Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
More Irano-Judaica
R' Yaakov Elman has done a lot of work on the subject.
(See his article "Acculturation to elite Persian norms and modes of thought in the Babylonian Jewish community of late antiquity" in Netiot L' David - Prof. Dovid Halvni's Festschrift (which I happened to have read while sitting next to Prof. Halivni. I ought to have asked him of his opinion on the subject while I was there - Chaval Al D'Avdin.) See also his article in Printing the Talmud which is online.)
There is a full dissertation on the subject:
"Dashtana -- 'ki derekh nashim li'": A study of the Babylonian rabbinic laws of menstruation in relation to corresponding Zoroastrian texts
by Secunda, Samuel Israel, Ph.D., Yeshiva University, 2008, 502 pages (Advisor:Y. Elman)
This is the abstract:
For over half a century, academic scholarship of the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) has focused primarily on the dynamics of this work's internal textual (lower and higher criticism) and hermeneutical phenomena. This dissertation participates in a recent scholarly endeavor to consciously incorporate the Bavli's external, Sasanian Iranian context into talmudic research. By closely examaning the development of the Babylonian rabbinic laws of menstrual purity ( hilkhot niddah ) against corresponding Zoroastrian texts, I argue that rabbis and Zoroastrian priests were engaged in similar, sustained legal discussions that reconsidered (a) the role of religious authorities in determining the legal onset of menstrual impurity, (b) whether to delay purification rituals beyond the cessation of the menstrual flow, and (c) the place of menstruants in the home and society. In each of these cases, rabbinic and Zoroastrian sources share analogous legal trajectories that testify to a broader conversation that was taking place in Sasanian Iran. In addition, analysis of seven talmudic aggadic (non-legal) sources reveals a dynamic in which the rabbis were aware of the importance of menstrual purity amongst Persians and anxious about the legitimacy of certain rabbinic menstrual purity practices in light of Zoroastrian stringency. Consequently, the rabbis sought to assert the authoritativeness of the rabbinic system by imagining the Sasanian queen-mother consulting (and subsequently praising) a prominent fourth century talmudic sage in order consulting (and subsequently praising) a prominent fourth century talmudic sage in order to diagnose her bloodstains. In a different passage, the Bavli depicts an important talmudic sage verbally sparring with an anonymous "Zoroastrianized" heretic. The rabbinic sage claims that even spiritually weak Jews are uniquely equipped to withstand the temptations of violating the menstrual prohibitions. Finally, another Babylonian rabbinic sage claims that the Zoroastrian menstrual purity system is actually derived from the Jewish one since the Persian word for menstruation, dastan, can be traced to the biblical matriarch, Rachel. The parallel legal trajectories and the dynamic of rabbinic defensiveness in the face of Zoroastrian stringency all contribute to our understanding of the Bavli and its relationship with Sasanian Zoroastrianism.
Lest we become to carried away finding parallels (This is a general comment. U am certainly not referring to Prof. Secunda's exceelent disssertation.) it is worth quoting the following:
We may grant that we meet with Persian influence in the Jewish conception of angels, ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness, and in a few ethical sayings, etc. On the other hand, we can be certain that Persian business law did not influence the Jews; for the latter never came in contact with it!
The Relation of Jewish to Babylonian Law Author(s): H. S. Linfield Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 36, No. 1, (Oct., 1919), pp. 40-66
[As Prof. Secuda comments: "In any case, Linfield's comments from 1919 were made before significant work had been done on Sasanian civil law - which is collected primarily in a seventh century work, "The Book of a Thousand Judgments." See Elman's JSIJ article for an example of rabbinic discussion of Sasanian civil law.Of course in all of this we need to remember that the Bavli is built upon Palestinian material which is then (re)interpreted and (re)applied to new realities. uncovering so-called "Persian influences" is not just a matter of finding similar sounding laws in Zoroastrian texts, but of looking for simialr trajectories and the like."
Elman's JSIJ article can be found here. Certainly, the Persian Law influeneced the Talmudic law, in the same way that American law might affect an American Posek's Teshuvos. But it is only in the issues of magic,etc. that Zorastriansim would be the source for the Talmudic statement.]
See also Encycylopedia Iranica s.v. Talmud
(See his article "Acculturation to elite Persian norms and modes of thought in the Babylonian Jewish community of late antiquity" in Netiot L' David - Prof. Dovid Halvni's Festschrift (which I happened to have read while sitting next to Prof. Halivni. I ought to have asked him of his opinion on the subject while I was there - Chaval Al D'Avdin.) See also his article in Printing the Talmud which is online.)
There is a full dissertation on the subject:
"Dashtana -- 'ki derekh nashim li'": A study of the Babylonian rabbinic laws of menstruation in relation to corresponding Zoroastrian texts
by Secunda, Samuel Israel, Ph.D., Yeshiva University, 2008, 502 pages (Advisor:Y. Elman)
This is the abstract:
For over half a century, academic scholarship of the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) has focused primarily on the dynamics of this work's internal textual (lower and higher criticism) and hermeneutical phenomena. This dissertation participates in a recent scholarly endeavor to consciously incorporate the Bavli's external, Sasanian Iranian context into talmudic research. By closely examaning the development of the Babylonian rabbinic laws of menstrual purity ( hilkhot niddah ) against corresponding Zoroastrian texts, I argue that rabbis and Zoroastrian priests were engaged in similar, sustained legal discussions that reconsidered (a) the role of religious authorities in determining the legal onset of menstrual impurity, (b) whether to delay purification rituals beyond the cessation of the menstrual flow, and (c) the place of menstruants in the home and society. In each of these cases, rabbinic and Zoroastrian sources share analogous legal trajectories that testify to a broader conversation that was taking place in Sasanian Iran. In addition, analysis of seven talmudic aggadic (non-legal) sources reveals a dynamic in which the rabbis were aware of the importance of menstrual purity amongst Persians and anxious about the legitimacy of certain rabbinic menstrual purity practices in light of Zoroastrian stringency. Consequently, the rabbis sought to assert the authoritativeness of the rabbinic system by imagining the Sasanian queen-mother consulting (and subsequently praising) a prominent fourth century talmudic sage in order consulting (and subsequently praising) a prominent fourth century talmudic sage in order to diagnose her bloodstains. In a different passage, the Bavli depicts an important talmudic sage verbally sparring with an anonymous "Zoroastrianized" heretic. The rabbinic sage claims that even spiritually weak Jews are uniquely equipped to withstand the temptations of violating the menstrual prohibitions. Finally, another Babylonian rabbinic sage claims that the Zoroastrian menstrual purity system is actually derived from the Jewish one since the Persian word for menstruation, dastan, can be traced to the biblical matriarch, Rachel. The parallel legal trajectories and the dynamic of rabbinic defensiveness in the face of Zoroastrian stringency all contribute to our understanding of the Bavli and its relationship with Sasanian Zoroastrianism.
Lest we become to carried away finding parallels (This is a general comment. U am certainly not referring to Prof. Secunda's exceelent disssertation.) it is worth quoting the following:
We may grant that we meet with Persian influence in the Jewish conception of angels, ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness, and in a few ethical sayings, etc. On the other hand, we can be certain that Persian business law did not influence the Jews; for the latter never came in contact with it!
The Relation of Jewish to Babylonian Law Author(s): H. S. Linfield Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 36, No. 1, (Oct., 1919), pp. 40-66
[As Prof. Secuda comments: "In any case, Linfield's comments from 1919 were made before significant work had been done on Sasanian civil law - which is collected primarily in a seventh century work, "The Book of a Thousand Judgments." See Elman's JSIJ article for an example of rabbinic discussion of Sasanian civil law.Of course in all of this we need to remember that the Bavli is built upon Palestinian material which is then (re)interpreted and (re)applied to new realities. uncovering so-called "Persian influences" is not just a matter of finding similar sounding laws in Zoroastrian texts, but of looking for simialr trajectories and the like."
Elman's JSIJ article can be found here. Certainly, the Persian Law influeneced the Talmudic law, in the same way that American law might affect an American Posek's Teshuvos. But it is only in the issues of magic,etc. that Zorastriansim would be the source for the Talmudic statement.]
See also Encycylopedia Iranica s.v. Talmud
Irano-Judaica: Nail Cutting
In a lecture (transcribed by Curious Jew), Prof. J. J. Schacter said:
Question: How do you personally deal with the tension between halakha and history? If you found out that a minhag developed in a certain way, would you change it/ your practice of it based on how it was developed?
Answer: Never in a million years would I change it- I follow mesorah- bound to observe particular behavior- historic insight is fascinating but it will not affect my practice. I try not to let anything affect my practice. My core identity is as a talmid of the Mesorah. All kinds of issues- context of historical pursuits, but this does not affect my practice.
I'd like to focus on one practice that might to be impacted by historical research.
A Persian Custom in the Talmud:
According to the superstitious views of the Parsees, the paring of nails and cuttings or shavings of hair are unclean, and become weapons in the hands of the demons, unless they have been protected by certain rites and spells. They are withdrawn from his power by the recital of certain prayers, and by being deposited in the earth inside consecrated circles, which are drawn around them as an intrenchment against the fiend. (Cf. Darmesteter's Avesta', in the SBE., Vol. IV, Part I, pp. xcii, 186 sqq.)
This superstition is almost universal. Darmesteter points out parallels in the folklore of Bombay; among the Esthonians, on the shores of the Baltic; the Gauchos in the Chilian pampas, and in the Norse saga (vide loc. cit.). In the B. T. Niddah, 17a, we are told that among the five culpable venial sins is "the casting away of nails on the street." .... "Even though the parings are laid in a basket, tied and sealed, an evil spirit still rests upon them," etc. The explanation which follows this curious statement is even more quaint:
והנוטל צפרניו וזורקן לרשות הרבים: מפני שאשה מעוברת עוברת עליהן ומפלת ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל בגנוסטרי ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל דידיה ודכרעיה ולא אמרן אלא דלא גז מידי בתרייהו אבל גז מידי בתרייהו לית לן בה ולא היא לכולה מילתא חיישינן ת"ר ג' דברים נאמרו בצפרנים שורפן חסיד קוברן צדיק זורקן רשע
(See also Moed Katon, 18a [Wuensche's translation, Vol. I, p. 302; III, 176]; Kethuboth 76b; Gittin 70a; Kiddushin 41; Dr. G. Brecher, Das Transcendentale, Magie und magische Heilarten im Tal- mud [Vienna, 1850], pp. 178-9; Schorr's Hechalutz, II, p. 158; VII, 42, No. 13; Geiger's Zeitsch. f. Wissenschaft und Leben, IX, pp. 259-60.)
Pliny, in his Natural History, Vol. V, p. 285 (cf. Bohn's Engl. edition), likewise mentions the usages connected with the cutting of human nails. It is religiously believed by many, says he, that it is ominous, in a pecuniary point of view, for a person to pare his nails without speaking, on the market days of Rome [the "Nundinae" held every eighth day in Rome], or to begin at the forefinger in doing so: it is thought, too, to be a preventive of baldness and of headache to cut the hair on the seven- teenth and twenty-ninth days of the moon. (See also F. Nork, Sitten und Gebrauche der Deutschen, etc., Stuttgart, 1849, p. 514.)
The Jews were enjoined not to cut their hair or nails at new moon. This custom is commended especially to women. (See the sources mentioned in M. Briick's Rabbinische Ceremonialgebrauche, etc., Breslau, 1837, p. 76, n. 47.) Several interesting culture-historic superstitions may be found in R. Jehuda Chasid's Sefer Chasidim.
The talmudic reference, quoted above, is also mentioned by Abudraham (see Geiger's Zeitschrift, loc. cit., p. 259). The Parsic parallels to the above may be found in Darmesteter's Zendavesta, I, pp. 185-9: ".... which is the most deadly dead whereby a man increaseth most the baleful strength of the Daevas . . . ? Ahurah Mazda answered: 'It is when a man here below combing his hair or shaving it off, or paring off his nails, drop them in a hole or in a crack [?] .... Therefore, 0 Zarathustra! whenever here below thou shalt comb thy hair or shave it off, or pare thy nails .... thou shalt draw three furrows with a knife of metal around the hole, or six furrows or nine. ... .For the nails, thou shalt dig a hole, out of the house, as deep as the top joint of the little finger; thou shalt take the nails down there and thou shalt say aloud these fiend-smiting words: 'The words that are heard from the pious in holiness and good thought,"' etc. See above: חסיד קוברן and the entire quoted text.
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 15, No. 1,. A. Kohut (author of Aruch Ha-Shalom)
R' Yaakov Elman has an interesting shiur relating to the subject (See here). He notes that the statement of R' Yosef (Megillah 11a):
וארו חיוה אחרי תניינה דמיה לדוב ותני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין בשר כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב
is a play on words. R' Yosef is actually referring to the Daevas mentioning above (from here we see that the Amoraim had a Lithuanian pronounciation ;). Thus - "they grow hair like a Daev" hints to the practice of the Persians not to cut any hair. (The eatig and drinking is part of another Gemara (Berachot) that describes the charasteristics of Demons (that they eat and drink, etc.).
Now, it would seem strange that on the one hand R' Yosef should make fun of this practice of the Persians and at the same time a part of this practice should be mentioned as obligatory elsewhere. Further, the practice is attributed to R' Shimon B. Yochai who lived much bfore the Persians. Lastly, the reason is different then that of the Persians since the Persians are afraid of sending power to demons and the Talmud is worried about the effect on pregnant woman.
[Prof. Secunda commented: "There is an almost direct parallel to the pregnant women issue as well in the Middle Persian work, Shayest ne Shayest." So my last objection is to be ignored. I serarched but couldn't find the quote in the Shayest ne Shayest.]
The custom is also cited in Moed Katon (18a):
אמר רב שמן בר אבא הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן בי מדרשא בחולו של מועד ושקלינהו לטופריה בשיניה וזרקינהו שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה מותר ליטול צפרנים בחולו של מועד ושמע מינה אין בהן משום מיאוס ושמע מינה מותר לזורקן איני והתניא שלשה דברים נאמרו בצפרנים הקוברן צדיק שורפן חסיד זורקן רשע טעמא מאי שמא תעבור עליהן אשה עוברה ותפיל אשה בי מדרשא לא שכיחא וכי תימא זימנין דמיכנשי להו ושדי להו אבראי כיון דאשתני אשתני
Now the subject of nails is brought up several times in the Zandavesta (from http://www.avesta.org/).
Kohuts reference is the Sar Dur Ch. 14. Here is another reference:
Regarding the bird Ashozusht, which is the bird Zobara-vahman and also the bird Shok, they say that it has given an Avesta with its tongue; when it speaks the demons tremble at it and take nothing away there; a nail-paring, when it is not prayed over (afsud), the demons and wizards seize, and like an arrow it shoots at and kills that bird. 20. On this account the bird seizes and devours a nail-paring when it is prayed over, so that the demons may not control its use; when it is not prayed over it does not devour it, and the demons are able to commit an offense with it.
Bundahisn 19
At all events, there are important differences between the Babylonian Talmud and Zoroastrianism in this subject. To wit: reason (pregnant woman\demons), I found no source in the Zand Avesta that changing its place will cause a loss of power (but the Zand Avesta was originally oral so it may have been left out?), the business with the bird certainly has no connection with the Talmud.
Most intriguing is that the words Chassid Kovran is mentioned as part of a Baraita. Is this a "later" Baraita, or is this one of S. Y. Friedman's creatively redacted Baraitot?
There is an important Nafka Mina - Halacha L'Maaseh from this piece of Zand-Avesta since according to them only a pious person can bury the nails since he can say "words of piousness" a regular person would have to burn it.
I imagine source criticism might help solve part of the question since one might say that the original Halacha was a distinctly Jewish custom (in the ties of Rasbi), that was later conflated with the Zoroastrian over the course of the Galut. In any event, I do have to say that given the obvious Zoroastrian origin of several customs, I find Prof. Shacter's response rather insufficient.
Question: How do you personally deal with the tension between halakha and history? If you found out that a minhag developed in a certain way, would you change it/ your practice of it based on how it was developed?
Answer: Never in a million years would I change it- I follow mesorah- bound to observe particular behavior- historic insight is fascinating but it will not affect my practice. I try not to let anything affect my practice. My core identity is as a talmid of the Mesorah. All kinds of issues- context of historical pursuits, but this does not affect my practice.
I'd like to focus on one practice that might to be impacted by historical research.
A Persian Custom in the Talmud:
According to the superstitious views of the Parsees, the paring of nails and cuttings or shavings of hair are unclean, and become weapons in the hands of the demons, unless they have been protected by certain rites and spells. They are withdrawn from his power by the recital of certain prayers, and by being deposited in the earth inside consecrated circles, which are drawn around them as an intrenchment against the fiend. (Cf. Darmesteter's Avesta', in the SBE., Vol. IV, Part I, pp. xcii, 186 sqq.)
This superstition is almost universal. Darmesteter points out parallels in the folklore of Bombay; among the Esthonians, on the shores of the Baltic; the Gauchos in the Chilian pampas, and in the Norse saga (vide loc. cit.). In the B. T. Niddah, 17a, we are told that among the five culpable venial sins is "the casting away of nails on the street." .... "Even though the parings are laid in a basket, tied and sealed, an evil spirit still rests upon them," etc. The explanation which follows this curious statement is even more quaint:
והנוטל צפרניו וזורקן לרשות הרבים: מפני שאשה מעוברת עוברת עליהן ומפלת ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל בגנוסטרי ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל דידיה ודכרעיה ולא אמרן אלא דלא גז מידי בתרייהו אבל גז מידי בתרייהו לית לן בה ולא היא לכולה מילתא חיישינן ת"ר ג' דברים נאמרו בצפרנים שורפן חסיד קוברן צדיק זורקן רשע
(See also Moed Katon, 18a [Wuensche's translation, Vol. I, p. 302; III, 176]; Kethuboth 76b; Gittin 70a; Kiddushin 41; Dr. G. Brecher, Das Transcendentale, Magie und magische Heilarten im Tal- mud [Vienna, 1850], pp. 178-9; Schorr's Hechalutz, II, p. 158; VII, 42, No. 13; Geiger's Zeitsch. f. Wissenschaft und Leben, IX, pp. 259-60.)
Pliny, in his Natural History, Vol. V, p. 285 (cf. Bohn's Engl. edition), likewise mentions the usages connected with the cutting of human nails. It is religiously believed by many, says he, that it is ominous, in a pecuniary point of view, for a person to pare his nails without speaking, on the market days of Rome [the "Nundinae" held every eighth day in Rome], or to begin at the forefinger in doing so: it is thought, too, to be a preventive of baldness and of headache to cut the hair on the seven- teenth and twenty-ninth days of the moon. (See also F. Nork, Sitten und Gebrauche der Deutschen, etc., Stuttgart, 1849, p. 514.)
The Jews were enjoined not to cut their hair or nails at new moon. This custom is commended especially to women. (See the sources mentioned in M. Briick's Rabbinische Ceremonialgebrauche, etc., Breslau, 1837, p. 76, n. 47.) Several interesting culture-historic superstitions may be found in R. Jehuda Chasid's Sefer Chasidim.
The talmudic reference, quoted above, is also mentioned by Abudraham (see Geiger's Zeitschrift, loc. cit., p. 259). The Parsic parallels to the above may be found in Darmesteter's Zendavesta, I, pp. 185-9: ".... which is the most deadly dead whereby a man increaseth most the baleful strength of the Daevas . . . ? Ahurah Mazda answered: 'It is when a man here below combing his hair or shaving it off, or paring off his nails, drop them in a hole or in a crack [?] .... Therefore, 0 Zarathustra! whenever here below thou shalt comb thy hair or shave it off, or pare thy nails .... thou shalt draw three furrows with a knife of metal around the hole, or six furrows or nine. ... .For the nails, thou shalt dig a hole, out of the house, as deep as the top joint of the little finger; thou shalt take the nails down there and thou shalt say aloud these fiend-smiting words: 'The words that are heard from the pious in holiness and good thought,"' etc. See above: חסיד קוברן and the entire quoted text.
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 15, No. 1,. A. Kohut (author of Aruch Ha-Shalom)
R' Yaakov Elman has an interesting shiur relating to the subject (See here). He notes that the statement of R' Yosef (Megillah 11a):
וארו חיוה אחרי תניינה דמיה לדוב ותני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין בשר כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב
is a play on words. R' Yosef is actually referring to the Daevas mentioning above (from here we see that the Amoraim had a Lithuanian pronounciation ;). Thus - "they grow hair like a Daev" hints to the practice of the Persians not to cut any hair. (The eatig and drinking is part of another Gemara (Berachot) that describes the charasteristics of Demons (that they eat and drink, etc.).
Now, it would seem strange that on the one hand R' Yosef should make fun of this practice of the Persians and at the same time a part of this practice should be mentioned as obligatory elsewhere. Further, the practice is attributed to R' Shimon B. Yochai who lived much bfore the Persians. Lastly, the reason is different then that of the Persians since the Persians are afraid of sending power to demons and the Talmud is worried about the effect on pregnant woman.
[Prof. Secunda commented: "There is an almost direct parallel to the pregnant women issue as well in the Middle Persian work, Shayest ne Shayest." So my last objection is to be ignored. I serarched but couldn't find the quote in the Shayest ne Shayest.]
The custom is also cited in Moed Katon (18a):
אמר רב שמן בר אבא הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן בי מדרשא בחולו של מועד ושקלינהו לטופריה בשיניה וזרקינהו שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה מותר ליטול צפרנים בחולו של מועד ושמע מינה אין בהן משום מיאוס ושמע מינה מותר לזורקן איני והתניא שלשה דברים נאמרו בצפרנים הקוברן צדיק שורפן חסיד זורקן רשע טעמא מאי שמא תעבור עליהן אשה עוברה ותפיל אשה בי מדרשא לא שכיחא וכי תימא זימנין דמיכנשי להו ושדי להו אבראי כיון דאשתני אשתני
Now the subject of nails is brought up several times in the Zandavesta (from http://www.avesta.org/).
Kohuts reference is the Sar Dur Ch. 14. Here is another reference:
Regarding the bird Ashozusht, which is the bird Zobara-vahman and also the bird Shok, they say that it has given an Avesta with its tongue; when it speaks the demons tremble at it and take nothing away there; a nail-paring, when it is not prayed over (afsud), the demons and wizards seize, and like an arrow it shoots at and kills that bird. 20. On this account the bird seizes and devours a nail-paring when it is prayed over, so that the demons may not control its use; when it is not prayed over it does not devour it, and the demons are able to commit an offense with it.
Bundahisn 19
At all events, there are important differences between the Babylonian Talmud and Zoroastrianism in this subject. To wit: reason (pregnant woman\demons), I found no source in the Zand Avesta that changing its place will cause a loss of power (but the Zand Avesta was originally oral so it may have been left out?), the business with the bird certainly has no connection with the Talmud.
Most intriguing is that the words Chassid Kovran is mentioned as part of a Baraita. Is this a "later" Baraita, or is this one of S. Y. Friedman's creatively redacted Baraitot?
There is an important Nafka Mina - Halacha L'Maaseh from this piece of Zand-Avesta since according to them only a pious person can bury the nails since he can say "words of piousness" a regular person would have to burn it.
I imagine source criticism might help solve part of the question since one might say that the original Halacha was a distinctly Jewish custom (in the ties of Rasbi), that was later conflated with the Zoroastrian over the course of the Galut. In any event, I do have to say that given the obvious Zoroastrian origin of several customs, I find Prof. Shacter's response rather insufficient.
New online resources - Kiryat Sefer, WCJS
1- Someone has uploaded all back issues of Kiryat Sefer. The primary focus of this periodical is bibliographical, but it also contains many important documents and articles. See here. Many thanks to the uploader whoever he may be.
2- The 2001 issue of the World congress of Jewish studies is finally online (it was online half a year ago but for some reason it went down) at http://www.lekket.com/. Hopefully, the other issues will soon follow.
It would be very useful if the back issues of Tarbitz would be placed online since at the moment they are virtually impossible to find in Chu"l.
Does anyone know if the HUCA or LBYB is on any of the online databases?
Note: The first four issues contain Shir related articles. See my earlier post. I still hope to continue that series some time in the future.
2- The 2001 issue of the World congress of Jewish studies is finally online (it was online half a year ago but for some reason it went down) at http://www.lekket.com/. Hopefully, the other issues will soon follow.
It would be very useful if the back issues of Tarbitz would be placed online since at the moment they are virtually impossible to find in Chu"l.
Does anyone know if the HUCA or LBYB is on any of the online databases?
Note: The first four issues contain Shir related articles. See my earlier post. I still hope to continue that series some time in the future.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Religious tolerance in the writings of Meiri - M'Pnei Teshuvos Haminim?
In Tzefunot 1, D. Z. Hillman's article arguing that the Meiri's "policy of tolerance" was formulated merely out of fear of the censors and is not to be taken seriously. Since this article has been placed online (here), I would like to analyse this view in light of the Meiri's background.
Hillman's argument (as I understand it) is that the Meiri's comments seem to be placed in a parenthetical "disclaimer" form, as if they were written in order to convince a non-jewish rather then as a serious position. Now to the best of my knowledge since Beis HaBechira is basically a paraphrase of the Talmud with parenthetical explanations, I do not think this argument has much merit on its own.
In any event, there are several questions that need to be discussed first. If this view of Meiri is generally consistent with that of his teachers, his general philosophical background,etc. then the view must be accepted as is and there is no reason to invoke a mythical censor. (Hillman's stray "proofs" for the existence of censorship prior to the advent of printing come from a mixture of times and places and can hardly be taken as serious proof that the Meiri would have had this problem.) Do the Meiri's other writings demonstarte a fear of censorship? Finally, what sort of people were the Meiri's "Gentiles" and how would he be likely to view them?
There is a fairly thorough study of Meiri -"Gregg Stern - Meiri and the Second Controversy over Philosophy (Ph.d Harvard - 1995)" - that I will attempt to make use of to clarify the Meiri's position on the above.
1 - The basic idea of distinguishing between pagans and Christians is already present in earlier writings (See the Vicuach of Rabbenu Yechiel of Paris). If Meiri's position was only formulated in response to the censors, then there was no reason for him to create a new Halachic category of "nations who are constrained by religious laws" with far reaching Halachic implications. Merely to avoid the censors it would have been sufficient to note the old distinction between pagans and Christians. (N.B Would it really have been necessary to place "nations who are..." within the category of "אין מזל בישראל" solely for fear of the censor? (See B.B. Shabbos 614))
2- The basic distinction was first made in a Halachic non-apologetic context. Thus the following statement of Rabbenu Tam:
R. Tam allows [the administration of an oath to a Christian], because this case is as if he is rescuing [his property] from their hands . . . furthermore, R, Tam demonstrates, from that case mentioned, the last chapter of Megilla, whet Abuha bar Ihi said: “May I be rewarded because I never established a partnership with a Cuthean” (Megilla, 28a). Now, if partnership with a gentile is forbidden, why should he have mentioned [that he had not transgressed the above injunction] it? . . . Moreover, R. Tam explained that in these days all [Christians] swear by their saints, and although they mention with them the name of God, meaning with it something else (i.e. Jesus), this is not idolatrous name, since they mean with it, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. And although they associate the name of God with something else (i.e. Jesus) . . . non-Jews are not forbidden on that [to associate another being; with God]
(Bechoros 2b s.v. Shema - translation from Faur - Legal thinking of the Tosafists)
certainly was not written for any apologetic intentions, but for purely legal purposes. It seems to me that the Meiri's position should be understood as an expansion of this opinion of Rabbenu Tam.
3- That the study of philosophy, in particular the philosophy of Rambam, was a major force in Provence is well documented. Now the Rambam in a famous passage at the end of Shmitta V' Yovel writes:
Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every individual human being, whose spirit moves him and whose knowledge gives him understanding to set himself apart in order to stand before the Lord, to serve Him, to worship Him, and to know Him, who walks upright as God created him to do...such an individual is as consecrated as the Holy of Holies, and his portion and inheritance shall be in the Lord forever and ever.
Menachem Kellner in his post at Seforim has shown that in this Rambam refers to "unconverted) Gentiles who, through their devotion to God, become "as consecrated as the Holy of Holies." Rambam here is talking about God's support of all human beings who consecrate themselves...". It seems highly probable that Meiri's position is taken straight from this Rambam. In both cases we see the possibility of a Gentile by virtue of consecration to God, or by being constrained by religious laws is placed on a higher status. (See Hillman No. 45, ודוק)
[Update: See here for further discussion on this point. (Hat tip: Menachem Mendel)]
Hillman's argument (as I understand it) is that the Meiri's comments seem to be placed in a parenthetical "disclaimer" form, as if they were written in order to convince a non-jewish rather then as a serious position. Now to the best of my knowledge since Beis HaBechira is basically a paraphrase of the Talmud with parenthetical explanations, I do not think this argument has much merit on its own.
In any event, there are several questions that need to be discussed first. If this view of Meiri is generally consistent with that of his teachers, his general philosophical background,etc. then the view must be accepted as is and there is no reason to invoke a mythical censor. (Hillman's stray "proofs" for the existence of censorship prior to the advent of printing come from a mixture of times and places and can hardly be taken as serious proof that the Meiri would have had this problem.) Do the Meiri's other writings demonstarte a fear of censorship? Finally, what sort of people were the Meiri's "Gentiles" and how would he be likely to view them?
There is a fairly thorough study of Meiri -"Gregg Stern - Meiri and the Second Controversy over Philosophy (Ph.d Harvard - 1995)" - that I will attempt to make use of to clarify the Meiri's position on the above.
1 - The basic idea of distinguishing between pagans and Christians is already present in earlier writings (See the Vicuach of Rabbenu Yechiel of Paris). If Meiri's position was only formulated in response to the censors, then there was no reason for him to create a new Halachic category of "nations who are constrained by religious laws" with far reaching Halachic implications. Merely to avoid the censors it would have been sufficient to note the old distinction between pagans and Christians. (N.B Would it really have been necessary to place "nations who are..." within the category of "אין מזל בישראל" solely for fear of the censor? (See B.B. Shabbos 614))
2- The basic distinction was first made in a Halachic non-apologetic context. Thus the following statement of Rabbenu Tam:
R. Tam allows [the administration of an oath to a Christian], because this case is as if he is rescuing [his property] from their hands . . . furthermore, R, Tam demonstrates, from that case mentioned, the last chapter of Megilla, whet Abuha bar Ihi said: “May I be rewarded because I never established a partnership with a Cuthean” (Megilla, 28a). Now, if partnership with a gentile is forbidden, why should he have mentioned [that he had not transgressed the above injunction] it? . . . Moreover, R. Tam explained that in these days all [Christians] swear by their saints, and although they mention with them the name of God, meaning with it something else (i.e. Jesus), this is not idolatrous name, since they mean with it, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. And although they associate the name of God with something else (i.e. Jesus) . . . non-Jews are not forbidden on that [to associate another being; with God]
(Bechoros 2b s.v. Shema - translation from Faur - Legal thinking of the Tosafists)
certainly was not written for any apologetic intentions, but for purely legal purposes. It seems to me that the Meiri's position should be understood as an expansion of this opinion of Rabbenu Tam.
3- That the study of philosophy, in particular the philosophy of Rambam, was a major force in Provence is well documented. Now the Rambam in a famous passage at the end of Shmitta V' Yovel writes:
Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every individual human being, whose spirit moves him and whose knowledge gives him understanding to set himself apart in order to stand before the Lord, to serve Him, to worship Him, and to know Him, who walks upright as God created him to do...such an individual is as consecrated as the Holy of Holies, and his portion and inheritance shall be in the Lord forever and ever.
Menachem Kellner in his post at Seforim has shown that in this Rambam refers to "unconverted) Gentiles who, through their devotion to God, become "as consecrated as the Holy of Holies." Rambam here is talking about God's support of all human beings who consecrate themselves...". It seems highly probable that Meiri's position is taken straight from this Rambam. In both cases we see the possibility of a Gentile by virtue of consecration to God, or by being constrained by religious laws is placed on a higher status. (See Hillman No. 45, ודוק)
[Update: See here for further discussion on this point. (Hat tip: Menachem Mendel)]
Friday, August 1, 2008
Friends and Scholars
“A certain Roman philosopher said: Genuine and faithful love lasts forever. And as we have been close friends for 18 years – may the Lord extend those years – I said to myself in my heart, the Lord forbid that I should remain silent about a matter directed against the people of Israel – and why prolong it? – yesterday I received a 400-page manuscript which is not [yet] complete, and contains the following titles: 1. Statements and testimonies from Christian scholars about Jewish trickeries; 2. List of insults and blasphemies against Christianity used in Jewish books, documents and speeches... I read and was amazed! So much in brief for the time being, more by word of mouth. And if our thoughts are the same, then I hope it will be of use to us.My friend, the rabbi, in his wisdom, will already understand what I have in mind. From his eternally faithful friend, K. F.”
Letter to R' E. Fleckles, Ibid.
For more on K. Fisher - See the appendix to Marc Shapiro's article on nitel in Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (also published in Ohr Yisroel), ShuT Teshuva M' Ahavah #26.
L. Zunz seems not to have like him much - he writes (A. Marx- Zunz's letters to Steinschneider, JQR -
"I saw in Hamburg manuscripts which do not exist in Prague. You may tell the censor Fischer; perhaps it will make him burst."
Hesped for Maharav Ranschburg - by the Prague Censor
“Rabbi Bezalel Ransburg, known as Daniel Joel Rosenbaum (?), who was unforgettable to me, died at around ten o’clock at night at the age of sixty; his belly was very bloated, which was why he was buried in the cemetery already this afternoon, at about five o’clock; I saw a large number of Jews there and, during the funeral oration of Rabbi Mayer Levi Glogau, now Marcus Schlesinger, I heard continual crying and sobbing. He was endowed with many virtues, including noble-mindedness, sincerity and humanity, which is why he was buried rightfully with the reputation of a completely honest man. I often made use of his advice, as I became convinced long ago that he provided the most correct and most certain explanations in indecisive matters"
K. Fischer, Tagebuch, 23 September, 26 September 1820
translated by I. Cermanova - "Karl Fischer (1757–1844) The Work of a Hebrew Censor,
Judaica Bohemiae (Judaica Bohemiae)
K. Fischer, Tagebuch, 23 September, 26 September 1820
translated by I. Cermanova - "Karl Fischer (1757–1844) The Work of a Hebrew Censor,
Judaica Bohemiae (Judaica Bohemiae)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
