Return unto me, and I will return unto you.

Pesikta Rabbati, Shuvah Israel.

Mikveh Israel, or what Makes Israel Pure?

2009-12-17T16:00:00.000-08:00

The Mishnah, the rabbinic guide to matters of halakha (legal regulations and requirement to do with the Law of Moses), contains a tractate describing the high priest's preparations for the Day of Atonement, when he would offer up a sin-offering on behalf of all Israel.
It closes with a reminder, attributed to r. Akiva, of who it is who actually makes Israel clean.

How fortunate you are, O Israel! Before whom are you made clean? Who is it that makes you clean? Your Father that is in heaven! As it is said (Ezek 36:25) "And I will pour clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean"; it says also (Jer 17:13), "the mikveh of Israel is the Lord"- even as a mikveh makes clean those who are unclean, so the Holy One, blessed be He, makes Israel clean.
Mishnah, t. Yoma, 8:7.

The word in bold is usually translated in English as hope, but it was seen as an allusion to the practice of ritual bathing, which was done in what was termed a mikveh. The association is further strengthened by the rest of the verse, which calls the Lord the fountain of living waters. Living water was the essential component in the mikveh, without it one could not become clean.
I'm not too sure that the wordplay isn't Jeremiah's, he certainly picked an unusual form of the word hope.
Whilst actions were paramount in Judaism, the sages recognised that it was God who made them efficacious. In that respect, there was not that big a difference between them and the early Christians.

Man, Why dost Thou Sleep?

2009-12-15T08:34:00.000-08:00

The days leading up to Yom Hakippurim (the Day of Atonement) are spent in seeking forgiveness from one's neighbours and from the Lord.
There is a special liturgy for that period, known as slichot- asking for forgiveness.
In the old Sephardic Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem the gabay (one of the synagogue clerks) would before dawn walk down the winding cobblestone leading alleys to every home in the congregation, rapping on windows to call the men for the slichot.
When they entered the synagogue they were greeted by the phrase man, why dost thou sleep? Arise and read the tachanunim (pleadings, a prayer).
That phrase is part of an anonymous piyut (paraliturgical song), but drawn from the Old Testament.
In the book of Jonah, Jonah has run away from the Lord's errand (to call people to repentance) and taken passage on a ship bound for who knows where. A storm arises, which meant almost certain doom to passengers and crew on board ancient ships such as these. Not the sturdiest things ever to sail.

The sailors cry unto theirs gods in prayer and begin lightening the load, throwing things overboard, things such as their stone anchors.

Jonah, oddly enough, goes down below to take a nap. I suppose he could think of nothing better to do, certainly he wasn't going to pray to God if he had just ran away from him.
The captain finds Jonah, wakes him up and asks why is he sleeping instead of praying to his (Jonah's) god. The captain's words in Jonah 1:6 are very colloquial. What for you fell asleep? Wake up cry unto your God, maybe he'll come to his senses over us and we wont be lost (IE perish).

The heathen captain's words form the basis for this piyut.

Man, why dost thou sleep, arise and read the tachanunim
Pour out your conversation, seek forgiveness from the Lord of Lords
Wash and purify and do not tarry, before the days go by
And speedily run for help before (that is, from) He-Who-Dwells-on-High
From transgression and also from evil flee and fear disasters
Please heed those who know thy name, the faithful Israel
To thee My Lord is righteousness but to us shame

Stand as a man, be mighty and confess your sins
The Lord God seek with a heavy head (IE not lightly) to atone for transgressions
Because never is there any wonder hid from him
And every thing which is said is read before him
He-Who-Has-Mercy will have mercy on us as a father is merciful to his sons
To thee My Lord is righteousness but to us shame

בֶּן אָדָם מַה לְּךָ נִרְדָּם קוּם קְרָא בְּתַחֲנוּנִים
שְׁפֹךְ שִׂיחָה דְּרֹשׁ סְלִיחָה מֵאֲדוֹן הָאֲדוֹנִים
רְחַץ וּטְהַר וְאַל תְּאַחַר בְּטֶרֶם יָמִים פּוֹנִים
וּמְהֵרָה רוּץ לְעֶזְרָה לִפְנֵי שׁוֹכֵן מְעוֹנִים
וּמִפֶּשַׁע וְגַם רֶשַׁע בְּרַח וּפְחַד מֵאֲסוֹנִים
אָנָּא שְׁעֵה שִׁמְךָ יוֹדְעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֱמָנִים
לְךָ אֲדֹנָי הַצְּדָקָה וְלָנוּ בֹּשֶׁת הַפָּנִים

עֲמֹד כְּגֶבֶר וְהִתְגַּבֵּר לְהִתְוַדּוֹת עַל חֲטָאִים
יָהּ אֵל דְּרֹשׁ בְּכֹבֶד רֹאשׁ לְכַפֵּר עַל פְּשָׁעִים
כִּי לְעוֹלָם לֹא נֶעְלָם מִמֶּנּוּ נִפְלָאִים
וְכָל מַאֲמָר אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמַר לְפָנָיו הֵם נִקְרָאִים
הַמְרַחֵם הוּא יְרַחֵם עָלֵינוּ כְּרַחֵם אָב עַל בָּנִים
לְךָ אֲדֹנָי הַצְּדָקָה וְלָנוּ בֹּשֶׁת הַפָּנִים

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws3Czi7IgeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U0y4cURos8

The piyut is a call for man to wake up, not from any physical sleep, but from a spiritual sleep, and plead with God for forgiveness of sins. Prayers are not to be half-hearted affairs. In language taken from Lamentations 2:19 one is to pour out one's heart like water before God.
Forgiveness is not something one merely asks for. Forgiveness needs to be sought out.
Wash away sins like you would dirt or any other filth, and make yourself clean, that is, pure, before the Lord. This has to be done now, before the days go by and you find that Yom Kippur is here, when the book of life is sealed, and you left it too late.
When you turn to the Lord for help, run towards him.
The word transgression is a translation of pesha, a sin commited specifically against God. It appears in the words of the psalmist (Ps 19:13) pleading with the Lord to keep him from sin.
Don't just leave sin and transgression alone, run from them, lest disaster should occur. In Jewish thought a disaster can mean any divine retribution.
The first verses closes with a plea to the Lord to heed the prayers of those who know his name, another phrase from Psalms, Psalm 9:11.
The final line of both verses is borrowed from Daniel's prayer on behalf of Israel (Dan 9:7) "O lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces."
It is an admission of guilt.
Shame is a shorter and clearer way of translating the idiom bosheth panim.
In the 2nd verse the audience is told to be a man and be mighty in confessing sin.
The word here for man is not ben adam (son of Adam) as it was in the first verse, but gever. Gever implies manliness, which is courage and strength. The word used for be mighty is hitgabar, which draws from the same root as gever, and also means to overcome something.
Seeking for our sins to be covered (atoned for) is not something to be done lightly or flippantly, but with coved rosh, a phrase which does not work in English. The closest approximation is a grave head.
I think that the implication is also not to seek him if you don't mean it or do not intend on being honest, as the piyut continues, every word which is spoken is read before the Lord.
Before adding the obligatory admission of guilt, the poet closes with a statement of faith in and praise for the Lord's vritues.
He will be merciful as a father unto his children.
This echoes verse 13 of Psalm 103, which in itself is a thanksgiving for the Lord's forgiveness.
Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

Now back to Jonah.

The early sages (B. Talmud m. Megila 34a) had established that Jonah should be read during the mincha (the afternoon prayer services) on Yom Kippur.
Rabbi Yochana said that it was because every time the Lord' power is shown, so is his meekness. That is to say, that he is not a God of awful thunderings and threatenings, but one of love and mercy.

In the 14th century, Rabbi Yehudah ibn Shuayib delivered a sermon to his congregation.
The prophecy of Jonah son of Amitai teaches that the Lord is exalted, his mercies are over all his creations, even over the nations of the world, all the more so over Israel... From this thing we learn that the Lord is full of mercy, even though they were heathens who did a great wickedness, so all the more reason that he will forive and accept us in repentance, his own people and the flock of his hand.
Yehudah ibn Shuayib: Derashot Al HaTorah.

The book of Jonah has several examples of proper humility and repentance. The sailors call upon God, though they never knew him, yet do not demand to be saved.
The king of Nineveh leads his people in penitential fasting and prayer, yet does not demand that the Lord save them.
Jonah calls upon the lord from the belly of the great fish, thanking and praising the Lord for his mercy, vowing to do what he has been told.
Jonah's psalm alludes to far more than being saved from drowning, it is also an allegory of his deliverance from hell.
The ancient Hebrew concept of hell was sheol, a place in the deeps.
In Jonah 2:2 he states that out of the belly of sheol cried I and thou heardest my voice. In verse 6 he continues the imagery of sheol. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

The underlying message of Jonah is that the Lord is merciful to all his creations (even the animals), no least to the self-centered and petulant Jonah.
This idea is further developed by Leah Frankel in an article from the Hebrew journal mayanot.
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/trayasar/frenkel.htm

The Iron Beast

2009-12-14T10:10:00.000-08:00

I've been listening to a song by the late Meir ariel, an Israeli artist, our very own troubador.
Though a secular Jew, kibbutz-born and raised, he still drew a lot from his roots and the following song is an interesting example of that.
It is based on Daniel's vision of the four beasts representing four kingdoms of the world, but applies the fourth one to our day. It is a sort of modern midrash, it employs the same principles, so those with an interest in that sort of thing will find this a useful excersize as well as a powerful song.
Using Daniel's vision, he conjurs up images of a world dominated by political correctness, television, computers and cell phones.
The song was recorded in 1994, and things have not improved since.
Meir Ariel's Hebrew was very rich, so my English translation pales in comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_RpLtzgbTM&feature=related

The age of metal, the era of iron
Reminds of a beast from the vision of Daniel
The beast of metal the beast of iron
Is so similar that I take fright...

In year one of Beltshazzar king of Babel
A vision in a dream did Daniel see
And from the sea rose up four great beasts
And each beast represents a kingdom in the world
And the fourth is different and stranger than its predecessors
Frightening and fearsome and aggressive in its behaviour
With big teeth of iron it eats and shreds
And the rest is trampled by claws of bronze
And she has ten horns and the smallest rises and grows out of them
And as it were eyes of men
And a mouth speaking greath, boasting
Its end will be to be slain and destroyed

The beast of metal the beast of iron
A strange kingdom seen by Daniel
The age of metal the era of iron
So similar that I take fright

All these toothy towers taking a bite out of the blue
All these spikes in graphs
Iron as a crocodile, metal as a mule,
iron as a bird, metal giraffe
iron coated by cunning metal
with a flow of electronis, injected with data
the face of a maid, minds her own business
With the largest network of double agents
All these computers
Which lull to sleep, which tear out
Our fingers from our world

The age of metal, the era of iron
that fourth one seen by Daniel
In night vision in Babel
Has it now come back?

Shreds, tramples, destroys, closes tight together,
And markets it as freedom of speech
Sucks and spits, uses and throws
A bone to investigative reporters of public rights
Horns controlling far, eyes everywhere
A mouth that ceases not to utter
Says what to want, how to think
What to be, what to do and how to behave
And the masses, the masses, half-automated
Struck by silver hammers
Run and run, driven by fast moving and shining images
Wrapped in a declaration of conditions and rights
High on progress and advancements
To work mindlessly and serve
to be used by and oil the
Beast of metal the beast of iron
It reaches everywhere with its appendages
The reign of metal the kingdom of iron
Men are bits of blood and her scales.

It is held that the fourth is Rome
It is held that Rome is Idumea
Just so or perhaps symbolically there is a quite a lot of Rome here today
This whole wide-world colloseum
With peep-holes into the ring
Showing gladiators which are beasts of prey
And blood swamps the subconscious
Change the channel, switch the channel
Wander as you will throughout the world
And think that you are far from all that
It doesn't affect you it is over there
But in the meantime what happens is that
You are another one shooting and shooting
Becoming used to eliminating by a click of a button
Another beast of prey a gladiator

The age of metal, the era of iron
Reminds of a beast from the vision of Daniel
The beast of metal the beast of iron
Is so similar that I take fright...

Chaze haveit bedayin min kal milaya ravrevata di karna memalela
Chaze haveit ad di ktilat cheivta vehuvad gishma veyehivat likdat esha
Ethkeriyat ruchi ana Daniel vechezvey rashi yevahalunani......
(I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me...)

***

תקופת המתכת, עידן הברזל
מזכיר לי חיה מחזון דניאל
חיית המתכת חיית הברזל
כל כך דומה שאני מתבהל...

בשנת אחת לבלטשאצר מלך בבל
חזון בחלום ראה דניאל
ותעלינה ארבע חיות גדולות מהים
וכל חיה מסמלת מלכות בעולם
והרביעית שונה ומשונה מקודמותיה
מפחידה ואימתנית ותקיפה בתנועותיה
עם שיני ברזל גדולות אוכלת וגורסת
והשאר בציפורני נחושת דורסת
ועשר קרנים לה והקטנה מתוכם צומחת וגדלה
וצצות בה כעיני בני אדם
ופה מדבר גדולות מתרברב
סופה להתקטל ולהתחרב

חיית המתכת חיית הברזל
מלכות משונה שחזה דניאל
תקופת המתכת עידן הברזל
כל כך דומה שאני מתבהל...

כל המגדלים המשוננים האלה הנוגסים בתכלת
כל השפיצים האלה בגרפים
ברזל כתנין, מתכת כפרד
ברזל כציפור, מתכת ג'ירפה
ברזל מצופה מתכת ערמומית
מוזרמת אלקטרוניקה, מוזרקת נתונים
פרצוף של שפחה, לא עושה ענינים
עם הרשת הכי גדולה של סוכנים כפולים
כל המחשבים האלה
המרדימים האלה, העוקרים האלה
את אצבעותינו...מעולמנו...

תקופת המתכת, עידן הברזל
הזו הרביעית שראה דניאל
בחזיונות לילה אז בבבל
האם זה עכשיו שוב מתגלגל...?

גורסת, דורסת, הורסת, הודקת,
ומשווקת את זה כחופש דיבור
מוצצת ויורקת, משתמשת וזורקת
עצם לתחקירני זכות הציבור
קרנים שולטות רחוק, עיניים בכל מקום,
פה לא מפסיק ללהג
אומר מה לרצות, מה לחשוב,
מה להיות, מה לעשות ואיך להתנהג
והמונים המונים חצי אוטומטי
הלומי פטישוני כסף סמויים
רצים רצים מפוקדי ריצודים מהבהבים
עטופים במגילה של תנאים וזכויות
מסוממי קידמה והתפתחויות
לעבוד בלי דעת ולשרת
לשמש ולשמן את
חיית המתכת חיית הברזל
לכל מקום יגיעו יונקותיה
שלטון המתכת מלכות הברזל
בני אדם, טיפות של דם וקשקשיה

מקובל שהרביעית היא רומי
מקובל שרומי היא אדום
ממש כך או באופן סמלי יש די הרבה מרומי היום
כל הקולוסיאום הכל-עולמי הזה
עם חלונות ההצצה אל הזירה
המלאה גלדיאטורים שהם חיות טרף
ודם מציף את תת ההכרה
תחליף תחנות תמיר ערוצים
תשוטט כאוות נפשך בעולם
תחשוב שאתה מחוץ לכל זה
לא נוגע לך זה שם
אבל בינתיים בעצם מה שקורה זה
שאתה עוד אחד שיורה ויורה
מתרגל לחסל בלחיצת כפתור
חיית טרף גלדיאטור

תקופת המתכת, עידן הברזל
מזכיר לי חיה מחזון דניאל
חיית המתכת, חיית הברזל
כל כך דומה שאני מתבהל...

חזה הוית באדין מן קל מליא רברבתא די קרנא ממללה,
חזה הוית עד די קטילת חיותא והובד גשמה ויהיבת ליקדת אשא.
אתכרית רוחי אנה דניאל וחזוי ראשי יבהלנני...

And We All Shine On

2009-12-07T07:21:00.000-08:00

In the Midrash Tehilim (or the Shocher Tov), which is a commentary on Psalms, there is an interesting section, which compares men to stars.

Praise ye him, sun and moon; praise him all ye stars of light (Ps 148:3).
Who are the sun and the moon? The patriarchs and matriarchs, who are compared (meshulot here could also be in similitude of) to the sun and moon, as it is said, (Gen 37:9) behold the sun and the moon. Who are these stars of light, these are the righteous, as it is said (Dan 12:3), they that turn many to righteousness as the stars, so thus it is said praise him all ye stars of light. From this you learn that everyone has a star in the heavens, and it shines according to his deeds

From Promise to Redemption

2009-12-02T07:52:00.000-08:00

In the early 1990s, Mom took us kids with her when she volunteered for the summer at the Sepphoris dig. Sepphoris was a large town just north of Nazareth and during New Testament times was the capital of the Galilee and one of the wealthiest, busiest centers of the north. One of the ways of gauging how prosperous the town was is the large amount of high quality mosaics found in the town.
Mosaics were an expensive affair. First, the right kinds of stone had to be found, then broken down into tiny pieces and shaped into squares. This, naturally, was a laborious process.
The pieces then had to be glued to the floor or wall according to the pattern. It took a good eye and an active imagination in order to design the pattern, if more than mere geometrical designs.
One of the most interesting mosaics discovered in Sepphoris was that of the synagogue floor. In a far more sophisticated form, it resembled a subject matter in synagogue mosaics found elswhere in the Galilee. It dates to the Byzantine period, between the 5th or 6th centuries.
The archaeologists at the site dubbed it From Promise to Redemption.
Lets see why.
The bottom panel, most of which, sadly, did not survive, depicts the angels promising Sarah a child, which represents the promise given to Abraham that he would be a great nation. The next two panels are of the Akedah- Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac(technically, however, akedah means the binding). The only part that has been preserved in any detail is a depiction of the two servants and the ass. Valuable pictorial data, of course, but one dearly wishes that we could have seen how they pictured Abraham (in priestly vestments, no doubt).
The Akedah- a central theme in Jewish thought- provides the ultimate example of faith and obedience, the two concepts being inseperable in Judaism.
The middle panel depicts the four seasons (as four maidens), the zodiac and the chariot of the sun. These represent life, but also fate.
Hellenistic astrology exerted a great influence on Jews in general and the sages in particular. It held that the course of one's life was already known, and that through studying the signs and the stars and natal charts derived from them, could be foreseen and predicted. The term horoscope, in fact is a Greek term meaning hour marker.
This science (ths it was considered then) was immensely popular among all strata of society. The sages, like the true philosophers that they were, found it fascinating, but made some changes to fit in with their worldview. Whilst the course of a man's life was predetermined, it could be lengthened or shortened according to the choices he makes. One's life is in one's own hands. Rabbinical literature has many accounts of the sages interacting with astrologers, the latter making predictions of sudden death, the former foiling them by their piety.
In Midrash Tanhuma, an early collection of midrashic material (a midrash is an excursus on a scriptural or theological theme) there is an interesting midrash on the zodiac, contained within the chapter dealing with Deuteronomy 32.

A man is like the twelve mazalot (signs of the zodiac). When he is first born he is like the lamb, but grows in might as the bull (or ox) does. When he grows up he becomes twins, that is complete, and the evil urge grows within him. At first he is as weak as a crab, but later, as he grows, becomes mighty like the lion. And if he sins he becomes as the virgin, and if he continues to sin, is weighed in the balance (the scales). If he holds fast in his rebellion he is brought down to the lowermost Sheol (Hell), Sheol and Gehennom, as a scorpion is flung to the ground and to the deep ditches. And if he returns (that is, repents) he is shot out [of Sheol] as an arrow from the bow...
Immediately he becomes soft and clean as a baby goat, and is purified as in the hour of his birth, and is washed with pure water from a bucket, and increases in happiness as a fish is happy in water, thus he immerses himself at all times in rivers of balsam, and in milk and oil and honey, and eats of the fruit of the tree of life.
Midrash Tanhuma, Haazinu A.

The upper panels depict temple worship, sacrifice and offerings.
The second-to-last panel shows the door into the temple, flanked by symbols of Israel- the menorah, the citron, the lulav (palm leaves) and the shofar, or ram's horn. Not only are these symbols religious, they are also symbols of sovereignity.
In the uppermost panel are two lions flanking a wreath. I'm going to speculate that the wreath represents God, and the lions his power, or by extension, his messengers. They each hold a decapitated bull's head, a symbol of power and triumph. They also appear to be on some sort of cloud.
What the mosaic to me seems to represent is that the fulfilment of a promise is based on our own actions.
Granted, these interpretations are but one possibility of many, and we may never know for sure what was the original intent of those who designed the sepphoris synagogue mosaic.

Stories in Stone, pt. 1; Be Not as the Lintel

2009-11-29T06:25:00.000-08:00

This post, series actually, is by way of tribute to my father.
What I intend on accomplishing here is, in a manner of speaking, to bring stones to life. As much as I love archaeology, it can be unbelievably dull to tour archaeological site after archaeological site, if all you see are endless heaps of ruins. Stones do have stories to tell, and fortunately for us, some were even written down. This series will provide those stories, drawn from the primary sources. Words and stones will come together, illuminating the past in the proccess.
After each post in this series, there will be another one of travel instructions for those who wish to visit the sites themselves.

One of the most precious finds for archaeologists, short of a text, is a name.
Especially if said name also appears in one of our written sources.
Such a name lends crdeibility to the account, as well as bringing us one step closer to the past.

Soon after the Six-Day War, Israeli archaeologists conducted a survey of the recently captured Golan Heights. Among the sites visited was the abandoned village of Daburiye, situated near a steep ravine with a pair of spectacular waterfalls.
The village had been founded sometime during the early 20th century by Bedouins of the Naaraneh tribe, who had abandoned their semi-nomadic way of life. when they built their village they did not start from scratch, but utilised many of the black basalt stones which they found laying around- the remains of a far older settlement, one which dated back almost 2000 years.
When the archaeologists examined the walls of the mosque, they made an astonishing discovery. A decorated basalt lintel (see the image above) depicting two eagles gripping a wreath by their beaks. Inside the wreath was a Hebrew inscription which reads as follows. "Zeh beit midrasho shelrabi Eliezer Hakapar." This is the beit midrash (religious academy) of Rabbi Eliezer Hakapar.
This discovery had twofold significance. First, it was the first evidence outside the writings of the sages of the beit midrash, and, second, only one other inscription bearing the name of a tanna (a sage from about AD 70-200) had ever been found, and that was in Beit-Shearim.

So who was this Eliezer Hakapar?

One of the last tannaim, and a contemporary of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi (or the Patriarch as it is commonly rendered in English), the great codifier of Jewish law, the exact meaning of Eliezer's surname is unknown.
Among the possible meanings we find either a tar-maker, an importer of cyprian wine, a producer of pickled caper buds, or an inhabitant of Kafira (in Hebrew p and f are interchangable), a tiny village only a few kilometres north of Daburiye.
Whilst the latter option is the likeliest (though it would not surprise me if the village wasn't named after the numerous capers in the region), I find the idea of his having been a wine dealer intriguing, given his many statements in the Talmuds on the subject of wine.
My favourite is enter wine, exit secret (nichnas yayin, yatza sod). A caution to all drinkers, but also some very clever wordplay. One of the many things the Jews adopted from the Greeks was the practice of gemtaria or numerology. Each letter has a numeric value. Wine amounts to seventy, the exact same sum of secret.
Eliezer was an outspoken critic of asceticism and the nazarite lifestyle, prefering people lead a rounded life, enjoying what bounty God has given. An important part of this bounty in Eliezer's mind was wine.
His other big concern was avoiding contention, pride, and anything else that drives away peace and serenity.

Avoid contention (or accusations), lest you contend with others and continue to sin.
t. Derekh Eretz, 7,13.

Love peace and hate disputes (or divisions).
t. Derekh Eretz, 60,13.

Rabbi Eliezer was possesed of a deep love for the land of Israel, a quality shared by my father, who passed it on to us, his children. One of my father's favourite places is actually the very same area where Eliezer lived. My dad fell in love with the central Golan during his military service, and it seems like during my childhood, we would go there at least once a month, if not more.

The Central Golan was home to some of the finest stonecutters of the late classical period. They carved intricate designs in base-relief into the hard basalt, and Daburiye is home to some superb examples.
Rabbi Eliezer's tour-de-force is taken from the daily lives of these Jewish stonecutters. It is recorded in Avot Derabi Natan (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan), a collection of maxims and stories relating to the early sages.

Be not as the topmost doorpost, which no hand can touch, neither be as the lintel against which men strike their heads, neither as the raised step over which men stumble,
but be as the threshold which all cross over. The building crumbles, yet the threshold remains.
Avot D. Natan version A, chp. 26.

Rabbi Eliezer cautions people not to be aloof and unreachable, neither to be vain and contentious, which he compares to a highly decorated lintel, but because the doors were set low, people would often hit their heads against it. We should also be careful not to be a stumbling block. Instead we ought to be humble as a threshold, helping others to rise higher. When the proud and vainglorious fail, the humble will remain. The ruins of Daburiye provide plenty of examples of Eliezer's parable.

My father used this story quite effectively in a Sunday school lesson on serving others. This is the illustration he drew for it.

Eliyahu HaNavi- Elijah the Prophet; part 3: Elijah's Keys

2009-11-25T21:44:00.000-08:00

The aspect which probably interests LDS about Elijah above all others, is, I think, the keys of the priesthood.

The question is, are there any echoes of this in Jewish tradition?
The answer happens to be a yes.

Rabbi Yochanan says four keys has the Holy One, Blessed be He not handed over to any creature in the world, and these are they, the key of rain, the key of prosperity, the key of the graves and the key of fertility (as in child-bearing), but when they were needed he has given them to the righteous. They key of rain to Elijah, as it is said (1 Kings 17:1 "there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.

Eliyahu HaNavi- Elijah the Prophet; part 2: Elijah's Chair, or the Messenger of the Covenant

2009-11-25T15:56:00.000-08:00

Of all the events and scriptures associated with Elijah, the one that left the deepest impression upon the Jews is Malachi 4:5-6 (or 3:23-24 if you are using the masoretic text).

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Elijah was identified with the messenger of the covenant in 3:1, not only on the strengths of a logical comparison of the last two verses with the first one, but also because of Elijah's zealous struggle to uphold the covenant (1 Kings 19:14). This was the opinion of the early sages.
Based on Malachi 3, they saw the role of the messenger of the covenant as one of resolving religious disputes among the faithful, upholding the oppressed, punishing the oppressors, restoring things to their proper place and order, and puting down contention.

Rabbi Yehoshua said:
I have received this from Raban Yochanan ben Zakay (Ribaz), who heard it from his teacher, who heard it from his teacher, as true as the instruction from Moses at Sinai, that Elijah comes not to defile or purify, to draw near or push away, but to push away those who are near because of strength of arms (violence, threats, coercion, strongarming, corruption, that sort of thing), and to draw near those pushed away because of strength of arms....
Rabbi Shimon says: to resolve disputes...
And the sages say: not to push away and not to draw near, but to bring peace to the world, as it says: "I will send you Elijah the prophet", and concludes with "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers ".
Mishnah, m. Eduyot 8,7.

We now reach, in a round-about way, the subject of this post. Elijah's seat.

In chapter 29 of Pirkei Derabi Eliezer, a psuedopigraphic work dated by most scholars to sometime around the Muslim conquests, several legends are related regarding circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between the Lord and his people, and it was practiced by all the house of Israel until they split int two kingdoms. The kingdom of Ephraim (Israel) stopped its citizens from circumcising, which caused the covenant to be broken. Elijah arose in a fit of jealous (zealous, the two words in Hebrew are identical) rage, and swore the heavens to let no dew or rain fall upon the land.
As a result jezebel tries to kill Elijah. He prayed unto the Lord, who asked him if he were better than his fathers, listing many, from Jacob to David, who were forced to flee for their lives. Elijah gets the not-so-subtle hint, and takes off into the wilderness. Here the Lord again speak to him, Elijah says that he has been zealous for the sake of the covenant, and the Lord replies that he has ever been zealous.

By your life (an oath), Israel shall not circumsize a soul unless you behold it with your own eyes.

As a result, the sages made a seat of honour for the angel of the covenant, as it is said (Mal 3:1): and the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in cometh. The God of Israel shall hasten and bring in our lifetime a messiah to comfort us.

In Sephardic and Eastern synagogues stands a special chair, Elijah's chair.
Whenever a boy is circumcised, before being given to the godfather, he is placed in that chair, to be held by Elijah, who is present, but unseen.
I myself was circumcised (whole other story, for a different post, at a later date), it was in a Morrocan synagogue, and I too was placed in that seat.
Personally, I rather like the symbolism. It is through the agency of Elijah that we, as latter-day saints, are able to enter into some of the most precious and most sacred of covenants with the Lord, covenants that truly turn children's hearts to their fathers.

Eliyahu HaNavi- Elijah the Prophet; part 1: Elijah's Cup

2009-11-25T06:30:00.000-08:00

A good friend of the family's recently had a question about Elijah's role in Judaism, so I thought I would make an overview of it the first blog topic, a series, rather.
This one is geared more for LDS readers, as our friend is LDS, but the information should be of interest to all.

Every Passover, before the passage pour out thy wrath upon the heathen (Psalm 79:6-7) is read, an extra cup- usually the fanciest one- is placed on the table and filled with wine. None of the guests or family touch it, and the door often is opened. This cup is for Elijah the Prophet, who according to legend wanders around the houses of the Jews at Passover time. The origins of this legend are unclear, one theory is that it developed among Jews in Christian lands. In the Middle Ages (and in Eastern Europe until quite recently), Passover was not only a solemn and joyous occasion, but also one of fear and trepidation. This was when blood libels were made against the Jews. A Christian belief was that Jews lured Christian children and murdered them, using their blood to make matzahs (the Passover unleavened bread). This was used to whip the mob into a frenzy of righteous indignation, which resulted in severe violence against the Jews and their property. Among the jews the legend developed that Elijah was sent to protect them from the rioters and so wandered around their homes, much like a policeman patroling his beat. The door was opened to make sure that there were no spies lurking, eavesdropping, or that no dead bodies were placed by their homes.
This legend became intertwined with the tradition of Elijah's cup, which has its origins in an entirely different matter, that of the controversy of the five cups.

The theme of the Passover is salvation and redemption. The Exodus from Egypt is only the backdrop. Despite the repeated allusions tto the past, the focus is on the present and the future.
The Passover haggadah states that in every generation a man must see himself as being led out of Egypt, and must teach this to his sons too. The past is merely a reminder of what the future will be.
One of the Passover scriptures is Exodus 6:6-8:

Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments, and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
And I will bring you unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for an heritage: I am the Lord.

At the Passover, four cups are drunk, commemorating the four acts of salvation I marked in bold in that verse. A closer look will show that there are actually five acts. There should be five cups, but as this custom arose in Babylon at a time of exile, several of the Geonim (the spiritual leaders of Babylonian and most world Jewry from the 6th to 11th centuries) several were unsure of the propriety of drinking a cup commemorating being brought into the land, when they were not in it.
Following a sharp controversy, it was decided to settle on a compromise. Five cups could be poured, but only four were to be drunk. The fifth one was set aside for Elijah, meaning that when he would come again as the messenger of the covenant, to herald the Messiah, he would settle all disputes of Jewish law.

The Obligatory Introductory Post

2009-11-23T12:43:00.000-08:00

You are probably wondering who, what and why.
The who is Allen Hansen, a native born Israeli from the Galilee with a passion for history.
The what is a blog about ancient Judaism, the history of Israel, the Bible, Israeli and Jewish culture, and anything else that might on occasion catch my fancy.
I am also a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so some of my posts will be on matters of interest to LDS, while others will try and provide a source of information for LDS on Jewish subjects.
So, why did I pick this name and what does it mean?
Calba Savua, father-in-law of rabbi Akiva, was one of the wealthiest Jews before the great revolt. Calba Savua is a nickname deriving from an Aramaic saying which means as full, or satisfied, as a dog, because no one who would knock on his doors would ever leave empty-handed.
I hope that this blog will have something for everyone.