Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World 3161493508, 9783161493508

Citation preview

Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Edited by Peter Schäfer (Princeton, NJ) Annette Y. Reed (Philadelphia, PA) Seth Schwartz (New York, NY) Azzan Yadin (New Brunswick, NJ)

120

Yaakov Y. Teppler

Birkat haMinim Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World

Translated by

Susan Weingarten

Mohr Siebeck

Yaakov Y. Teppler, born 1955; BA (History and Education), MA (History), 2004 PhD (History) University of Tel Aviv; Head of the History Department at Beit Berl College, Israel.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151453-1 ISBN 978-3-16-149350-8 ISSN 0721-8753 (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2007 Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements

This book is the result of many years of work. During these years, I was fortunate to have the help and guidance of different people and institutions. This canvas barely suffices for me to record my feelings of gratitude to all those who helped me to finish my research and publish it. First of all, I am grateful for the fact that it has fallen to my lot to be the pupil of three of the greatest scholars of the period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud. Professor Arieh Kasher was the first to open the door for me to the hidden treasures of the period of the Second Temple. His lectures illuminated brilliantly the wonders of those days and incited me to continue my studies to a doctorate. From the time of my advanced studies up to today I have had the good fortune to be the pupil of Professor Joshua Efron, who has been my teacher, mentor and guide from the time of my Master’s studies in Jewish History. Professor Efron gave me the gift of his wisdom from the immense stores of his knowledge. He was and is not only a guide, but an exacting and thorough critic. In this he made the decisive contribution to my development in research methods, in thoroughness and organisation and especially in sorting the wheat from the chaff. During this time I was lucky to have the guidance, worth more than its weight in gold, of Professor Aharon Oppenheimer. I was fortunate enough to enjoy his wisdom and rich knowledge while still a young student in Tel Aviv University. His fascinating lessons opened a window for me to the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud, and its wide literature. Many obstacles were removed from my path in my research as a result of the unstinting help of Professor Oppenheimer. Even after the end of the formal connection between us my teacher did not cease for one moment to offer his help, in any difficulty and obstacle that came in my way. His support and multiple help opened doors for me, and new and fascinating opportunities. His contribution to the publication of this book cannot be told. To these, my teachers and masters, my thanks and blessings. It is a very pleasant duty to thank Dr. Susan Weingarten of Tel Aviv University who was in charge of the difficult and complex task of translating from the Hebrew original, which she carried out with great success. To my great delight, Dr. Weingarten even took the trouble to give me good and useful advice from her own expertise and her considerable knowledge in several fields. For all this I am grateful.

VI

Acknowledgements

In the last year I have been fortunate enough to enjoy the contributions of a number of funds: the Yoran Schitzer foundation and the Yaniv founddation from Tel Aviv University, and the Scholarship fund of Beit Berl College. I am extremely grateful to the committees of these funds who made it possible to publish this book, and I am also extremely grateful to the School of Jewish Studies in Tel Aviv University, and especially to its head, Professor Dina Porat, for their help and support along the way. I would like to thank Professor Yitzhaq Greenberg, the deputy head of Beit Berl College for all his help. In addition, warm thanks to Dr Amos Hoffman, the head of the School of Education in the College, for his considerable help and support. My thanks, too, to Susan Efrat, who has worked with much skill and professionalism on preparing the book for publication. Heartfelt thanks to the editors at Mohr Siebeck, Professor Peter Schäfer and Professor Martin Hengel, who allowed me to publish in their series, and to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki for his considerable patience, kindness and openness. And last but not least, my family. My wife Anati, to whom I have now been married for 30 years, throughout all of which she has been behind me and beside me. Her part in this book is greater than I can express. And my daughters, Ma’ayan and Or, whose love and support, and interest too, gave me strength over long years of research. To these, my dear family, this book is dedicated in endless love. Kfar Saba/Beit Berl College, July 2007

Ya‘akov [Yanki] Teppler

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... V Abbreviations ................................................................................................. IX Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim............ 9 The Earliest Evidence ...................................................................................... 9 Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah ....... 13 Traces of Versions of Birkat haMinim in the Early Piyyutim ........................ 29 The Influence of the Karaites on the Genizah Texts ...................................... 39 The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing.... 48 The Combination ‘Minim and Apostates [Meshumadim] etc.’ and its Influence on the Text of Birkat haMinim....................................................................... 62 Summary and Proposed Partial Archetype/Prototype .................................... 70 Chapter 2: The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context ............................................................................................... 73 Constructing Birkat haMinim ........................................................................ 73 Shemuel haQatan ........................................................................................... 90 The Question of the Composition of Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer ................................................................................. 99 Establishing the Historical Framework ........................................................ 125 Summary ...................................................................................................... 131 Chapter 3: At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed? ..................................... 133 The Objects of Birkat haMinim .................................................................. 133 The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire ................................. 135 The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven ........... 148 The Minim: Sources, Etymology and Time-Frame ...................................... 164 Minim and Minut in the Mishnah: Characterisation of the Main Source .... 183

VIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 4: The Struggle against the Minim: Warnings and Bans ................ 187 Sources for Warnings and Bans ................................................................... 187 Bans in the Mishnah..................................................................................... 190 Tannaitic Bans in Post-Mishnaic Literature ................................................. 230 Books of Minim ........................................................................................... 250 ‘Remove thy way far from her:’ This is Minut ........................................... 277 Chapter 5: The Minim say: There are Many Powers in Heaven .................. 297 Sources for Many Powers in Heaven ........................................................... 297 ‘Adam was a min:’ The Babylonian Talmud as Test Case .......................... 301 Thrones of Judgment and Kingship ............................................................. 315 Late Anti-Gnostic Claims in the Babylonian Talmud .................................. 324 ‘The Good (pl.) shall bless thee!’ This is the way of minut: Allusions in the Mishnah to Two Powers ............................................................................... 329 Two Powers in the Midrashei Halakhah ..................................................... 336 Two Powers in Midrashei Aggadah ............................................................ 340 Summary of the Chapter ............................................................................. 345 Chapter 6: The Christian Evidence .............................................................. 348 General Summary and Conclusions ............................................................. 360 Appendix I: The Original Hebrew Versions of Birkat haMinim .............. 371 Appendix II: The Original Hebrew Versions of the Piyyutim ................. 374 Bibliography ................................................................................................ 377 Index of Sources .......................................................................................... 388 General Index ............................................................................................... 406

Abbreviations

AJ AJS ANRW BJ BJRL BT CBQ CCCM CCSL CSEL DJD EJ GCS HTR HUCA IOS ICC JBL JE JECS JJS JQR JSJ JT JTS LCL MGWJ NHL NT PAAJR PG PL

Antiquitates Judaicae Association for Jewish Studies Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Bellum Judaicum Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Babylonian Talmud Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum Series Latinae Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Encyclopaedia Judaica Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteler der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Oriental Studies International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Encyclopaedia Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism Jerusalem Talmud Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Nag Hammadi Library Novum Testamentum Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Patrologia, Series Graeca Patrologia, Series Latina

X

Abbreviations

PSBA PTS REJ SC SCI TL TU VT

Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Patristische Texte und Studien Revue des Études Juives Sources Chrétiennes Scripta Classica Israelica Theologische Literaturzeitung Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Vetus Testamentum

Introduction

The idea for this book was first proposed to me by my teachers at Tel Aviv University, Professor Joshua Efron and Professor Aharon Oppenheimer, after I had become acquainted through my studies with many questions about the beginnings of Christianity in the Land of Israel. The book is called Birkat haMinim/the Blessing of the Minim, after the twelfth blessing of the prayer called the Shemoneh Esreh/Eighteen Blessings, and it centres on the question of the identity of the people who were called ‘minim.’ Apart from the discussions of Birkat haMinim itself in the Talmudic sources, there are more than three hundred further sources which deal with these same minim without any direct connection with the blessing. These passages are mostly scattered over different parts of this literature, from the Mishnah, through the Talmudim and up to the later midrashim. It is clear that the particular characteristics of each genre, including the question of when they were written or edited, produce a wide spectrum of possibilities of identification, together with some difficult methodological problems. After I became acquainted with the subject, I was surprised to find that there was no modern research which covered all the possibilities and all the subjects arising from the sources, in spite of the fact that there are many articles dealing with various different aspects of the subject. Up to now, most scholars have concentrated for the main part on one of two important components: the question of the original version of the Birkat haMinim, or the problem of the identity of the minim themselves. The first question has been dealt with mostly by scholars researching the liturgy and its different versions. Here the revelations of the Cairo Genizah have provided a gold mine of research opportunities. Indeed, the study of the liturgy in general, and versions of the Shemonah Esreh in particular, got a strong impetus after this discovery. The second question, the identity of these minim who appear so often in our sources, was also influenced by the discoveries of the Genizah, but to a lesser extent. Thus two quite different and separate fields of research developed around these questions, one belonging to the discipline of research into the liturgy in all its aspects, and the other part of the research into the history of the period of the tannaim. From the outset it was assumed that the problem of the minim in all its aspects must be related to the perception of Christianity in Jewish eyes, as it was constructed during the Yavneh period in particular, and as it crystallized later during

2

Introduction

the second and third centuries. Indeed, research into the period of the tanaim as a decisive and formative period in Jewish history has produced several fascinating and complex ramifications, including that bearing on the identity of the minim. A very good example is the research into the phenomenon now known as ‘gnosis’, and its links to the question of the minim, following the hints of this connection going back to the earliest source, the Mishnah. Another example is the question of the meaning of the term Sifre minim/the books of the minim, which has also been researched a good deal. Such questions and others have occupied thinkers and scholars ever since the beginning of the Enlightenment, and fascinating books have been written about them. But there has been no research which deals with the question of the minim in general, and almost no research into their relationship with the complex questions which arise from research into the texts of Birkat haMinim. The central question running through this work is the question of the identity of the minim in relation to Christianity. A review of research on this question revealed that it was usually impossible to spotlight specifically Christian elements, since the tendency of scholars was to deal with all the source texts without differentiating between the early and the late, or between Palestinian or Babylonian versions. This tendency brought the discussion to a dead end, for the term minim was not a frozen description, but one which developed: its original meanings changed. The minim of the beginning of the second century are not necessarily the same minim as those of the third or fourth century. The distance between the Land of Israel and Babylonia also influenced these definitions, as did local differences in the political and religious circumstances. Birkat haMinim was still recognised as relating to Christianity by the Jewish rabbinical commentators of the Middle Ages such as Rav Sa‘adiah Gaon, Rashi and the Rambam. Thus the foundation was laid which has guided most of the scholars who have dealt with the identity of the minim, in spite of the fact that Jewish apologetics of the later Middle Ages attempted from understandable motives to hide the anti-Christian polemic in both the Talmudic literature and the siddur/prayer-book. I have therefore chosen to begin this research with a chapter which deals with the complex question of the text of Birkat haMinim. This blessing appears in prayer-books and fragments from the Genizah in dozens of different versions, but there is no extant version in the Talmudic literature, apart from certain allusions. According to the main tradition (BT Berakhot 28b-29a) the blessing was written by a person known as Shemuel haQatan in the study house of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh. It is called a blessing because it is an integral part of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, and because it ends with the characteristic close of a blessing: Blessed are You – the Lord etc. However, the central element in it is a curse directed at the minim (in other versions we find: Christians, meshumadim/ apostates, slanderers, the wicked, sinners, zedim/the arrogant and also malkhut

Introduction

3

zadon/the kingdom of arrogance, and other variants in different combinations). Unlike the other eighteen blessings in this prayer, the story of the construction of Birkat haMinim is presented as a baraita, which includes the obligation to say it as a whole, as well as a ban on making mistakes when reading it. These stress the great importance of this blessing, and its special status. The central question is, therefore: who were the subjects of this blessing? Who were the minim? However, before dealing with this question it was necessary to examine the earliest versions in order to establish whether the original blessing was directed only against the minim. The different versions I have already noted raise further possibilities. Some of the early versions also include a curse against malkhut zadon/ the kingdom of arrogance. What is this kingdom? Does this mean the Roman Empire? And if the Christians are the only subject of the blessing of the minim, was this directed at the first Christians, or did those who wrote it direct it against internal Jewish dissidents? Does it refer to JewishChristian sects or was it also a response to pagan manifestations? These questions and many others arise after reading the hundreds of source passages, and the basic question in this study is therefore the problem of the earliest version of the text and the identification of its purpose, and hence also the question of the identity of what the minim stood for: i.e., who were the minim of the period of the Mishnah? The answer to this question is, of course, inherent in the examination of all the sources related to this period. According to our main source, Birkat haMinim was constructed in the Yavneh period, after the time of the Second Temple. At this time the Jews of the Land of Israel were living under Roman rule. Under pressure of events and circumstances, against the background of the deterioration of relations between Judaea and Rome, desperate popular longings for revelation and redemption on the model of the books of the biblical prophets created or sharpened religious and social phenomena within Jewish society. The end of the Second Temple period was witness to the formation of many sects, parties and trends. Among these Christianity was born. The crisis of the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, followed by the upheavals of the Diaspora revolt and finally the bloody events of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the subsequent repressive Roman legislation, created fracture points in the variegated society of Palestine and its surroundings. The early Christians and the Jews saw in these events critical watersheds of formative changes. In a lengthy process, the Jews who had created the new religion of Christianity in the belief that it was the fulfilment of the goals of the prophets separated and were separated from the population which had developed and formed the Oral Law which they defined as the only possible alternative after the destruction of the Temple. In this process, these Jews defined themselves and were defined anew. The ramifications of Christianity at its beginnings are quite unclear. The books of the New Testament, which do not usually describe historical reality

4

Introduction

but a theological purpose, hint very vaguely at internal dissensions which accompanied this formative stage in the history of the new religion. The pointed and deliberate contact with Hellenistic culture and its branches, and the outreach of Christianity to this rich and varied space created divisions on the one hand, but solidarity on the other: towards the end of the first century characteristics of Christian identity are beginning to appear. There is already a central stream branching out at the edges into the pagan Hellenistic world. All this complex texture, from Paul (originally a Hellenistic Jew) to Justin Martyr (originally a Hellenistic pagan) is in dispute with Judaism. Judaism too encountered a similar problem in her contacts with the Hellenistic surroundings within the processes of self-formation and definition. Thus the two religions find themselves moving further and further away from each other, and in the space created between them there appear the more esoteric beliefs of Jewish converts and sympathisers, Christian converts – both circumcised and uncircumcised – and secret creeds influenced by different beliefs from Iran to Egypt. A Christianity professing belief in two divine authorities (the Father and the Son) is joined by further dualistic beliefs. Gnostic doctrines blossom, and send their influence all over the ancient east, including to curious Jews. These, or some of them, will later be added to the first definitions of the minim, and they will also be included under the ever-widening up-dated aegis of Birkat haMinim. From its text, we may surmise that when it was written, Birkat haMinim was a curse directed against some group which must have comprised at least one of these sects. The blessing is built as a request, like the middle group of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh, and ends with praise of God, who is supposed to fulfil these requests. It takes a sharply categorical position, including a request for God’s harsh intervention against danger and enemies within or without – or both – presumably as a result of the problems and frustrations of the time. All this belongs to the complex situation after the destruction of the Temple, a time when processes of renewal and re-formation were taking place within Judaism, in the well-known context known as the Yavneh period. From the time of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and his successors, there is a demand for decisions on complex and burning issues in order to construct a new norm. This means rooting out the deviant and those suspected of undermining the foundations of this new construct, as well as creating a ‘fence around the Torah’ to divide Jews from those others who define themselves – relying on Jewish Torah and prophets – as Verus Israel. As already noted, there is wide agreement among scholars that Birkat haMinim relates to the stage when Christianity separated from Judaism. However, there is disagreement on many other questions. For example, how can we characterise the stage of separation and when exactly did it take place? It is clear that the separation of Christianity from Judaism took place in stages, so that another question arises in respect to the point of no return – if we can call it that. The sources are

Introduction

5

full of allusions to trends and sects at one stage or another between Judaism and Christianity, and there is no incontrovertible decision which makes a real distinction between these stages. This question, it would seem, is in the background of research, waiting to be solved. The solution, if found, would throw further light on the whole complex of fundamental problems around the beginning of Christianity. Birkat haMinim is a convenient starting point for studying these problems. But it also needs to be studied thoroughly and critically for its own sake. This blessing underwent more changes than any other blessing. We do not know its origins, or its earliest version. We have already noted that the Babylonian Talmud, which describes the story of the ‘construction’ of Birkat haMinim, does not provide the contents of the blessing. The prayer-books which have come down to us do not help to determine what the early version consisted of with any certainty. Changes in time, place and circumstances, new definitions of the enemies of Israel, and internal or external censorship made their mark on this subject, which could be sensitive and even dangerous in certain conditions. The Cairo Genizah shed light on hundreds of years of world history and revealed, among other things, earlier, previously unknown, versions of prayers, including versions of the Shemoneh esreh with different versions of Birkat haMinim. This blessing was almost always at the centre of the polemic between Judaism and Christianity. The argument began with the crystallisation of Christian communities in the second century, and its echoes in both Jewish and Christian writings. From the time of the tannaim, around the time when Birkat haMinim was probably first constructed, and the parallel Christian period, when the first fathers of the church were active, there is also Christian evidence for the polemic which accompanied the separation of Christianity from Judaism. Justin Martyr from Flavia Neapolis [Shechem], wrote a polemical work against Judaism in the middle of the second century CE, where he mentions several times that the Jews curse the Christians in their synagogues. This is the first evidence of its sort from the Christian side, and we may presume that it is a roundabout mention or allusion to Birkat haMinim. From Justin on, the polemic branched out in further directions, some of which influenced or followed each other. After Justin, we find evidence of polemics in the church fathers where we can identify allusions to possible links with Birkat haMinim. These allusions are to be found chiefly in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome. It is particularly important to know how far we can use both the earlier and the later Christian evidence to shed light on the problem of the original version of Birkat haMinim, and also whether this material can contribute to understanding the terms minut and minim at the time of the construction of the blessing under discussion. Epiphanius and Jerome lived and wrote mostly during the second half of the fourth century. In the period after them, there were world-wide upheavals:

6

Introduction

the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, its division and fall, the decline of the Jews of Palestine and the flowering of Babylonian Jewry. All these may or may not have affected the polemics between Judaism and Christianity, but the evidence for this is extremely scarce. The Babylonian Talmud, and especially the midrashim of the early Middle Ages, are scattered with hundreds of mentions of the minim, and it is necessary to examine their reliability. Apart from the Talmudic sources, a little further evidence of the Jewish world has survived from this time, some of it important for the subject of Birkat haMinim, including the earliest prayer-books of which we have copies. As already noted, in the Cairo Genizah there were versions of Birkat haMinim, and, together with the first prayer-books of the period, the problem of the early versions was sharpened. Thus research into the development of the early versions of the blessing is the first part of this study. The intention is to examine all the spectrum of possibilities and to reduce this as far as possible, thus laying the foundations for a tentative reconstruction of what may have been the prototype for Birkat haMinim. This investigation is linked to further research goals. The text of the blessing must have been influenced by the circumstances of the time when it was constructed, thus our second chapter is devoted to establishing the time-span and the particular circumstances of the construction of Birkat haMinim. Identification of the basic characteristics of the original version of the blessing leads to the question of the identity of its objects, and above all, to the question: who were the minim? In clarifying this question I have taken in to account hundreds of source passages, the majority of which are scattered about the various works of the rabbinic literature, with a few in Christian literature, especially in the works of the early fathers of the church. The discussion is centred on the clarification of the identity of the ‘original’ minim, those against whom this blessing which is a curse was constructed, and after whom it was named. In other words, our debate will concentrate on the minim and the phenomenon of minut from the time of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh up to the time of Rabbi Judah haNasi at the end of the second century CE. This is the second part of the study. Integration of the two parts of the study – the part that deals with the versions of the blessing and that which investigates the identity of the minim – is essential. Reconstruction what may have been the early version, insofar as is possible, or at least parts of it, will allow me to centre the study on the identity of its subjects. The various mentions, as we have noted, in hundreds of source passages, have been organised not only as sections of sources (i.e., according to time, place and tendencies) but also by the spectrum of characteristics related to the problem of identifying the minim, including halakhot, opinions and customs. These are divided into subjects such as prayer customs and liturgical changes; laws of pu-

Introduction

7

rity and impurity; sacred writings and canonisation; contacts, negotiations, and 1 even discussions of the number of divine powers, as well as many others. The study is entitled Birkat haMinim, the Blessing of the Minim, and it is thus made up of two main parts, as this title implies: the blessing and the minim. It is my hope to provide a modest contribution to research into these two subjects.

1 Because of the large number of subjects discussed in this study, the main details of the history of research and the major studies will each be discussed in the relevant chapter.

Chapter 1 The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

The Earliest Evidence The story of the construction of Birkat haMinim by Shemuel HaQatan at the request of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh is only to be found in the Babylonian 1 Talmud. There the blessing is already called by this name. The contents of the blessing do not appear in the story of its construction, or in any other Talmudic source. In the source In the Babylonian Talmud, the story appears as a baraita 2 within a general description of the ordering of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer which is itself part of a more general discussion of this prayer. In the Jerusalem 3 Talmud there is a parallel discussion, but there is no trace at all of the story of the construction of Birkat haMinim. The blessing is also mentioned in other places in the Jerusalem Talmud where it is identified by its close: “humbles the 4 arrogant” [makhnia zedim], so that we can presume that the close is most probably the oldest extant phrase from the text of Birkat haMinim. Other phrases are not certain, not to mention the complete text, which does not appear anywhere in the rabbinic literature. In addition, in spite of the well-known and understandable influence of vocabulary and concepts from the Bible on the different versions of Birkat haMinim known to us from later periods, it has not been possible to find a 5 specifically biblical textual basis for Birkat haMinim. 1

BT Berakhot 28b-29a. The censored editions have Birkat haTzaduqim. Analysis of this source, its problems and its heroes, see below Chapter 2, p.73ff. 3 JT Berakhot iv, 7a. 4 JT Berakhot ii, 5a; v, 9c. In JT Berakhot iv, 8a it says: “[the blessing of] the minim was already constructed by the sages in Yavneh.” 5 Isaiah 1:28: “And the destruction of the transgressors and the sinners shall be together.” (The structure of three verses [26-28] is parallel to the conceptual structure of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. This parallel, and other similar ones, are brought in BT Megillah 17b. But in spite of this, we cannot determine with any high degree of probability that the ‘destroyer of the transgressors’ was included in the original blessing, at least in the light of the fact that the frequency of the appearance of this phrase in the earliest versions we have is extremely low); Malachi 3:19-21 [4:1-3]: “For, behold the day cometh…and all the proud [zedim], yea and all 2

10

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

The story of the ordering of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer in the presence of 6 Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh is mentioned once more in the Babylonian Talmud, but without mentioning Shemuel HaQatan and without a description of Birkat haMinim. Following this, in the same source, there is a discussion of the structure of the prayer and the rationale behind the order of the blessings, as it says: “Since judgement was passed on the wicked [resha‘im], the arrogant [zedim] perished and the minim were included with them”. The function of this sentence was to demonstrate the rationale behind the order of the blessings, between the eleventh blessing, about justice [Birkat haMishpat], and the blessing which follows it, Birkat haMinim. And in this source too there are one or two words from the original blessing: the arrogant [zedim] were certainly part of the wording of the blessing. This wording, as we noted, appears in the close of Birkat haMinim in the version in the Jerusalem Talmud, as well as in almost all the early versions of the blessing. As for the minim and the wicked, it is probable that these words, and especially minim, appeared in early versions, but we cannot determine the order of appearance or their position. Similarly, the combination of the minim, the wicked and the arrogant also appears in the discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud 7 on the order of blessings in the prayer. This situation is no different in those places in the Babylonian and the 8 Jerusalem Talmudim where the prayer called Havinenu, a shortened form of 9 the Shemoneh Esreh, is cited. In these versions of Havinenu there is a single sentence which is a shortened form of Birkat haMinim: “Lift up (or stretch forth) 10 Your hand against the wicked,” but we cannot presume that this sentence or any part of it is quoted verbatim from the original text of Birkat haMinim. The only slight hint or allusion to Birkat haMinim in tannaitic sources is to be found in the Tosefta, and there is nothing there to show us what might have been the original version of the blessing, or even part of it. The Tosefta is discussing the six or seven blessings which were usually added to the eighteen blessings on public fast days, and writes as follows: “The seventh blessing: Somchos that do wickedly, shall be stubble…and ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet.” (tr. RV. All translations from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the RV unless otherwise specified); Isaiah 66:24 etc. 6 BT Megillah 17b. 7 JT Berakhot ii, 5a; iv, 8a and parallel in JT Ta’anit ii, 65c. 8 Havineinu (lit.: Give us understanding): BT Berakhot 29a: JT Berakhot iv, 8a. 9 The BT distinguishes between the shortened form Havinenu and what is called the Tefillah qetzarah (i.e., another shortened form of the Shemone Esreh); q.v. BT Berakhot 30a. For a discussion of this, see: Sefer HaEshkol: (ed. S. Lieberman), Hilkhot Tefillah 34a, (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 92. 10 This is also a paraphrase of Isaiah 19:16: “In that day the Egyptians shall be like women, trembling and terrified because the Lord of Hosts will lift His hand against them.”(tr. New JPS, adapted), and cf. Zechariah 2:13 (RV 2:9): “For I will lift My hand against them.”(tr. New JPS).

11

The Earliest Evidence 11

12

says: brings low the haughty [this is Birkat haMinin (sic)]. Where is it said? 13 Between the blessing of redemption and [the blessing of] healing the sick etc.” The intention is not clear, especially if we presume that the mention of Birkat haMinim as it appears in the Vienna manuscript is integral to the text of the Tosefta, even though it does not appear in the Leiden and Ehrfurt manuscripts 14 or in the first printed edition. In the parallel discussion in the Mishnah, which is the basis for the discussion in the Tosefta, there is no mention of ‘brings low the haughty’ or Birkat haMinim, nor does this appear in later parallels in the 15 Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmudim. 16 Birkat haMinim is once again not mentioned in later sources, except in a very few sources, which can tell us little, if anything, about the elements which might have made up the text of the blessing. Thus, for example, there is a men17 tion in Midrash Tanhuma, but it is of no use to us. This is also the case with even 18 19 later mentions, such as Midrash Numbers Rabbah, and Midrash Panim Aherim. In this work, Birkat haMinim is not mentioned by name, but in a rather strange story put in the mouth of Haman. In this story he relates to the blessing and cites

11

This is the name of the blessing which apparently the same Somchos added in addition to the six blessings which are added on a fast day, and in all of them disagreed with the ending found in Mishnah, Ta’anit ii, 4: “That hast compassion on the land”.(tr. Danby). See S. Lieberman, Tosefta KiFshutah, v, Seder Mo’ed, (Newark, 1963), p. 1073. 12 This is found in the Vienna MS. and is missing in the rest. 13 Tosefta, Ta’anit i, 10 (Lieberman, ed. p. 326). 14 Mishnah, Ta’anit ii, 4. 15 BT Ta’anit 16b-17a; JT Ta’anit iv, 65d, and see Lieberman Tosefta KiFshutah, loc. cit., p.1074; there is a further mention in Tosefta, Berakhot iii, 25 (ed. Lieberman, p. 18): “Eighteen blessings … including the minin because of the perushim”. This is parallel to the discussions in JT Berakhot ii, 5a; v, 9c on the number of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh which I will discuss below, p.74f. 16 An attempt has been made to find a link between Birkat haMinim and a non-Talmudic source, the inscription from Ein Gedi: B. Binyamin, ‘Birkat haMinim and the Ein Gedi inscription’, Immanuel 21 (1987), pp. 68-79. In my opinion there is no connection either in vocabulary or in content between the blessing and the inscription. 17 Tanhuma Vayiqra iii (ed. Buber p. 2): “Our rabbis taught us that someone [who is leading the prayers] in front of the Ark and makes a mistake [and did not say the blessing which curses the minim, when they make him repeat it, for our rabbis said that if someone is in front of the Ark and makes a mistake] in all the blessings they do not make him repeat it, but in Birkat haMinim they make him repeat it even if he does not want to.” This is a late passage which does not appear in the printed (1522) edition from Constantinople. (The date of Tanhuma is problematic, but it does not seem to be before the 9th century: see L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, [Frankfurt a.m. 18922, repr. Hildsheim, 1966], p. 247; G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, [Edinburgh, 19962], p. 305.) 18 Parashah 18 in the Vilna edition. This Midrash does not have a critical edition but there is a MS. (Oxford Bodl. 147 and 2335). 19 Version B , Parashah 3. In the collection Sifrei de-Aggadata al Esther, (ed. Buber, Vilna 1886, on the basis of an Oxford MS. of 1470. See Stemberger, [above, n. 17], p. 321).

12

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

its close ‘humbles the arrogant.’ Haman here is said to object to the fact that “they said that we are the arrogant.” This is a problematic version, and the order 20 of prayer attributed to the worshippers is not familiar, but this Midrash closes the circle of our survey of the sources which mention Birkat haMinim or relate to it directly. None of these sources include the text of the blessing, only single words or phrases here and there, and here too we need to distinguish between different types and different periods. It is no accident that all the scholars dealing with Birkat haMinim have chosen to cite the words of the scholar who laid the foundations for the study of the liturgy, Ismar Elbogen: ‘No benediction has undergone so many textual variations as this one… It is most doubtful that we will ever be in a position to re21 cover its original text.’ This statement is a faithful reflection of the situation in 22 the prayer books. Here we find so many different versions of Birkat haMinim that in most of the prayer books we have today there is almost no starting point or support for clarifying the earliest version of the blessing. The multitude of 23 textual versions and rites also makes it very difficult to identify the links and developments between them, and attempts at this have not succeeded or been 24 accepted, in particular those of Jewish legal authorities [poseqim] or halakhic 25 interpreters. Two difficulties sum up what has been said up to now. On the one hand, the text of the blessing is not extant in any of our sources, including those where Birkat haMinim is mentioned by name or by its close, while on the other hand the texts we do have are found in different versions scattered over many prayer books, with the earliest of these written at too late a period to be of use to us. But within these very difficulties, in my opinion, we should be able to find a solution to the problem of the earliest versions, albeit a partial solution, but a solid one.

20 S. Krauss, ‘Zur Literatur der Siddurim: christliche Polemic’, A. Marx and H. Meyer (eds.), Festschrift für Aron Freimann, (Berlin, 1935), pp. 128-129. 21 I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, (Hildesheim, 19624), p. 51. This quotation is taken from the English edition: id., Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, (trans. R.P. Schneidlin), (New York-Jerusalem 1993), p. 45. 22 For a wide-ranging comparative survey of the versions of Birkat haMinim in prayer books from the Middle Ages on, see: D.Z. Hillman, ‘Text of the 12th Benediction (Birkat haMinim)’, Zefunot a/2 (1989), pp. 58-65 and the Response and Additions of I.Y. Weiss, ‘Comments on Text of the 12th Benediction’, Zefunot a/3 (1989), p. 68. 23 Especially in the case of later versions. See: Seligman Baer, Avodat Yisrael, (Rödelheim, 1868); A. Berliner, Randbemarkungen zum täglichen Gebetbuche (Siddur), (Berlin, 1909), pp. 52-53. 24 L. Finkelstein, ‘The Development of the Amidah’, JQR 16 (1925-1926), pp. 1-43; 127170. 25 L. Jacobs, ‘Praying for the Downfall of the Wicked’, Modern Judaism 2 (1982), pp. 297-310.

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

13

The way to a partial solution of the problem of the earliest version is first of all an informed and organised investigation of the oldest versions we have, which are found in the earliest prayer books in the Cairo Genizah. Following this, we shall compare and match these texts as far as possible to the vocabulary and phrases found in the Talmudic sources.

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah It is generally agreed that Rav Natronai bar Hilai, the Ga’on from Sura, was 26 the first to record the order of the prayers, according to a responsum of this 27 Babylonian ga’on to a question put to him by the community of Lucena in Spain. The responsum is extremely brief, and contains mostly the closures of the blessings. The full text of Birkat haMinim is not extant in Natronai’s responsum, but 28 the blessing is mentioned under its Talmudic name. At the top of the fourth page of the manuscript there is a fragment of a sentence: “And with Birkat haMinim there are those who close with ‘who crushes the wicked and those …’” For our purposes, Rav Natronai is certainly quoting words from versions of the blessing which were known in his day. We may posit ‘versions’ in the plural, because even from this fragment of text we can understand that there was a further possibility for the beginning of the closing sentence. (We know of another version which has “who crushes enemies.”) The text of the prayers themselves appears for the first time only in the work called Seder Rav Amram Ga’on, Rav Amram Ga’on’s prayer book, after Rav Natronai’s successor at Sura. The writing of this work is attributed to the ninth century, when Rav Amram lived, but it looks as if the version which has come down to us has been edited and changed. The manuscripts on which the critical 29 edition was based are no earlier than the fourteenth century, so that the prayer 30 book attributed to Rav Amram is far from being the original. The text of Birkat

26

L. Ginzburg, Geonica, I, (New York, 19682), p. 123; I. Elbogen, (above, n. 21), p. 274. Ibid., II, pp. 114-121. 28 “And he stands during the Prayer (tefilla) and says nineteen blessings together with Birkat haMinin (sic)” loc. cit. p. 116. 29 E.D. Goldschmidt, Seder Rav Amram Ga’on, (Jerusalem, 1971), (in Hebrew). 30 I. Elbogen, (above, n. 21), p. 275; S. Assaf, Tequfat ha-Ge’onim ve-Sifrutah, (Jerusalem, 1955), p. 184; J.N. Epstein, Seder Rav Amram Ga’on Siduro u-Mesadrav, (Berlin, 1929), pp, 122-141; D. Goldschmidt, ‘Prayer books,’ EJ, vol. 13 (1972), p. 985; R. Brody ‘The Enigma of Seder Rav Amram’, in: S. Elizur et al. (eds), Knesset Ezra: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 22. 27

14

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

haMinim in Seder Rav Amram, with the different readings in the various manuscripts, is as follows: 31

For the apostates (for the informers [malshinim ]) let there be no hope (if they do not re32 33 turn to Your Covenant) and the minim (and all the arrogant [Ms. M]); and let the notzrim and the minim [Ms. O] perish in an instant (thus M and S; be consumed in an instant: (O) and all the enemies of Your people (S); and all our enemies: (M); and all our enemies and those who hate us (O) be speedily cut down and the kingdom of arrogance be speedily uprooted and crushed and humbled speedily in our days. Blessed are You the Lord who 34 crushes the wicked (enemies: O) and humbles the arrogant.

The manuscripts of Seder Rav Amram have a different version of almost every term in the blessing. The oldest manuscript, as already noted, is from the fourteenth century. Not only is this very late, but we also have no way of ascertaining 35 which of the manuscripts is the most faithful copy of the original. Seder Rav Amram, then, cannot be used as an authoritative source, except in comparison to other early prayer books and in particular the texts found in the Cairo Genizah. 36 The prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah ben Joseph of Fayyum, another Ga’on of Sura, was written in Babylonia about a hundred years after Rav Amram’s 37 time, apparently because of a request from the Jewish community in Egypt. The 38 prayer book is based mainly on one manuscript, but it is agreed that this reflects 39 Sa‘adiah’s text and probably dates to the third decade of the tenth century. The text of Birkat haMinim in the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah is as follows:

31

Thus in the British Museum MS. Or. 1067, henceforward Ms. M. This addition is only to be found in the Bodleian in Oxford (Neubauer’s catalogue no. 1095), henceforward MS. O. 33 Thus in the MS. of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, Sulzberger collection no 4074, henceforward MS. S. 34 For the convenience of the reader the different textual versions of birkat haMinim are cited in this chapter in English translation. The Hebrew texts are to be found in Appendix A. Translation of Hebrew terms follows the translation of the Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, commonly known as Singer’s Prayer Book, with the new translation of I. Jakobovits et. al. (London, 1890, rev. 1990), p. 82. 35 This is in spite of Goldschmidt’s attempt to sketch the genealogy of the manuscripts of Seder Rav Amram. See: (above, n. 21), Introduction, p. 18. 36 The critical edition: I. Davidson, S. Assaf, B.I. Joël, (eds.) Siddur Rav Sa‘adiah Gaon, (Jerusalem, 1970, in Hebrew). The original name was Qitab al-salwat wa-a-sabih. Henceforward the Siddur of Rav Sa‘adiah. 37 S. Assaf, in the Introduction to the Siddur of Rav Sa‘adiah, p. 24; Ginzburg, Geonica, (above, n. 26), p. 166. 38 Oxford MS. Hunt. 448, Neubauer catalogue no. 1096. 39 Assaf bases this on the signature, built from the last letters of the closing blessings, as follows: Sa’id ben Yoseph Aluf, in other words, the prayer book was compiled before Rav Sa‘adiah was appointed as Ga’on. Loc .cit. p. 22. On the authenticity of the text, loc. cit. p. 30. 32

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

15

For the apostates let there be no hope and let the kingdom of arrogance be speedily uprooted and crushed in our days. Blessed are You, Lord, who crushes the wicked and humbles the arrogant.

The versions we have of Birkat haMinim in the different copies of Seder Rav Amram are longer and more detailed than the text of the blessing in the single manuscript of the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah, but, as we have seen, it is difficult to demonstrate the closeness of the former to their ninth-century source. Thus it is hardly far-fetched to relate to the text of Rav Sa‘adiah as one of the earliest sources for Birkat haMinim in the prayer books which have come down 40 to us, if not the earliest. It is generally agreed that we should include the ‘Order of Prayers for the Whole Year’ of Maimonides [the Rambam] among the earliest prayer books. This collection of prayers, which is not really a prayer book, is included in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, at the end of the book called Sefer Ahavah (the Book of Love), and it includes the Shemoneh Esreh prayer and other blessings. This is 41 the text of the twelfth blessing in the Rambam’s order of blessings: For the apostates let there be no hope and may all the minim perish in an instant and the kingdom of arrogance be uprooted and crushed speedily in our days. Blessed are You, 42 Lord, who crushes the wicked and humbles the arrogant.

We should note that the editor of the critical edition himself took care to include his readers in his doubts as to whether the Order of Prayers was indeed written 43 in the time of the Rambam. However, we have no other texts, or conclusive evidence for this doubt, other than the version which appears in the earliest Yemenite prayer books. It is accepted that Yemenite Jewry was heavily influenced by the 44 Rambam and took on his versions of prayers, and indeed the Yemenite version 45 is almost completely identical to that of the Rambam. The problem of how far the earliest prayer books are faithful to their sources is also relevant in the case of the widely inclusive prayer book attributed to Rabbi

40

The texts of the prayers and piyyutim in the Siddur of Rav Sa‘adiah which were found in the Cairo Genizah are sometimes different from the Oxford manuscript, but they do not include a text of Birkat HaMinim. 41 Critical edition: E.D. Goldschmidt, ‘Mainonides’ Rite of the Prayer According to an Oxford Manuscript’, (Hunt. 80; Neubauer 577), Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry, 7 (1958), p. 199. 42 Thus the MS. In a correction above the line, according to Goldschmidt MS. A(1), the term ‘enemies’ (oy’vim) appears as a correction or editing above the line. 43 loc. cit. P. 188. 44 loc. cit. p.185. 45 The Yemenite version is: “The minim and the betrayers [moserim] shall perish in an instant…” See the Yemenite prayer books: Tiklal Etz-Chayim, (Jerusalem, 1894); Tiklal Kadmonim, (Jerusalem, 1964).

16

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim 46

Simhah ben Shemuel, generally known as Mahzor Vitry. The compiler came 47 from the same circle as Rashi in the eleventh century, but this inclusive festival prayer book underwent a number of changes and editions, and it would seem that 48 the printed version is not earlier than the thirteenth century. There is as yet no critical edition of the Mahzor Vitry. Apart from the printed edition, the liturgical scholar Daniel Goldschmidt has published a further manu49 script (the Reggio MS.) which he sees as more original than the printed version. Birkat haMinim according to the two known versions of the Mahzor Vitry runs as follows: Hurwitz edition

Reggio MS.

[…] hope

[…]

and [may] all [...] perish in an instant

and [may] all […] perish in an instant

let there be no hope

and enemies of your people

and enemies of your people

Israel be speedily cut off

the house of Israel be speedily cut off

and humble all […] speedily in

[…] speedily uproot and crush and

our days

destroy and humble all our enemies

Blessed are You, Lord, [who] crushes

Blessed are You, Lord, […]

enemies and humbles […]

Among the versions discussed so far, we can see a certain similarity between the short versions of Rav Sa‘adiah and the Rambam, and between the longer version found in the Seder Rav Amram and the Mahzor Vitry. It is true that Rav Sa‘adiah and the Rambam were active near each other – Rav Sa‘adiah was born in Egypt, and it was to the Egyptian community that he sent his prayer book, while the Rambam was also active in Egypt. We also know that the Seder Rav Amram influenced the Mahzor Vitry. However, after examining the texts and seeing the 46 S. Hurwitz (ed.), Machsor Vitry, [handschrift im British Museum (Cod. Add. No. 2720027201), (Nürnberg, 1923)]. 47 I. Elbogen, (above, n. 21), pp. 276-277. 48 A. Berliner. ‘Beiträgen,’ in: S. Hurwitz, Einleitung und Register zum Machsor Vitry, (Berlin, 1896-1897), p. 171; And see D. Goldschmidt, Mahzor Vitry EJ 11 (1972), pp. 736737. 49 E.D. Goldschmidt, ‘Le texte des Prières du Manuscrit Reggio du Mahzor Vitry’, REJ 125 (1966), pp. 63-75; esp. p. 66 with the text of Birkat haMinim.

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

17

links between the different versions of the earliest prayer books known to us, we should not be in a hurry to come to definitive conclusions about the text of Birkat haMinim between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. The most that we can say is that it is possible to identify a common origin for all of them. A certain amount of help can be found from a totally different direction, one which is much less congenial. This is the well-known episode of the first example of Christian polemic with Talmudic texts, known as the Paris dispute. It began with the apostate Nicholas Donin, and was held under the aegis of the pope and 50 the royal court, and ended in the burning of the Talmud around the year 1240. This was the first time that the Christian world acknowledged the Talmud and its literature officially using the help of Jewish apostates, which was to become a well-known system later. Donin collected passages which were problematic or debatable from the Christian point of view from Scripture and the prayer book and sent them to the pope, and they were added to a letter from Pope Gregory IX 51 sent in 1239 to the bishop of Paris. Among the passages in Donin’s collection is a complete text of the Birkat haMinim translated into Latin. Here is the text of the blessing in the indictment, paragraph 30: For the apostates let there be no hope and may all the mynym perish in a moment and all enemies of Your people Israel be cut off, and the kingdom of arrogance be uprooted and crushed and defeated and humbled, all our enemies speedily in our days. Blessed are You, 52 Lord, who crushes enemies and humbles the arrogant.

The indictment does not state where this version of Birkat haMinim is taken from, but in comparison with the early versions we have examined so far we can see the resemblance to the Jewish Theological Seminary manuscript of the Seder Rav Amram, and the almost total resemblance to the version in the Mahzor Vitry, especially the Reggio manuscript. (Mahzor Vitry was in use in northern France and was certainly the nearest which Donin could have obtained. In any case, Donin’s version fills in the gaps in Mahzor Vitry.) We do not know how thorough Donin’s work was, but it can be assumed that if he had known a number of dif-

50

Demonstration of the different possibilities: C. Merchavia, The Church Versus Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (500-1248), (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 248 (in Hebrew). 51 For a description and analysis of the whole episode: S. Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews, (Toronto, 1988-1991), p. 22; S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century, (New York, 1966), pp. 29-30, and Appendix A, pp. 339-340. 52 Here is the Latin original according to MS. 16558 in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris: Conversis non sit spes et omnes mynym (infideles) in hora disperdantur, et omnes inimici gentis tue Israel discindantur, et regnum nequiciae eradices et confringas et conteras et declines omnes inimicos nostros velociter in diebus nostris; benedictus tu Deus frangens inimicos et declinas impios. This was first published by I. Loeb, ‘La Controverse de 1240 sur le Talmud’, REJ 3 (1881), pp. 50-51; I have used the translations of J. Rosenthal, ‘The Talmud on Trial’, JQR 47 (1956), pp. 162. See also: Merchavia, (above, n. 50), pp. 278-279; Infideles is the translation added in the source for the Hebrew word mynym brought as such.

18

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

ferent customs, he would not have left out any versions which were more sharply 53 or clearly aimed against the Christians, if he had known of them. There can be no doubt that Nicholas Donin cites a version which was in use before the great disputes (Paris, Barcelona, and Tortosa) and before the beginning of the succession of burnings of the Talmud and works of Jewish law. Thus we can easily suppose (albeit with all due caution) that the version from the Paris collection belongs to a period before there was censorship and state bans on certain passages from laws and prayers which were subjects of dispute. Obviously Donin’s version strengthens the status of the text which appears in the Mahzor Vitry as the version which was widespread and well-known in 54 France, as well as the versions close to it in Spain and other places. However it does not detract from the status of versions current in other places, in our respect mostly in Egypt, for it is reasonable to presume that the latter were no earlier. The importance of this hypothesis is that it does not detract from the importance of the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah, as one of the earliest sources (among the prayer book versions), if not the earliest. However, we should not leave the wider text of the Mahzor Vitry out of our consideration, even though this is the latest of the early prayer books (and includes portions from the Seder Rav Amram). These two versions of the text, the short version of Rav Sa‘adiah, and the long version of Rabbi Simhah of Vitry (which is similar to the version by Donin included in the papal letter) do not cancel each other out, as there are no substantial differences between them in the most important wording. The two versions of the text, of course, do not represent the earliest version of Birkat haMinim, but, as the earliest versions from the prayer books which have come down to us, we can extract from them a single common denominator in order to connect to the hints we do have. The common structure which arises from our discussion is thus as follows: 55

For the apostates let there be no hope 53

It is important to note that the word ‘notzrim’ does not appear. See Merchavia, (above, n. 50), pp. 279-280. 54 It should be noted that this is almost identical to the version from Worms at the end of the 12th century. See: E.D. Goldschmidt, ‘The Mahzor of Worms’, i.d., Studies, (above, n. 41), p. 10. Similarly Seligman Baer demonstrated that an almost identical version was in front of Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, the writer of the Arba‘ah Turim. See: Baer, Avodat Yisrael (above, n. 23), p. 95. The text of Birkat haMinim does not appear in the Tur, (Orah Hayim, § 118), but it says there that there are 29 words, which is very close to Donin’s version. 55 This opening is common to all the prayer books discussed, except for the British Museum MS. of the Seder Rav Amram (M), which has “for the informers” [la-malshinim]. The opening “for the informers” took the place of the opening “for the apostates” in the later prayer books, especially from the 16th century on. But it should be noted that “for the informers” appears in a number of fragments from the Cairo Genizah as well as, not instead of, “for the apostates.” See on this: Y. Luger, The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah, (Ph.d Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 1992), pp. 154-155, 285 n. 13.

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

19

56

And may the minim perish in an instant 57 And the kingdom of arrogance be uprooted and crushed speedily in our days 58 Blessed are You, Lord, who crushes enemies and humbles the arrogant.

So far our survey of the textual versions of the earliest prayer books. The question which now needs to be discussed is how close this archetype we have extracted from our survey is, to what is said to be the earliest version created in the Land of Israel. Most of the versions which we have discussed so far belong to what is called the Babylonian rite, which was widespread in the Middle East and North Africa and even reached the Yemen. Seder Rav Amram as we know it today 59 certainly represents the Babylonian rite. There are those who see the version of Rav Sa‘adiah as the Land of Israel rite influenced by Babylonia, especially with 60 respect to the Shemoneh Esreh. The version called ‘the Land of Israel rite’ was found in the late Middle Ages particularly in the Balkans, to a certain extent in 61 Italy, and to a lesser extent in France and Ashkenaz. However, the big question is what was the real nature and origin of this ‘Land of Israel rite.’ It seems reasonable to think that the ‘Land of Israel rite’ reflects the version which was created 62 in the Land of Israel, and that this preceded the Babylonian rite, and may indeed be the original version, or at least near to it. However things are not quite so simple. The clearest and earliest authority for the existence of two different versions of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer is to be found by comparing the structure of the prayer and the order of the blessings as they are presented in the Babylonian 63 Talmud (Megillah 17b) and the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot ii, 4d.). However, 56

This is missing in the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah Gaon. It is present in the Rambam’s Order of Prayer; and in Seder Rav Amram in the Jewish Theological Seminary’s MS. S. (The British Museum MS., apparently the earliest of the three, has the notzrim and the minim.) The term is absent from the two versions of the Mahzor Vitry, but the sentence “and all […] will perish in an instant” is present, so that the almost identical structure of the blessing in Mahzor Vitry and Donin’s version allow us to posit the existence of the term minim filling the gap. 57 The “kingdom of arrogance” is rubbed out in the Mahzor Vitry, but it can be supplied by comparison with the other versions. 58 The close is the same in all versions, except for some substitutions of ‘wicked’ for ‘enemies’. 59 L. Finkelstein, ‘Development’, (above, n. 24), p. 142. 60 Finkelstein, ‘Amidah’, (above, n. 24), pp. 142-143, defines it as Egyptian rite, while Mann claims that the Siddur of Rav Sa‘adiah is Babylonian rite. See: J. Mann, ‘Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service’, HUCA 2 (1925), p. 269. 61 I. Elbogen (above, n. 21), pp. 277-278. 62 Cf: J. Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tannaim and the Amoraim, (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 46 (in Hebrew). 63 In the continuation of this passage on page 5a, we find the Jerusalem Talmud version of the prayer Havineinu, but it is not clear whether we are entitled to deduce from this the structure of blessings 14-16, i.e. whether Tzemah David, the blessing for the offspring of the House of David, is a blessing in its own right, or whether it is included in the blessing before it, for two or three blessings are abbreviated in one shortened sentence.

20

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

the complete text of the blessings is not found in either of these places; there are only explanations of the nature and order of the blessings. The absence of the blessings in their entirety lessens to some extent the force of the early authority in the Talmudim, but this is not enough to spoil the fact of the existence of two versions of the prayer. 64 We know more about differences in halakhot between Babylonia and the Land of Israel then we know about the different rites of prayer. When it comes to the basic authority for prayer rites there was a definitive difference: there were eighteen blessings in the Land of Israel rite but nineteen in the Babylonian rite, and there is evidence for particular closures of blessings and different phraseology. We also know of the existence of separate communities, Babylonian and 65 Palestinian, both in the Land of Israel itself, as well as in Syria and Egypt. The major part of the evidence on these communities is from the time of the Ge’onim, and in any case, the evidence is no earlier than the Muslim conquest of Palestine (634 CE). We do not know the exact nature of the version used by worshippers in the Land of Israel before the seventh century – if there was an exact version – just as the later developments of this text are shrouded in mystery. The Land of Israel underwent upheavals and repressive legislation which were a detrimental influence, but these did not reach the large Babylonian centres. One example of this is the law of the emperor Justinian, published in the mid-sixth century (Novella 146), which forbade the teaching of the Mishnah 66 and may well have also interfered with prayer. A further example of this is to be found in the statement of Rav Yehudai on the ban on prayer, which is cited 67 by Pirqoi ben Baboi, evidence which is dated by Jacob Mann to the time of 68 Heraclius’ conquest of Palestine in the years 614-628 CE. The scholar of the history of the liturgy, Joseph Heinemann, determined that the Land of Israel rite had been forgotten by the time of the Crusaders, except in 69 Egypt, where it was preserved. Heinemann based his claim on the evidence of 64

Q.v. Sefer ha-Hiluqim, (ed. M. Margoliouth, Jerusalem, 1938). In the introduction to this edition there are references to these differences between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim: pp. 15-16. 65 Margaliouth, loc. cit. pp. 11-12; and especially M. Gil, A History of Palestine (6341099), (Cambridge, 1992), p. 527. 66 A. Linder, The Jews in the Roman Empire, (Detroit, 1987), pp. 402-405. 67 L. Ginzberg (ed.), Genizah Studies (Ginzei Schechter), vol. 2, (New York, 1928), pp. 551-552; B.M. Lewin, ‘From the Remains of the Genizah’, Tarbiz 2 (1931), p. 383; On Ben Baboi see id., loc. cit. p. 398; J.N. Epstein, Studies in Talmudic Literature and Semitic Languages, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 258-264 (in Hebrew). 68 J. Mann, ‘Changes in the Divine Service’, HUCA 4 (1927), pp. 253-254; Z Baras ‘The Persian Conquest and the End of Byzantine Rule’ in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir, M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 348 (in Hebrew). 69 Heinemann, (above, n. 62), p. 24.

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

21

the manuscripts which were found in the attic of the Ezra synagogue in Fustat (Old Cairo), known as the Cairo Genizah. And indeed, research into the rite identified as belonging to the Land of Israel, began only after the first publica70 tions of the Genizah discoveries, which included fragments of prayers, including versions of the Shemoneh Esreh. It was on the basis of their differences from, and similarities with the ancient authorities that some of these were de71 fined as exemplifying a ‘Land of Israel rite.’ The questions which arose from the publication of the Genizah and which related to the basic problems of research into the different versions of prayers in general, included clarifications of the nature and status of this ‘Land of Israel rite’ which was discovered in the Genizah. Research into this mostly examined the mutual influences between the two rites which were both found in the Genizah. One of the questions which arose was whether the version which is defined as purely Land of Israel preceded the Babylonian versions which were also found in the Genizah, and whether this was indeed the earliest version. All this precedes our discussion of the texts which were found in the Genizah and the many problems which arise from this discussion. Questions like these, with suggestions for solutions, were raised by 72 Louis Finkelstein as early as 1925. Finkelstein used the Land of Israel rite, as discovered in the Genizah, as a basis for his reconstruction of the original text of the whole Shemoneh Esreh prayer, comparing the versions of the oldest prayer books and weaving a connection between them. However, this long and detailed discussion, and its conclusions, is far from being persuasive. Recently Yehezkel Luger published his research into the versions of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer found in the Cairo Genizah. Luger sums up the arguments and the doubts in the scholarly literature about the identification of the Genizah version with the Land of Israel rite. He notes that it has been known for some time that many of the manuscripts found in the Cairo Genizah in fact reflect the Babylonian custom. He also points out that those manuscripts which were published at the beginning of Genizah research, and which have definite signs of belonging to the Land of

70 S. Schechter, ‘Genizah Specimens’, JQR 10 (1898), pp. 655-659; I. Lévi ‘Fragments de Rituals de Prières’, REJ 53 (1907), pp. 231-241; I. Elbogen, ‘Die Tefilla für die Festtage’, MGWJ 55 (1911), pp. 426-446, 586-599, published fragments of the Amidah prayer for festivals; A. Marmorstein, ‘The Amidah of the Public Fast Days’, JQR 15 (1924-25), pp. 409-418; J. Mann, ‘Genizah Fragments’, (above, n. 60), pp. 269-338; S. Assaf, ‘Mi-Seder ha-Tefilla beEretz Yisrael’, Y. Beer (et. al. eds.), Festschrift in Honor of B. Dinaburg, (Jerusalem, 1949), pp. 116-131. 71 It should be noted that in Schechter’s paper there is not a word about identifying the version he has of the prayer with the Land of Israel rite. The first to relate to this in detail was Jacob Mann, who demonstrated the characteristics of the Land of Israel rite and thus presented Schechter’s version as Palestinian. Ibid., p. 295. 72 L. Finkelstein, (above, n. 24).

22

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

Israel rite, are in a minority in comparison to the total of the versions which have 73 been found in the Genizah and published. This trend to a multiplicity of versions, and even a mixture of versions, in the fragments found in the Cairo Genizah is not surprising. The Genizah does not provide a common denominator of place, time, subject or content, or any other clear common denominator, except for the fact that the Genizah was active as a repository for manuscripts written in Hebrew for hundreds of years, and its findings shed light on unknown periods and different subjects from the life of Jews in the Middle Ages. Documents of different sorts and strange kinds piled up in the Cairo Genizah, from near and faraway countries. In the collection are numerous pieces of evidence for the rites and customs of different Diaspora communities, including documents which have been copied, edited, corrupted and adapted from one rite or custom to another, and from one Diaspora community to another. And indeed the range of finds of prayers as described here, and seen in far more detail and depth in Luger’s study, certainly reflects this situation. Thus we can see how necessary it is to examine the different versions of texts from the Genizah with the utmost care, if only because there are unique versions with similar characteristics and certain common denominators. On the other hand, we must not exaggerate the importance of these finds for the subject of this research. The texts of Birkat haMinim found in the Cairo Genizah have been catalogued by Luger into three main types: Version A and Version C reflect the Babylonian 74 rite, and version B reflects the Land of Israel rite. Luger found that classification of the versions of Birkat haMinim into these three types sometimes corresponded with the parallel classification of the rest of the blessings in the various manu75 scripts, but not always. Thus our discussion will concentrate on comparing the two most important versions of the text from the Genizah: the Palestinian and the Babylonian. In honour of the first scholar to publish the Genizah, we shall use

73

Y. Luger, (above, n. 55). Ibid., pp. 150-151. Luger made a thorough examination of the boxes of prayers from the Taylor-Schechter collection at Cambridge, especially Box H, bringing comparative material from a number of other Genizah fragments in the New Series (NS), the Additional Series (AS) as well as some fragments from the Adler collection and elsewhere. See Luger, ibid., pp.154158 and footnotes in pp. 283-287. 75 In MSS. T-S K27.33, H18.3, K27.18, and Schechter, all the blessings reflect the Land of Israel rite according to the accepted yardsticks which are as follows: a structure of eighteen blessings; without the Babylonian 15th blessing, Tzemah David; the typical Land of Israel closures, etc. (MS. H18.3 was published by S. Assaf, ‘Mi-Seder’, (above, n. 70) pp.116-117). In MS. 8H9.12 Birkat haMinim belongs to Version B, but most of the other blessings are classified as the Babylonian Version A. In MS. 8H24.5 (published by Mann, ‘Genizah Fragments’, (above, n. 60), pp. 306-307), Birkat haMinim is nearer to Version B and the rest of the blessings to Version A and C, which are the more Babylonian versions. 74

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

23

76

Schechter’s Palestinian (II) version as the basis of our discussion, together with Luger’s Version A, which reflects the Babylonian prayer rite.

Land of Israel [Palestinian] rite

Babylonian rite

For the apostates let there be no hope

For the apostates let there be no hope

and the kingdom of arrogance speedily

(if they do not return to Your Torah ) and may the dominion of 78 arrogance be speedily uprooted in our days )

77

may they be uprooted and crushed and humbled in our days and the notzrim and the Minim perish in an instant

and the notzrim and the minim perish in an instant

(and all enemies of Your people and their oppressors be cut off and crush the yoke of the non-Jews from upon our necks)

Blessed are You, Lord,

may they be blotted out of the Book of Life 79 and not inscribed with the righteous Blessed are You, Lord, [who] humbles the

[who] crushes the wicked and

arrogant

humbles the arrogant

76

S. Schechter, ‘Genizah Specimens’, (above, n. 70), p. 657. Not in the Schechter version but present in other versions. 78 Not in MS. 8H24.5, H18.3, but this line is present in most of the texts of versions A and C, as well as in the earliest prayer books. 79 Psalms 69:29. A later addition (contra: K.G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim, [Tübingen, 1950], p. 18). The sentence appears in very few MSS. 77

24

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim 80

It is essential to discuss these two versions side by side, since we have no way of deciding which is the earlier or preferable version, apart from a small and very limited degree of priority to be given to the Land of Israel rite, simply because this has been identified as the Land of Israel rite, together with the references in the Jerusalem Talmud. The opening “for the apostates let there be no hope” is the same in all the versions, as is the close “humble the arrogant,” with one difference: in the version 81 characterised as the Babylonian (Version A) the phrases “crushes the wicked” or “crushes enemies” are added, so that the short version in “Blessed are You, Lord, who humbles the arrogant” has been accepted as an identifying characteristic of the Land of Israel rite. In the body of the blessing the most outstanding phrase is the very meaning82 ful line “may the notzrim and the minim perish in an instant,” which is to be found in many manuscripts in both the Land of Israel and the Babylonian rite. The line which relates to the kingdom of arrogance which usually appears in the version characterised as Babylonian and is not usually present in Version B, is to be found in the Schechter MS. (K27.33), which is almost entirely characterised as Palestinian, as well as in the short Version C. Simply comparing the versions of the text is not enough by itself to lead to a definitive conclusion as to the precedence of one or other particular version among those surveyed here. There is some rationale in making a distinction according to the length of the text: in other words it is more likely that shorter texts are likely to be earlier texts, if only because of the theory that it is more usual to add and not to reduce in this sort of case (apart from those cases where there is internal or external censorship which removes one or more parts). The textual version attributed to the Babylonian rite (Luger’s version A) is usually longer in the body of the blessing. For example, we find different sorts of additions to the curse put on the kingdom of arrogance: the phrase usually added is: “may it be uprooted and crushed and humbled etc.” Another example of an addition is: 80 It is not my intention here to repeat Luger’s discussion of the comparisons between the versions, but to discuss our subject only. Moreover, the comparison is between the different types of these versions. There are differences such as the addition of a vav conjunctive, words written plene or not, and other tiny differences which are noted in Luger’s work when he compares all the different manuscripts. These small differences are not of concern to us here. 81 Luger brings a third type which is characterised by a short text: “For the apostates let there be no hope and may the kingdom of arrogance be uprooted and crushed speedily in our days. Blessed are You, Lord, who crushes the wicked and humbles the arrogant.” Only a minority of MSS. have this short version and within the versions of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer they are closer to the Babylonian rite. Ibid., pp. 150-151. 82 Sometimes with tiny changes as described by Luger, (above, n. 55), pp. 152f. However the pairing of “notzrim and minim” is consistent in many of the manuscripts found in the main collections, the Taylor-Schechter and the Adler. Cf. A. Marmorstein, ‘Amidah’, (above, n. 70), pp. 415-417.

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

25

“may all enemies of Your people and their oppressors be speedily cut off and crush the yoke of the non-Jews from upon our necks etc.” On the other hand, the shortest version of Birkat haMinim also occurs in the 83 Genizah, in a context which includes blessings with Babylonian characteristics. However, this short version does not include the Babylonian additions noted above, and in particular, the line with notzrim and minim is noticeably absent. While we may easily explain the absence of notzrim from the short version (or 84 any other) by censorship, it is harder to come to the same conclusion on the absence of the term minim, which is included in the very name of the blessing in our sources, both in the Babylonian and the Jerusalem talmudim. Comparison of the Genizah versions shows that the commonest terms and phrases are: apostates (meshumadim), kingdom of arrogance (Malkhut Zadon), 85 notzrim and minim, humbles the arrogant. These, then, are the main categories of the objects of the curses in Birkat haMinim. Among them only the category notzrim and minim together, and in particular the term notzrim alone, do not appear in the versions of the blessings in the oldest prayer books we have discussed 86 above – except in one of the manuscripts of Seder Rav Amram. The absence of the term notzrim from the earliest prayer books does not need too much explanation. This could have a number of causes, above all the existence of censorship. To this we may add the geographical distance of the place of finding the Genizah from the places of publication of the ancient prayer books we have discussed, and the differences in cultural and religious environment between them. These factors sometimes dictated completely different rules for what was allowed or forbidden in sensitive and problematic texts like Birkat haMinim. Not only the earliest prayer books, in particular those from Western Europe, have been examined on this question, but also, as noted above, Nicholas Donin’s version of the text. This apostate would not have omitted a version of Birkat haMinim which included the term notzrim if he had found such a version, for the presence of this term would have served as a better foundation for his accusations, and he would not have needed to deal with less comprehensible or convincing terms (apostates, kingdom of arrogance, minim etc). The latter key-words also appear, as we have noted, in the earliest prayer books surveyed above. In the light of all that has been said above, we now need to analyse the structure of the blessing as it appears from a comparison of the Genizah versions with the structure of the blessing (the archetype) in the earliest prayer books and in Donin’s version, as follows:

83

See previous note. Luger (above n. 55), p. 155. 85 The phrase itself needs clarification, as well as each term by itself. See below. 86 MS. Oxford Bodleian A. 84

26

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

Combined version in the earliest prayer books

Combined version in the Cairo Genizah

For the apostates let there be

For the apostates let there be no hope

no hope

(if they do not return...)

let all the minim perish in an

(and may the dominion of

moment

arrogance be speedily uprooted… in our days)

and may the dominion of

and may the notzrim and the

arrogance be uprooted and

minim perish in a moment

crushed speedily in our days Blessed are You, Lord, who

Blessed are You, Lord, who

crushes enemies and

(crushes enemies/ the wicked)

humbles the arrogant

and humbles the arrogant

Comparison of the versions demonstrates that there is no essential difference in the structure of the prayer between the earliest prayer books and the Genizah finds. And where there is a difference from the pattern which emerges from the above comparison, even individual documents (Genizah fragment or a particular prayer book), are liable to be important, and perhaps no less so than the normative types. The most outstanding example is actually in the minimalist version of Birkat haMinim in the Genizah, which is absolutely identical to the blessing in the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah Ga’on. As noted in the discussion of the earliest prayer books, there is reason to suppose that the version of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer in the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah is the earliest of all the extant prayer books. It is true that the structure and text of the prayer in the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah has Babylonian characteristics, but this does not necessarily counteract the possibility that this version reflects the earliest rite. However, this does cast some doubt over the reasonability of the supposition that the Land of Israel rite – or at least what is known of it in the version from the Ge’onic period – is the earliest rite, or at least near the earliest. This is indeed the epitome of the problematics of analysing the various rites, for a definitive decision as to the precedence of one of the versions is simply not possible, given the problems of the mutual influences and the question of where each prayer was actually used. The version of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer in the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah, as we have noted, tends towards the Babylonian. However, the version of Birkat haMinim within this prayer, according to Rav Sa‘adiah, is minimalist, which is a rare phenomenon in the Babylonian rite, while its close (Blessed are You, Lord, who humbles the arrogant) is in fact generally characteristic of the Land of Israel rite.

Birkat haMinim in the Earliest Prayer Books and in the Cairo Genizah

27

In summary, Rav Sa‘adiah’s version, as noted, is important for our subject, and its importance is confirmed by the finding of versions very close to it in the Genizah. However, we need to explain why key words which appear in the long Babylonian version, as well as in the Palestinian version, do not appear in Rav Sa‘adiah’s version. Does the term apostates, which appears in the earliest short version, also relate to the category of notzrim and minim which is found in the long version? And this is when the validity of this question springs from the question whether it is indeed possible to determine that the notzrim and the minim are an indispensable part of the blessing. The minim, as a basic datum for every discussion, gave the blessing its name and probably gave rise to the presence of this phrase in the earliest version of the blessing. However, the addition notzrim both by itself and as doublet of minim needs discussion and clarification. The question is, therefore, whether we can be content with the minimalist version of the text, which contains the key words, apostates (meshumadim), kingdom of arrogance (malkhut zadon), together with minim, or whether the doublet notzrim is also necessary. For we cannot avoid the existence of notzrim (together with minim) in the great majority of the versions of the blessing in the Cairo Genizah. The absence of the term notzrim from the prayer books we possess has already been discussed, and the reasons for it are clear, but for all that, one of these versions (including notzrim and minim) is extant among the manuscripts of the Seder Rav Amram. However it is possible that this manuscript reflects the textual version of the rite of Muslim Spain, where naturally there was no Christian censorship, just like Egypt, North Africa and the Land of Israel during the Muslim period. Comparison of the Geniza textual versions with the versions of the earliest prayer books leads to the conclusion that the Geniza versions are the oldest we have, above all because the manuscripts of the prayer books are dated generally to the late Middle Ages (11th-14th centuries) apart from the prayer book of Rav Sa‘adiah Ga’on, as far as we know. Even though we cannot refute the hypothesis that the manuscripts of the prayer books are copies of older sources, it is also not possible to prove it. In general, as we have noted, it is not possible to characterise Genizah finds exactly with regard to their source and their date. However, the resemblance in content and phraseology between these documents and the prayer books demonstrates their connection to a prototype, which was at least current in the Islamic world and in Babylonia, and later moved to Spain. This may indeed have been as part of the original responsum of Rav Amram. There is also, as we have noted, the addition of the term notzrim, which is most significant for determining that the Genizah textual versions are earlier than the versions of the first prayer books. Over all, the discussion so far hovers the most important proviso of all: we are not able to relate several of the textual versions we have examined to any period earlier than the eighth or ninth century in spite of the fact that the story of

28

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

the writing of Birkat haMinim is attributed by the Talmudic source to the study house of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh, six or seven centuries earlier. It is true, as noted, that these texts are the fullest and oldest we possess, even if they are hundreds of years later than the oldest or original version (or versions) – if there was such a thing – but the text of Birkat haMinim in the versions known to us is not very far from the earliest versions, and certainly not as distant as distance of the years between them. The main question is how we can make a retrospective analysis of the common structure and text of all the versions we have discussed so far. In other words, how is it possible to find links of content and subject to periods as early as the tannaitic period when we are unable to go back further than the fourth and fifth centuries CE – which are also very early in relation to the period under discussion up to now. For this discussion too, the added term notzrim is the most central in our attempt to examine retrospectively the version known from the oldest texts. Other key words – minim and arrogant (zedim) are found in Talmudic texts discussing the blessing, and we shall relate to them later; the opening “for the apostates” (la-meshumadim) which characterises almost all the openings in the mediaeval versions has no known precedent, and we shall therefore devote a separate discussion to this term; while for the phrase “the kingdom of arrogance” there are logical and historical explanations which we shall present below. Indeed, it is only with the term notzrim that it is possible to begin with a careful step into the Byzantine era. For it is only this term, which is known to us and mentioned in its Hebrew form from the Byzantine period, which allows us to draw a logical pathway from the eighth and ninth centuries CE in the direction we want, and above all to examine whether the common occurrence of the term notzrim in the Genizah versions hints at the existence of this important term in 87 earlier versions, or in the original version of Birkat haMinim. First of all, we must relate to the nature of the term notzrim in the mediaeval versions of the text. There can be little doubt that, by the end of the first millennium CE, the Hebrew term notzrim was commonly known and related to the Christian world in general. We may assume this with a reasonable amount of certainty, for Jewish-Christian sects of one sort or another had now ceased, or if there were any left, they belonged to the fringes of society and did not leave any known mark of dissension. Therefore it is easier to understand the object of the curse, notzrim, in the mediaeval versions, including the Genizah versions, as simply ‘Christians.’ On the other hand, when it comes to the term minim in the 87 Several scholars have already assumed this. They include: R. Wilde, The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers, (Washington DC, 1949), p. 119; W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, (Cambridge, 1964), p. 276; J.T. Townsend, ‘The Gospel of John and the Jews’, in A. Davies (ed.), Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, (New York, 1979), pp. 72-97; M. Simon, Verus Israel, ( Oxford, 1986, tr. H. McKeating), p. 236.

Traces of Versions of Birkat haMinim in the Early Piyyutim

29

Genizah versions (which in its earlier form is the main subject of this book) its nature is not clear at all, and moreover, as we have seen, this term appears as a doublet or supplement to the term notzrim. The ruling opinion among scholars about the identity of the minim in the first 88 centuries CE sees them above all as Jewish-Christian sects although this is also a possible explanation of the meaning in Hebrew of the term notzrim. This is the main difficultly of the combination minim and notzrim in the Genizah texts, and it is essential to discuss this, for the simple reason that there may be a connection between this combination and earlier versions or the original version. We also need to know whether this combination appeared in the earliest version just as it appears in the Genizah version. We assume that the Genizah documents reflect periods from the ninth century onwards, in other words from the peak of the period of the ge’onim, who were the teachers of their generation in Babylonia and laid down halakhah. We also assume that the prayer rite which included notzrim and minim was already in existence by the ninth century at least, if not earlier. Thus, supposing that the text of blessings did not usually change except in cases of external or internal censorship, and knowing that in the Babylonian institutions, as in the Land of Israel, Egypt and other places in the Middle east and North Africa, cursing the notzrim by name would not have been a problem, then the question is sharpened: why was the term minim added to notzrim, or notzrim to minim? It is possible that the answer is much simpler than the questions, but we must not leave any possibilities unexamined, if only to cut down the possibilities in our research into the older forms of the blessing. Thus we must ask first of all, who the minim were considered to be in the time of the ge’onim, and how far this influenced the versions of Birkat haMinim of their time, and post factum, how this will influence the limiting and centring of our discussion of the earliest version. However, before this we must examine a further source from the time of the ge’onim, the piyyutim.

Traces of Versions of Birkat haMinim in the Early Piyyutim A further kind of source which comes into question in our attempt to reconstruct the wording of the earliest versions of the blessing, or phrases from it, are the early piyyutim, which are poetic forms of prayer. It is not known when poets be89 gan to write these works, apart from the fact that the first piyyutim were created

88

See below: p. 169, n. 160. We do not mean to relate here to the very early works which apparently preceded the Destruction of the Temple, such as the different forms of hoshannot: Heinemann, (above, n.62), 89

30

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim 90

91

in the Land of Israel after the crystallisation of the fixed prayers. Thus we must take into consideration a possibility that has not yet been demonstrated, that the piyyutim were written close to the fixing of the permanent prayers. How close we cannot know, and there is no evidence of piyyutim very close to the period 92 of the tannaim. 93 The piyyut is written as a poetic addition to a prayer and is called by the 94 names of the different prayers. It is reasonable to suppose that the first piyyutim were written for the central prayers, and in particular for the body of the blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh, [Amidah] the most important prayer. These piyyutim are 95 96 called ‘qerovot.’ Among the three classes of qerovot – qidushta, shivata and qerovot for weekdays – our interest lies mainly in the last-mentioned. In most of 97 the qidushtot and shivatot there is no piyyut related to Birkat haMinim, for this is absent from the versions of the Amidah for Sabbath and festival. The function of the piyyut is to beautify the prayer, so that in many cases the poets [paytanim] made use of scriptural verses and expressions for poetical ornamentation of the blessings. In and around this decoration appear words or p. 88; A. Mirsky, Makhtzavtan shel Tzurot ha-Piyyut, (Tel Aviv-Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 3-6 (in Hebrew). 90 A.M. Habermann, A History of Hebrew Liturgical and Secular Poetry, I, (Ramat Gan, 1972), p. 23 (in Hebrew). 91 E. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut’, EJ 13 (1988), p. 574, although there is no clear knowledge when the prayers became permanently fixed. 92 A certain hint of the early beginnings of the piyyut may be found in Mishnah, Ta’anit ii, 3. See A. Mirsky, ‘Yesod Kerovah,’ id., HaPiyyut, (Jerusalem 1991), pp. 86-87 (in Hebrew). 93 See the comprehensive explanation of E. Fleischer, ‘Inquiries into the Pattern-Formation of the Classical Hebrew Genres of the Piyyut’, Tarbiz 39 (1970), p. 249. (in Hebrew). 94 M. Zulay, Eretz Israel and its Poetry, (Jerusalem, 1995), p. 68, (in Hebrew). 95 Qerovah in the singular. The source for this name is from the Aramaic word qerova, which means a cantor who leads the prayers in front of the Ark. The piyyutim were called after the person who took on this function because the leader of the prayers only prayed in front of the Ark during the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. See Zulay, (above, n. 94), p. 80; M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, (New York, 1985), p. 1413. It was said of Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon that he was ‘qerov and poietes’ (from the Greek Ποιητής): Leviticus Rabbah 30:1, (ed. Margaliouth), p. 690. Also see: J. Yahalom, Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity, (Tel Aviv 1999), pp. 35-36 (in Hebrew). For a general explanation of the Qerova see: H. Brody und K. Albrecht, Die neuehebräische Dichterschule, (Leipzig 1905), pp. 113-114. 96 Piyyutim intended for the Amidah prayer on Sabbaths, festivals and New Moon. See M. Zulay, loc cit. 97 Here too there are exceptions, such as the piyyut for Tu biShvat when it falls on a weekday which has a qerovah which includes the Birkat haMinim. See below, p. 38. There are also qerovot for other different events, but I did not find any texts relevant to our subject. There is a list of the various qerovot in E. Adler (et. al.), J. Schirmann’s Bibliography of Studies in Hebrew Medieval Poetry 1945-1978, Cumulative Index, (Beer Sheva, 1989), pp. 342-343 (in Hebrew). On the qerovot for festivals, see: L. Zunz, Die Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, (Frankfurt am Main, 1920; repr. Hildesheim, 1967), pp. 65-66.

Traces of Versions of Birkat haMinim in the Early Piyyutim

31

sentences from the blessings in the fixed prayers, for this is the goal of the poetical creation – to relate to a certain blessing. Thus in the piyyutim related to the 98 Amidah prayer there are important words, fragments of sentences or whole sentences from the textual versions of Birkat haMinim which were current during the time of the poets who wrote the piyyutim. According to custom, the close of the blessing from a particular prayer will usually appear at the end of the piyyut related to it. These words, sentences and closes are obviously the centre of our interest in this field. In the absence of any other evidence, it is generally accepted that the earliest 99 qerovot known to us are those of the paytan Yannai, in other words from the 100 classical period of the piyyut. However, among the piyyutim of Yannai there are no qerovot linked to Birkat haMinim. There is also no evidence of qerovot on Birkat haMinim in other paytanim of the classical period of the piyyut. Qerovot on the Shemoneh Esreh are found among the material from the Cairo Genizah and these appear to be among the earliest piyyutim of this sort in our possession. Their number in general is not large, but they are not uncommon among the 101 Genizah fragments. It should also be taken into account that the study of the 102 piyyutim in general is beset by a number of difficulties, and these include the qerovot, in spite of the relative simplicity of their texts. It is also very difficult to determine the age of the qerovot from the Genizah, although they look relatively 103 early. Thus, the question of the importance for this study of the piyyutim, and in particular the qerovot, to the Shemoneh Esreh is dependent on many factors. This is not the place to deal with all of them. We can, by analogy, ask the question of why we should need the language of the qerovot when we possess textual versions of prayers and blessings themselves. It is possible that a decision on the subject with which we are dealing is to be found in the evaluation of the function of the piyyutim in general, and the qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh in particular. If these were written only to decorate the prayers, then it is possible that their contribution to the study of the early textual versions of the prayers and blessings will not be great. But if piyyutim and qerovot were written as substitutes for 98 S. Elitsur, ‘The Emergence of the Weekday Qerobot’, Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature, 5 (1984), p. 166, (In Hebrew). 99 A. Mirsky ‘Yesod Qerovah’ (above, n. 92), p. 86. Mirsky notes that the degree of development and complexity of Yannai’s qerovot make necessary, in his opinion, the theory that there were qerovot prior to Yannai, but these are unknown. See the extensive note in Fleischer, ‘Inquiries’, (above, n. 92), p. 248, n 2. 100 The paytan Yannai lived sometime between the fifth-seventh centuries. See: M. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai (Liturgical Poems of Yannai), (Berlin 1938), p. xvii (in Hebrew). 101 E. Fleischer, Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in the Middle Ages, (Jerusalem 1975), p. 197. (in Hebrew) 102 S. Elitsur, ‘The Emergence’, (above, n. 98), p. 165. 103 E. Fleischer, loc. Cit.

32

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim 104

prayers, perhaps even to circumvent bans on prayers, then their contribution would be more significant. Since it is not possible to decide finally on this, we must take into account the possibility of some sort of contribution. The value of the qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh to this study must be analysed, therefore, in comparison to the findings we have made in the study in relation to the versions of the Birkat haMinim found in the earliest prayer books we possess, and in particular in comparison with the versions of the blessing which were found in the Genizah. Obviously the importance of the prayer book versions and the fact that the texts of the blessings themselves were found in the Cairo Genizah is far greater than the importance of those piyyutim which include just words or sentences from the blessings. Thus we shall attempt to find if there is anything in the piyyutim, and particularly in the qerovot, which might confirm or perhaps even contradict the theories which arose from studying the versions of the blessings in the earliest prayer books or the versions which were found in the Genizah, or which might shed light on one or other of these questions. A central problem in the study of the piyyutim, which also came up in the 105 discussion of the different versions of Birkat haMinim found in the Genizah, is that there is no way of dating the evidence. Here we will cite the list of the problems relating to the piyyutim set out by Ezra Fleischer: in general, they have no fixed content; the copies – if that is what they are – were careless and there was a 106 very large substitution of piyyutim. These problems make it even more difficult to attempt to classify the piyyutim and qerovot we possess chronologically, in particular in comparison with our limited ability to date the fixed versions of the 107 prayers. Thus it is very difficult to lay a sound methodological basis for examining the qerovot, especially when we are talking about an attempt at a chronological analysis. However, in spite of these difficulties it would seem that we can at the very least relate to the terminology of the blessings, and perhaps even characterise parallels of the types of qerovot to the types of the versions of the blessings which we have examined in the earliest prayer books and in the Genizah. The spectrum of methodological problems makes it difficult to organise the order of discussion and analysis of the qerovot. Thus we shall present here the relevant piyyutim according to two sorts of relations which have arisen from our analysis of the fixed prayers: the first sort are the qerovot and the piyyutim which are similar to the texts of the earliest prayer books, and the other sort are those works which are similar to the texts found in the Cairo Genizah.

104

See on this: A. Linder, The Jews, (above, n. 66), pp. 403-405. See above, p. 13ff. 106 E. Fleischer, ‘Piyyut and Prayer in Mahzor Eretz Israel: The Genizah Codex’, Kiryat sefer 63 (1990), p. 207. (In Hebrew). Fleischer also notes that there were other cases too. 107 And as we have seen, this very limited capacity is seen in the dating of the blessings from the earliest prayer books. The versions found in the Genizah are almost impossible to date. 105

33

Traces of Versions of Birkat haMinim in the Early Piyyutim 108

1. From the qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh for an ordinary week-day: Set on fire [telahet behavhev] our oppressors and enemies, 109 Blessed are You, Lord, who crushes our enemies and humbles the arrogant.

Like most of the qerovot, this too is constructed of eighteen units as in the early 110 rite of the Land of Israel. It is arranged alphabetically (after a fixed initial letter tav). The line of the piyyut relating to Birkat haMinim translates the spirit of the blessing in the eyes of the writer, using a poetical phrase influenced by a scriptural verse (Proverbs 30:16). The paytan wishes for the enemies of Israel 111 to be burned with fire (of Gehinnom?). Midrash Proverbs relates to this same Midrash: “Gehinnom will in the future scream, and say in front of the Holy One Blessed be He: bring (hav) me the wicked. There is a baraita that the time of 112 judgement of the wicked in Gehinnom is twelve months”. The source for the description in the Midrash is in the Tosefta: “The sinners of Israel in the flesh and the sinners of the nations of the world in the flesh go down to Gehinnom and are sentenced there for twelve months […] But the minim and the apostates […] Gehinnom is locked before them and they are sen113 tenced there for generation after generation”. The description of the sentence of the minim in Gehinnom is the source for the poetic phrase related to Birkat haminim. The blessing is presented with the close usual in the Land of Israel. 2. The text of a version of the Shemoneh Esreh very similar to the former was published by Jacob Mann. It begins with the line: “Lord, for Your sake, help us and protect us”, and in the twelfth line the paytan writes as follows: Send to the flames [lehavhav] all our enemies and oppressors: 114 Blessed are You, Lord, who breaks enemies and humbles the arrogant. 108

E. Fleischer, Hebrew Liturgical Poetry, (above, n. 101), pp. 201-202. For the convenience of the reader the different piyyutim are cited in this chapter in English translation. The Hebrew texts are to be found in Appendix B. 110 This custom was preserved even when the construction of nineteen blessings became the common rite. Fleischer, loc. cit. p. 199. 111 The expression “set on fire” [telahet behavhav] may allude to a scene set in Gehinnom according to the Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 17:a: ‘Hav, Hav’ are two women who shout from Gehinnom (according to Proverbs 30:16): hava, hava, i.e., ‘bring, bring’, and they are ha-minut ve-ha-rashut – ie minut and the government. In the commentary of the Tosefot to Avodah Zarah ad loc., and on BT Eruvin 19:a, they cite a piyyut for Hannukah: yikdu behavhavei ‘alaq (will be burnt in the fire of the leech). 112 Midrash Proverbs, 17. 113 Tosefta, Sanhedrin xiii, 4-5. For a discussion of this source and its parallels see below pp. 62-63. 114 J. Mann, Genizah Fragments, (above, n. 60), p. 310, according to MS. Turin 51 which was burned in the great fire which destroyed the library at Turin. The MS. had, however, been copied by Schechter and was later published by him: S. Schechter, Studies in Jewish Liturgy, (Philadelphia, 1930), pp. 96-97. 109

34

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

Apart from a small change in the piyyut line, the resemblance is complete, and the closing line shows the fixed textual version which was current at the time of writing the piyyut. 3. A third, similar version is to be found in a qerovah on the Shemoneh Esreh which begins with the words: “The beloved hind will help to protect…,” and is 115 arranged as an acrostic. The piyyut is different from its predecessors, and exceptional in that most of the lines of piyyut do not have the closures from the blessings, like the piyyutim we have illustrated above. The allusion to Birkat haMinim is written in the twelfth line (relating to the twelfth blessing of the Amidah ) as follows: “Send down to the leech (la-aluqah) all Your despisers”. The allusion to the sentence in Gehinnom meted out to the enemies of God makes use of expression we saw in the previous examples which were based on the descriptions in the Tosefta and the biblical allusion from the verses in Proverbs. The manuscript which contains this qerovah also contains a copy of the piyyut 116 which was shown above: “Lord, for Your sake” (Adon le-ma‘ankha). This double copy is evidence of a common source, or of a closeness between the two piyyutim seen by the copier. However, in the absence of any possibility of dating the piyyutim – although Shulamit Elitsur claims that the last mentioned piyyut is ‘early’ – we can only relate to the words of the piyyut and, in particular their closures, from the fixed versions. In the three cases discussed here we saw that the poetic lines describe the sentence to Gehinnom which is based on the text in the Tosefta which describes the sentence of the minim. The close cited from the fixed version, “Blessed are You, Lord, who breaks enemies and humbles the arrogant,” is the close of Birkat 117 haminim which is common to almost all the early prayer books. 4. A similar close is found in the version of the qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh 118 for weekdays discussed by Ezra Fleischer: Weekday Tuesday

Weekday Wednesday

Sentenced to destruction

[to

and you will be delivered

for sin and utter falsehood

from the rebels against these

[Each] man gives in and will

115

] left

Genizah MS. T-S 10 H9/9. See S. Elitsur, ‘The Emergence’, (above, n. 98), p. 170. S. Elitsur, loc. cit. p. 167, n.7 117 In the versions of the blessing in Natronai, the Seder of Rav Amram, the siddur of Rav Sa‘adiah Ga’on, Rambam and the Horowitz MS. version of the Mahzor Vitry; and in particular the close of the version found in the letter of Nicholas Donin. 118 Genizah MS. T-S 8H 11/16: E. Fleischer, ‘Qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh in the Triennial Order of Prayer’, Sinai 65 (1969), pp. 275; 279. (in Hebrew). 116

Traces of Versions of Birkat haMinim in the Early Piyyutim

Weekday Tuesday

35

Weekday Wednesday

[judgements]

be impure [zav]

[Blessed … who crushes…]

[Blessed … who crushes …] 119

According to Fleischer there are signs that this version is very early indeed. This qerovah has no literary significance other than in the hints in it that it comes from the three year cycle of reading the Torah according to the Land of Israel rite. For our purposes, the importance of the qerovah is two-fold: its relating to the sentence passed on the enemies of Israel as in the versions of the qerovot we examined above; and the second, the similarity of the reconstruction of the close of Birkat haMinim to the close known to us from the earliest prayer books. The poetic lines related to the close of Birkat haMinim in the versions we have brought here describe the sentence passed on the enemies of Israel as destruction in Gehinnom. However, these lines do not specify which enemies they are talking about, except for a general relationship in apocalyptic colours. This is not by chance. For we saw that in the versions of the prayers extant in Christian lands there was an internal (or external) censorship and the original intentions or expressions like these were swallowed up and changed. 5. An example of this can be seen in a textual version from an unclear source 120 121 found in the British Museum and published separately by Elbogen and 122 Marmorstein as follows: i. T.S. collection:

You are He, O God, who cuts off the horns of the wicked and destroys

ii. British Museum 2a:

transgressors from the earth and uproot the kingdom of arrogance

iii. British Museum 2b:

and the idols and their worshippers will pass away altogether and they will be ashamed and afraid for ever and know You, Your name. Blessed are You, Lord, who crushes the wicked and humbles the arrogant

119

Loc. cit. p. 283 British Museum 5557 f., pp. 2a, 2b. 121 I. Elbogen, ‘The Poetical Version of the Shemoneh Esreh’, haGoren 10 (1923), p. 93 (in Hebrew). Elbogen provides a more complete version. The completion of the British Museum MS. he found in Genizah, MS. T-S H10/1. 122 A. Marmorstein, ‘Amidah’, (above, n. 70), p. 414. 120

36

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim 123

This piyyut was probably written for a special event, but its source is not clear. The version of the text fits the apologetic explanations of Birkat haMinim which 124 were used by the Jews of Christian lands at the end of the Middle Ages. The version of the close is taken from the Babylonian rite, but we have already seen that the use of one or other of these rites (Palestinian as against Babylonian) does not necessarily determine one or other preference in the question of textual versions, except when confirmed by our previous propositions for the identification of the different rites and their characteristics. 125

6. The final evidence in this respect was published by Habermann from a manu126 script in the Leipzig city library in Germany. For the apostates let there be no hope And may all the minim perish in a moment … (the continuation has a long list of curses).

This is a single prayer, unique of its kind, which Habermann dates to the end of the fourteenth century. Its importance for our study is that this unique prayer confirms the versions from the Middle Ages in Europe. Not only do the lines we have cited here fit the characteristic openings of the versions common in Europe, but this is exactly the version which the apostate Nicholas Donin brought to the pope. And as we noted about Donin, we can assume that if he had found a worse version he would have used it to accuse his former brethren. 7. In the same paper Habermann brings a further version from a manuscript found 127 in the Genizah and now in Oxford. May He humble the arrogant and the minim from Zion And may they be consumed in a moment from Jerusalem B[lessed] be … who humbles …

According to Habermann this is a very old textual version from an Egyptian rabbinical document from the fourteenth century. This text was said in public. Here we have the doublet: the arrogant and the minim. Both of these are words from the known terminology of Birkat haMinim, but the doublet characterises most of the Genizah versions, and not the versions from the prayer books. The difference between this textual version and the other Genizah texts is that in the versions we have examined the version of the doublet is notzrim and minim and not what we 123

In the continuation of the piyyut there are unique additions, but this is not the place to discuss them. 124 See below, pp. 139-140. 125 A.M. Habermann, Short Forms of the Shemoneh Esreh, (Berlin 1932), pp. 30-31. (in Hebrew). 126 Leipzig Lib. B.H. 12.39 127 MS. Heb. F29 (Neubauer 1906).

Traces of Versions of Birkat haMinim in the Early Piyyutim

37

have here. If Habermann’s suggestion about the date of the manuscript is right, then we can suppose that the communities in Egypt preserved the form of the doublet from the earlier versions (from the 10th century onwards) although it is possible that there were changes in the content of this form. This is an evolutionary process which occurred as the blessing got further and further from its origin and its original goals, and in this case the changes occurred in the early versions in the Genizah. 128 A further example of this was published by Shulamit Elitsur among other 129 Genizah manuscripts: They shall go down to the nethermost pit/all the sinners/(if they do not return to Your Torah) The arrogant and the minim/ shall be consumed in a moment B[lessed] are Y[ou] Lord, who humbles the arrogant.

The piyyut is organised as an alphabetical acrostic. The poetic passage related to Birkat haMinim is longer than the rest of the column because of the line “if they do not return to Your Torah” which seems to have been added because of the 130 version in the fixed rite which was in use at that time. The date of the piyyut is not known, but given this version of the text, it would seem to be relatively later than other versions in the Genizah. Other piyyutim found in the Cairo Genizah confirm the relatively early form – notzrim and minim – which appears in most of the versions of the Amidah from the Genizah. The following passage of piyyut which includes the form under 131 discussion was published by Marmorstein in two places. The language of the piyyut is as follows: Go sons, listen to me And I will humble the notzrim and minim from my border Blessed are You, Lord, who humbles the arrogant

Marmorstein published this passage in a list of versions of the Birkat haMinim found in the Genizah. However, as we can see, the passage is not a full version of the blessing but appears to come from the shortened version of the Shemoneh Esreh. A further passage from the Genizah which has the form notzrim and minim 132 was published by Menahem Zulay: 128

S. Elitsur, (above, n. 98), p. 173. The entire piyyut is present in two MSS.: T-S (NS) 150.35; T-S (NS) 198.96. 130 S. Elitsur, ‘The Emergence’, (above, n. 98), p. 169. See also E. Fleischer, Eretz Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals in the Genizah Manuscripts, (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 72. (in Hebrew). 131 A. Marmorstein, ‘Amidah’, (above, n. 70), p. 415; Id., ‘Mitteilungen zur Geschichte und Literatur aus der Genizah’, MGWJ 69 (1925), p. 39. 132 M. Zulay, (above, n. 94), p. 213. MS. Oxford 2737/B. 129

38

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim On the New Year for Trees: To cause to perish the notzrim and minim who betrayed Him May the wicked perish (Psalms 37:20) Blessed be … who crushes etc.

The piyyut appears to have been written around the eleventh century and it is 133 attributed to Rabbi Judah ha-Levi ben Rabbi Hillel. This is a piyyut for Tu biShevat which includes a curse against the notzrim and minim, using the doublet familiar to us from the Cairo Genizah versions of Birkat haMinim. The text of the close is also not exceptional and conforms to what is known from the Genizah versions and the versions from the earliest prayer books. Analysis of the piyyutim and the qerovot confirms the suppositions which arose from our discussion of the textual versions of Birkat haMinim in the earliest prayer books and the Genizah documents. The problems we listed at the beginning of the discussion of the piyyutim, such as the problems in dating these sources, and because of the fact of their being piyyutim and qerovot they are sometimes once-off and not permanent features, cannot change the direction of the discussion in any substantial way. The difficulty in dating, however, is an important barrier in a study such as this, and particularly when we do not have evidence of qerovot which brings them close to the period of the writing of the Birkat haMinim, or at least to tannaitic times. As we have noted above, the oldest qerovot we know of are those of the paytan Yannai. He did not live before the sixth century. However, in spite of the great distance from the period of the tannaim, this could have been the earliest evidence we possess, had there been any relation to Birkat haMinim in his poetry. But Yannai’s qerovot do not contain this motif. In one piyyut of Yannai for the Day of Atonement there are clear 134 references to the anti-Christian polemic, but this does not help us reconstruct the early expressions in Birkat haMinim.

133

Loc. cit. p. 199. This is the piyyut which begins with the words: “All those who say that the miser is generous ([Ha-o]mrim lekhilai sho’a”). The word generous/‫ שוע‬is apparently an allusion to Jesus [‫]ישוע‬, and the piyyut is aimed against those who believe in his resurrection. The sentence of the believers in Jesus at the end of their days is also described in words which we are familiar with from the qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh on Birkat haMinim. For example: “Burn them in the fire of destruction … turn them in the turmoil of the flame [hav hav]…” Apart from this, this piyyut does not enlighten us further on the subject we are studying. See M. Zulay, Liturgical Poems of Yannai, (Berlin, 1938), p. 339; Z.M. Rabinowitz, Halakha and Aggada in the Liturgical Poetry of Yannai, (Tel Aviv 1965), p. 30. (in Hebrew); J. Yahalom, (above, n.95), p. 72; W.J. Bekkum, ‘Anti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (Piyyut) of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries’, in: Ed. J. den Boeft and A Hilhorst (eds.), Early Christian Poetry, (Leiden 1993), pp. 306-307; J. Maier ‘The Piyyut “ha-Omrim le-Khilai Sho’a” and Anti-Christian Polemics’, in: J.J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer (eds.), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 100-110 (in Hebrew); A. Shinan, Jesus Through Jewish Eyes, (Tel Aviv, 1999), pp. 47-50. (in Hebrew). 134

39

The Influence of the Karaites on the Genizah Texts

As noted above, the piyyutim are no substitute for the texts of the blessings from the earliest sources, so that there is a limited importance to the contribution of the piyyutim and qerovot, but this is secondary to the discussion of those textual versions of the prayer books and the Genizah fragments which include versions of the Birkat haMinim. Thus the contribution of the discussion of the piyyutim in the different qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh and the shortened forms of the Amidah is mainly as an extra confirmation of the conclusions which arose from the discussion of the different textual versions of Birkat haMinim. Confirmation of the conclusions arising from our analysis of the piyyutim and qerovot in relation to the Genizah versions brings us back to the question of why minim are added to notzrim in these versions – or notzrim to minim? Or should we get ahead of ourselves and ask: who were considered minim in the days of the ge’onim?

The Influence of the Karaites on the Genizah Texts The Seder Rav Amram cites the words of Rav Natronai in the chapter dealing 135 with the Passover Seder as follows: These men are heretics (minim) and scoffers who hold in contempt the words of the scholars (the sages) and who are disciples of Anan – may his name rot – the grandfather of Daniel […] who said to those who strayed and were seduced to follow him, ‘Forsake ye the words 136 of the Mishnah and of the Talmud and I will compose for you a Talmud of my own’. 137

If this passage is indeed an authentic quotation from Rav Natronai, and up to now there has been no reason to doubt this, then the Babylonian ga’on is curs138 ing the pupils of Anan and his grandson Daniel. These two were well-known

135 G.D. Goldschmidt (ed.), The Passover Haggadah, its Sources and History, (Jerusalem 1969) p. 111. (in Hebrew and Arabic); English translation and discussion: L. Nemoy, ‘Anan ben David‘, in: A. Scheiber (ed.), Semitic Studies in Memory of Immanuel Löw, (Budapest 1947), pp. 240-241. 136 See also: R. Brody, Teshuvot Rav Naronai Bar Hilai Ga‘on, I, (Jerusalem-Cleveland 1994), p. 258. (in Hebrew); M. Gil, (above, n. 65), pp. 777-778; and also i.d., Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages, (Leiden 2004), pp. 260-261. Gil relates to this passage in a discussion of the beginnings of Karaism. The problem of the relationship between Anan and Karaism, as well as the question of which Anan the passage is speaking of, are not relevant to this study, nor is the question of how to differentiate between the Ananites and the Karaites. What is important for us is the way the passage relates to deviations from the local norm as minut: their exact attribution is not relevant. 137 The opening of the passage: “And thus said Rav Natronai [Ga’on] the head of the academy [metivta]”. 138 Gil claims that this does indeed refer to Daniel, the grandson of Anan I and the father of Anan II. This Daniel and his son left to join the Karaites. See M. Gil, loc. cit., p. 778.

40

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

leaders of the Karaites, although it is not quite clear exactly which of them said: 139 140 Leave the words of the Mishnah and Talmud. Rav Natronai calls them minim, 141 having quoted the text of a haggadah which he attributes to the Karaites. From here we must not, of course, jump to conclusions. An angry ga’on is allowed to use ancient labels for contemporary sinners. And minut is also a label which is 142 easy to expand within the borders of reason. But elsewhere too there is a further source attributed to Rav Natronai which reflects a similar attitude. This source is the reponsum of the ga’on to a question about preserving the heat of hot food on the Sabbath: You asked about the subject of setting hot food [on the fire] on the Sabbath eve… most of the outsiders, the pupils of Boethius – may they be abandoned and forsaken and lost and destroyed and143may their bones rot, who led astray all those who strayed and those who go a-whoring after them – they led them astray, [saying] that hot food is forbidden on

139

See below n 138. Even if this does not refer to real Karaites, but to something near to them, or even to another deviation, its importance is that it demonstrates that it was possible to extend the meaning of the term minim, and to apply it to the greatest internal or external threat in a particular time or place. On the origins of Karaism and the different contexts which lead to their formation, see: Y. Erder, The Origins of Early Karaism and Outlines of its Developments in the Light of the Controversies Over the Time of the Paschal Sacrifice, (PhD Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1988), (in Hebrew). 140 In the late Middle Ages too, Jewish commentators relate to Anan, whichever one they mean, as a min, and post factum to Karaism as minut. See the statement of Rabbi Moses ben Hisdai Taku (ca.13th): “and we have already heard from our teachers that Anan the min and his friends used to write down words of minut and lies and hide them in the ground. Then they would take them out and say: This is what we found in ancient books”. See S. Lieberman, ‘Light on the Cave Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources,’ PAAJR 20 (1951), p. 402. 141 Brody claims that the rite in the haggadah is not Karaite but Palestinian, following Goldschmidt, Hagadah., (above, n. 134), p. 74, n.2. He also claims that Natronai did not know the Karaites at all. See ibid., pp. 258-259, n 10. For our purposes it is irrelevant whether the Ga’on knew the Karaites and their literature. What is relevant is the fact that he uses the term minim for the Karaites. In addition it should be noted that Goldschmidt himself notes in comparing the versions of Natronai with the Seder of Rav Amram, that the version of the blessing which was not accepted is nearer to the version of the Karaite seder. See: loc. cit. p. 111. 142 Graetz quotes the statement of Natronai on the minim who left the ways of Israel and no longer observe the Sabbath. Graetz claims these were the followers of the false messiah Sarini/ Sarenus. See H. Graetz, Note 14: ‘Der Pseudomessias Serene-Serenus’, id., Geschichte der Juden, V, (Leipzig 1909), pp. 457-460. 143 Those who go astray and those who go a-whoring [to‘im ve-zonim] also appear in Rav Natronai’s statement in the prayerbook of Rav Amram. In the sources zonim usually denotes apostasy or a tendency to idol-worship. See BT Berakhot 12b: “those who go a-whoring after a suspicion of idol worship” (following Judges 8:33); Sifra Aharei Mot 6; Sifre Numbers cxv (ed. Horovitz, pp. 126-127); Tanhuma Shelah xxxi, (Buber p. 74); Midrash Proverbs xxv, (ed. Wissotzky, p.166) is interesting here: “Rabbi Yohanan said: They wanted to hide away the book of Ecclesiastes because they found things tending towards minut there, Moses our teacher said: Seek not…after you use to go a-whoring. (Numbers 15:39); the term to‘im also appears in the blessing havineinu: “Let those who go astray be judged according to your will,” in parallel to

The Influence of the Karaites on the Genizah Texts

41

the Sabbath … Therefore everyone who does not eat hot food on the Sabbath in this way deserves to be cursed! It is the way of minut and he must be separated from the community 144 of Israel…

Although the Karaites are not mentioned by name here, the Genizah scholar Jacob Mann sees this passage as an expression of the rabbinic polemic against the Karaites, who do not eat hot food on the Sabbath as is traditional. Thus he looks at this passage together with the statement of Rav Natronai in the Seder Rav Amram which we saw above, and sees both of them dealing with the same 145 subject: the polemic against the Karaites. Can we deduce from this that the term ‘minim’ in the ninth century meant Karaites? At least it did in the opinion of Rav Natronai, a leading halakhic authority of his time. A further passage attributed to Rav Natronai is his response to the question about ‘Jewish minim’ [minim miYisrael], who do not observe the Sabbath, or the laws of the Sabbatical year. How should Jews relate to them if they want to return to normative Judaism? Rav Natronai replies that these minim: …are different from all the rest of the minim in the world. All the [other] minim do not observe the halakhot which were laid down by the rabbis, (such as) the laws of kashrut, the rabbinical institution of the second day of a festival, and the Mishnah according to the scribes. But the other minim do keep the laws of the Torah and scriptures like the rest of 146 Israel whereas the Karaites do not observe the Torah in particular…

These ‘Jewish minim’ are different in Rav Natronai’s eyes from minim who still keep to the Torah and scriptures, in other words, the minim he knows and whom he calls ‘the general minim in the world’. And these general minim are also Jewish minim. From Rav Natronai’s words we can understand that the Christian world is not included in his definition of ‘the general minim in the world’, and his words relate mostly to the Karaite world, i.e. minim are usually Karaites in Rav Natronai’s view. Together with this, there arises an intriguing question. Who are these ‘Jewish minim,’ who are exceptional in Rav Natronai’s eyes because they do not observe the 613 commandments? Does this point to dissident Jewish sects in the time of Rav Natronai? The document does not clarify this, but there is no particular reason to doubt that this is what it is speaking of. the blessing ‘Restore our judges’ in the Shemoneh esreh prayer, and immediately following the parallel to Birkat haMinim is “lift up your hand against the wicked” (BT Berakhot 29a).The source is the scriptural phrase where these two terms come together: “My people ask counsel at their stocks and their staff declareth unto them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused them go astray [RV: to err ], and they have gone a-whoring from under their God”. (Hosea 4: 12). 144 From Sha‘arei Teshuvah, Teshuvot ha-Ge’onim, § 34, (ed. Leiter, [St. Petersburg, 1946], p. 4). 145 J. Mann, ‘The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History’, JQR 10 (1919-1920), p. 235. 146 Cited in Sha‘arei Tzedeq, Teshuvot ha-Ge’onim, (ed. Nissim ben Hayim Moda‘i, [Saloniki 1792], after a MS. he found in Egypt. [repr. Jerusalem, 1966]).

42

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

A document which was found in the Cairo Genizah most definitely uses the equation minim=Karaites: “When our rabbis of blessed memory taught us and warned us that we should take care to learn what to reply to a heretic [apiqoros] 147 and also to those minim who call themselves Karaites…” The document is 148 attributed to the first half of the tenth century. The identity of the author is unknown, but it contains biting polemics against various sects, including the Karaites. What is also interesting is the ambivalence of the attitude of the Rambam to the equation minim=Karaites. His attitude is relevant to this discussion because of the fact that that the Rambam was active in Egypt in the second half of the twelfth century, and his attitude certainly reflects what was accepted at the time, and perhaps even long before. The Rambam mentions minim in many places in his writings, but this is not the place to devote a comprehensive discussion to them all, only those related to our subject. The Rambam relates to the historical aspect of the problem of minut in the time of Rabban Gamaliel, and the consequent establishment of Birkat 149 haMinim, but he also discusses the minut of his own time. However, unlike the statement of Rav Natronai which we cited above, the main stance of the Rambam on the subject of the Karaites and the definition of their beliefs as minut is not totally clear, and sometimes we can even find internal contradictions in his state150 ments. The Rambam rules as follows: Five classes are termed minim: he who says that there is no God and the world has no Ruler; he who says there is a ruling power but that it is vested in two or more persons; he who says that there is one ruler, but that He is a body and has form; he who denies that He alone is the First Cause and the Rock of the Universe; likewise he who renders worships to anyone beside Him, to serve as a mediator between the151human being and the Lord of the Universe. Whoever belongs to any of these five is a min.

This is a fundamental document for understanding the outlook of the Rambam. It seems that a spectrum of beliefs and opinion can be included in minut, and most importantly, the Karaites are not included among them. There is even an explicit citation in the name of the Rambam elsewhere, in a responsum of his to a question from a Babylonian Jewish community. They ask whether the minim who caused the tannaim to remove the Ten Commandments from Shem‘a prayer 147

J. Mann, ‘An Early Theologico-Polemical Work’, HUCA 12 (1937), p. 450. Loc. cit., p. 432. 149 Rambam, Mishneh Torah: The Book of Love, Prayer and Priestly Blessing, 2:1, (trans. M. Kellner). 150 On these contradictions, see: S. Tal, ‘The Definition of Min and Epiqorus According to the Rambam’, MiSafra leSaifa 33 (1988), pp. 77-88 (in Hebrew). The paper does not deal with the question of the historical identity of the minim in the eyes of the Rambam. 151 Rambam, (loc. cit.,) The Book of Knowledge, Laws of Repentance, 3:7. (M. Hyamson trans. and ed., according to Bodleian [Oxford] Codex, Jerusalem 1965, p. 19). 148

The Influence of the Karaites on the Genizah Texts

43

152

were Karaites or Kutim [Samaritans]. He rules as follows: “And these Karaites are not those called minim by the sages, but the people called Zadoqites and 153 Boethusians.” And indeed the term Zadoqites is commonly used in the works 154 of the Rambam for the Karaites. But in spite of this definitive ruling we find elsewhere: An Israelite who desecrates the Sabbath publicly or worships idols is regarded for all purposes as a heathen. He may not participate in an ‘erub, nor may he renounce his rights; rather, his domain must be leased from him as from a heathen. If, however, the Israelite belongs to a heretical sect which does not worship idols or desecrate the Sabbath, such as the 155 Zadoqites, the Boethusians, or any other sect which denies the validity of the Oral Law etc.

Here then, the Zadoqites and the Boethusians – i.e. the Karaites – are also included in the category of minim, together with all those who deny the Oral Law. A further approach of the Rambam claims that: [… the] minim [are] Israelites who worship idols, or who provocatively do other sinful things, for even one who provocatively eats carrion [nevelah] or wears clothes made of 156 mixed material [sha’atnez] is deemed an apostate and a min. 152

In the continuation (3:8) it says: “Three Classes are deniers of the Torah (kofrim) […] likewise, he who denies its interpretation, that is, the Oral Law, and repudiates its reporters, as Zadoq and Boethus did.” Here the Rambam is using a sort of historical anchor, the statement in Avot deRabbi Natan, Version B, x, (ed. Schechter, p. 26). He bases what is for him the link to the historical Zadoq and Boethus as follows: “[… the one who] denied first the Oral Law, as did Zadoq and Boethus and all who went astray. But their children and grandchildren, who, misguided by their parents, were raised among the Karaites etc.” Mishneh Torah: The Book of Judges, Laws concerning Rebels 3:3, (trans. A.M. Hershman). There is of course no connection between the Karaites and those called after Zadoq and Boethus, who serve, in the words of J. Efron, as “the eponymous ancestors of the sects of the Zadokites and the Boethusians, who change and mix at different times…’. See: ‘Bar-Kokhba in the Light of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmudic traditions,” in: A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappoport (eds.), The Bar Kokhba Revolt: a New Approach, (Jerusalem 1984), p. 98 n. 240 (in Hebrew). Cf. I. Ben-Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Struggle Against Rome, (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 301-302 (in Hebrew). 153 R. Moses b. Maimon, Responsa, § 263, (J. Blau, ed. Jerusalem, 1959, p. 499), (in Hebrew). Compare also the preceding note, as well as in Rambam, The Commentary on Mishnah, Avot i, 3 (trans. A. David, New York 1968, p. 4), and The Commentary on Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 11:3, (trans. F. Rosner, New York 1981, p. 197). 154 Rambam (loc. cit.,): The Book of Love, Laws Concerning Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 4:3, (trans. M. Kellner); The Book of Acquisition, Laws Concerning Slaves 6:10, (trans. I. Klein); The Book of Holiness, Laws Concerning Shehitah 4:16, (trans. L.I. Rabinowitz and P. Grossman), etc. This was not a precedent of the Rambam. It was already customary for rabbis to call the Karaites ‘Zadokites,’ and to see them as descendants of the House of Zadoq. See Y. Erder, (above, n. 138), p. 3; p. 179, nn.13-15. 155 Loc cit: The Book of Seasons, Laws Concerning Erub 2:16, (trans. S. Gandz and H. Klein). 156 Ibid. The Book of Torts, Laws Concerning Murder and the Preservation of Life, 4:5, (trans. S. Gandz and H. Klein, adapted).

44

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

A further expression of this opinion which relates to the Karaites on the one hand as minim or specifies minut as only idol worship on the other, is to be found in commentaries on the Mishnah attributed to the Rambam. In his commentary on Avot it says: “Since these accursed sects, the groups of minim arose, who are called in this country, i.e. Egypt, Karaites, and whose name [in the works of] our 157 sages is Zadokites and Boethusians, and in his commentary on Hullin it says: The conditions about the apostate are that it is permitted to eat what he has slaughtered as long as he is not a Zadoqite or a Boethusian and they are two sects which began to deny the Oral Law as I made clear in Avot … and they are those which people of our time call ‘simple minim’ [minim be-stam] and they are not minim according to their faith, but they are to be judged worthy of death, in other words someone who begins this sort of thing for the first time following his own false opinion is subject to the judgement of minim, in other words it is permitted to kill them today when it is discovered, because they are the introduction to real minut … but the minim and the Zadokites and the Boethusians in all changes of their systems [of thinking] … he should be killed a priori, so that he should not make Jews go astray and destroy their faith. And this has already been made an actual practice among many people in all the countries of the West. But those who were born into those opinions and were educated according to them they are like people who were forced [anusim] and their judgement is like that of an innocent baby [tinoq shenishba] brought up among nonJews whose sins are all done unknowingly and in ignorance [bishgagah]. But someone 158 who begins for the first time is an arrogant sinner [mezid] and not ignorant.

The Rambam devotes this long discussion to the laws of ritual slaughter from the Mishnah in order to rule whether it is permissible to eat animals slaughtered by an ‘apostate Jew’ [Yisrael meshumad]. The permission, according to the Rambam, is dependent on three provisions: that he is not an idol worshipper; that he does not contravene the Sabbath laws in public; and that he is not a min. Thus the Rambam has to address the question whether Karaism is minut yet again. Here the words of the Rambam in his final discussion are of the utmost importance, since they reconcile the apparent contradictions seen in the statements in his responsa and in various halakhot in the Mishneh Torah. According to the Rambam, it can be understood that even though the Karaites were called minim by their contemporaries, this definition was not acceptable to the Rambam himself, i.e. he only uses it because it was so accepted. But he takes care to restrict it, because in his opinion the definition of Karaites as minim seems to goes too far. Thus that he points out that the Karaites “are not minim according to 157 Commentary on Mishnah, Avot i, 3, p. 268. See the comment of J. Kappakh in his edition (Jerusalem 1965), p. 265, n. 21. (in Hebrew) on the subject of the exclusion of this passage from the printed version. The Arabic original from two MSS. was published and translated by E. Baneth, ‘Maimuni’s Commentar zum Tractat Abot’, in: Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstag des Israel Hildsheimer, (Berlin, 1890), pp. 57-76. In Baneth’s translation: “And from that day there arose that accursed community the seed of the minim who are called in this land of Egypt Karaites and their name according to the sages is Zadokites and Boethusians”. 158 Commentary on Mishnah, Hullin viii, 3.

The Influence of the Karaites on the Genizah Texts

45

their beliefs”. For the Rambam had already defined who is a min in the Mishneh Torah, and a Karaite, as we saw, is not included in the ‘five [sorts of people] who are called minim.’ Thus a real min, at least as compared with the Karaite minim in the same source, is one of those who “Deny the prophets and leave the commandments with scorn, like the sect of Jesus haNotzri etc”. It would seem then, following this discussion of the Rambam, that the definition of minim in his time was indeed flexible, but not infinitely extendible, and we should put intelligent boundaries on a sweeping decision. Thus the Rambam is ready to accept that the Karaites were minim in the most restricted sense of the term, while at the far end of the spectrum of possibilities there stand the disciples of Jesus, i.e., the Christians. This position of the Rambam is most clearly expressed in his statement that it is possible and indeed desirable to accept the repentance of Karaites who so desire if they were born Karaites, and are thus like innocent babes [tinoq shenishbah] brought up by non-Jews whose only sin was 159 in ignorance [shegagah]. This of course excludes those who initiated or began this false system of belief, who in his opinion were judged worthy of death according to the halakhah. As far as we know, the Commentary on the Mishnah was one of the Rambam’s earliest works, and we can see in it his vacillations between his own ideas and those usual in his context. Therefore the Rambam seems to have been forced later in his life to fix yardsticks for such important differentiations between minim, apostates, converts, heretics and so on, including the Zadokites and Boethusians who were the Karaites. This differentiation by the Rambam is apparently the reason that what is known to us as the ‘Rambam’s version’ of Birkat haMinim, if we assume that it was indeed written by him, does not contain the phrase from 160 the Genizah ‘minim and notzrim.’ His somewhat permissive (if not actually compromising) attitude to the Karaites, in respect of ritual slaughter, repentance etc, is certainly far from defining Karaites as minim, at least in relation to Birkat haMinim, for the phrase “may all the minim perish in an instant” cannot relate to the Karaites. And conversely, the expectation of the destruction of the real minim according to the Rambam’s definition, fits in very well with the way in which he defines the real minim, with a definition which is indeed broad, but already includes notzrim. Thus the Rambam says in The Laws of Repentance: “The following have no portion in the world to come, but are cut off and perish, and for their great wickedness and sinfulness are condemned for ever and ever: the minim and the heretics [apiqorsim] etc”. Assuming that minut in the Rambam 159 Cf. Mishneh Torah: The Book of Judges, Laws Concerning Rebels 3:3 (trans. A.M. Herschman). 160 See G. J. Blidstein ‘The Karaites’ Tehumim 8 (1987), p. 506, (in Hebrew). Blidstein claims that the ambivalent attitude of the Rambam to the Karaites may be seen particularly in the context of the permission to persecute the Karaites in the Yemen, in the light of the situation in Yemen.

46

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

also includes notzrim (i.e., the Christians), then he does not need, as we have noted, the doublet ‘minim and notzrim.’ However, for his contemporaries, as we 161 see from his own careful evidence, the Karaites are the minim. And it is clear that the position of his contemporaries reflects earlier periods and that this was the prevalent opinion, at least in Egypt, if not also in Babylonia and other Jewish centres in the East. And as we have seen, it is possible that it was this very fact which arose from the analysis of the words of Rav Natronai Gaon about three hundred years earlier. Our discussion has stretched over the period beginning with Rav Natronai in the ninth century and ending with the Rambam in the twelfth century. We have not found any reason to discuss the opinions of other people in this area but these representatives only, on the assumption that these very influential figures both reflected common opinions as well as influencing their contexts. Thus it is possible to draw the following conclusion in this context: there is a reason for the doublet ‘minim and notzrim’ in the different versions of Birkat haMinim in the Cairo Genizah. However, this reason was not necessarily completely acceptable to everyone. There were those who objected to it. However, for our purposes these objections are mostly irrelevant, because our conclusion is that the doublet ‘minim and notzrim’ bears a great deal of significance in the ninth century, and perhaps even a little earlier, but much less significance in considerably earlier periods. The Christians were and remained a factor which it was desirable to curse in the accepted thinking of Jews of this period. The subject of this curse was the world of Christianity in general, and not the Jewish-Christians – or in any case not in the period under discussion. The term minut took on a very wide significance: as we have seen the Rambam dealt with it and wondered about it a great deal, and even gave in to a certain extent to those of his contemporaries who saw the Karaites as minim. 161 The following passage from a mediaeval midrash talks about minut and hints at Karaism: “Once I was walking on the road and I met a man and he came to me through minut, and he included scripture [miqra] but not Mishnah…” Seder Eliyahu Zuta, ii, (ed. M. Friedman, p. 171). For clearer material see: Sefer Chassidim le-Rabbi Yehudah he-Chassid, (ed. Margaliouth, Jerusalem, 1957), p. 571, §. 1147: “This is the reply which Rabbenu Meshullam, may he rest in peace, gave to the minim who do not light candles in their houses on the Sabbath because it says in the verse ‘you shall not light fire, etc.’ Later Rabbi Menahem ben Zerah relates to this in his book Tzedah laDerekh, ch. 36, on Birkat haMinim: “What is meant here is the Karaites who believe in the written Torah but not in the words of our rabbis of blessed memory”. See S. Eidelberg, ‘On Menahem Ben Aaron Ibn Zerah and his Book Zeida la-Derekh’, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, III, (Jerusalem 1984), p. 24 (in Hebrew). On the definition of Karaites as minim, see C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford, 1954), p. 307: S. Lieberman, ‘Light’, (above, n. 139), p. 402; Y. Sussmann, ‘The History of the Halakhah and the Dead Sea Scrolls – Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah (4QMMT),’ Tarbiz 59 (1989-1990), p. 55, n 176; L.H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, (Leiden 1975), pp. 125-126.

The Influence of the Karaites on the Genizah Texts

47

From the time of Natronai up to the time of the Rambam much time passed, but it would seem that the pattern begun in the days of the Babylonian ga’on, or even before, may well have been so set and institutionalised that the Rambam was forced to use new patterns. However, it is important to note that there is no certainty that Karaism alone was the minut in the doublet ‘notzrim and minim’ in the Genizah version. In a statement attributed to Rav Natronai there is a mention of ‘Jewish minim’ [minim mi-Yisrael] who are not Karaites, although their actual identity is not clear. There were certainly other sorts of minut and apostasy 162 among Jews, including messianic sects and perhaps even sects sited somewhere between Judaism and Islam. It is possible that it was against these kinds of sects that the blessing was directed in the versions found in the Genizah. ‘Notzrim and minim’ is a reasonable conjunction, and it appears around the end of the first millennium CE, particularly in North Africa and in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean and in Babylonia, i.e. in the large centres of that part of the Jewish world under Moslem rule. However we cannot answer the question of whether this combination could have existed at earlier periods with different meanings, especially in Palestine, before Karaism, or before the existence of Jewish-Moslem heresy. It is not at all simple to explain the rationale of this combination, in earlier periods, even around the beginning of the Moslem conquest. The term minim was well-known and quite wide-spread in the period around the closing of the Babylonian Talmud, as can be seen from the hundreds of times it was used in different places in our sources. The great riddle is the question of the spread of the second element in the phrase, notzrim, and its use. Thus we are forced to examine it in retrospect in order to see whether there was a reasonable possibility that the term notzrim was in use in earlier periods and in earlier versions of Birkat haMinim. The spread of the term notzrim from the end of the first century on is discussed in a long line of studies, and was summed up recently in the comprehen163 sive study by Ray Pritz. In this chapter, our interest is in the question how and 162 See H. Graetz, The History of the Jews, III, (Philadelphia 1984), pp. 121-126, on the false messiah Serini/ Serenus and his followers, on Abu ‘Isa, etc. On Abu ‘Isa see also: ibid. note. 14, pp 431-433; On Sarini/Sarenus see ibid. pp. 428-431, as well as J. Mann, ‘An early Theologico-Polemical Work’, Appendix, pp. 454-459.Most of his discussion is about Sarini. Mann rejects Graetz’ identification and sites him in the mid ninth century. As for the questions which he put to Rav Natronai (or Rav Amram) on the subject of the repentance of these sects, Mann explains them as belonging to the period of the rule of the Caliph al-Mutawaqil (847-861), who persecuted dissident sects after the more liberal regime of his predecessor. On Abu ‘Isa and these dissident sects, see also M. Gil, ‘The Creed of Abu Amir’, Israel Oriental Studies, 12 (1992), p. 19. 163 R.A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, (Jerusalem-Leiden, 1988), supplies all the references from the New Testament, Talmudic literature and the Church Fathers. Pritz devotes a wide-ranging discussion to the evidence found in Epiphanius and Jerome, with detailed bibliography: pp. 130-135.

48

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

where, if at all, the spread and use of this term could have influences the text of Birkat haMinim.

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing 1. Notzrim in Jewish Sources It is most natural to look for this connection in Jewish sources, for if it could be found it would make it much easier to put back the possibility of the inclusion of the term notzrim in Birkat haMinim to a very early period. But these do not help us. While it is possible to count many mentions of, and allusions to the term minim, where at least in some of them Christian sects are described, the term notzrim itself does not exist in our early sources, apart from a small number of cases, which are exceptional and very problematic. Most of the mentions in our sources do not talk of the notzrim but of the Notzri, the Nazarene, i.e. Jesus, in order to stress his origins, and following the 164 tradition found in the New Testament. All the mentions (most of which are not included in the printed editions because of censorship) are found only in the 165 Babylonian Talmud. In the Jerusalem Talmud and other tannaitic sources the term notzri is not mentioned. In the few cases in the Jerusalem Talmud where Jesus is mentioned 166 he is called Pandera or ben Pandira. In the Tosefta he is called ben Pantiri. Only in a few places is the term notzrim mentioned, and they too are on the pages of the Babylonian Talmud. The only clear mention is as follows: The rabbis said: the people of the watch used to pray for their brothers’ offering to be acceptable, and the people of the course used to assemble in the synagogue and sit there

164 Matthew 2:23, and parallels with similar wording. (See below, p. 43 nn. 178, 180. I have used the edition Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. B. Nestle, Stuttgart 195020). 165 Berakhot 17b: “such as Jesus the Notzri”; Sanhedrin 43a: “On Passover eve they hanged him, Jesus the Notzri; ib103a: You should not have a child or pupil who misapplies his learning [lit: spoils his food] in public like Jesus the Notzri”; ibid.107b: “And not like Joshua ben Perahyah who went to Jesus the Notzri with outstretched arms”. All these mentions were removed by the censorship: see Diqduqei Soferim ad. loc. In Avodah Zarah 16b-17a in the story of Rabbi Eliezer who was seized for minut, the addition Jesus the Notzri (Diqduqei Soferim ad loc.) does not appear in the parallels. Instead in Tosefta, Hullin i, 4: “Jesus ben Pantiri”; and in the late Midrash Ecclesiastes i, 8: “Jesus ben Pandera” (Pisaro ed., 1519). For passages with polemic and other mentions connected to Jesus and Christianity in our sources, see R Travers-Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, (London, 1903); H.L. Strack, Jesus die Häretiker und die Christen, (Leipzig, 1910). 166 JT Shabbat xiv, 14d and parallels; Avodah Zara ii, 40d; Tosefta, Hullin ii, 24.

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing

49

on four fasts: on a Monday after the Sabbath, on a Tuesday, on a Wednesday and on a Thursday…and on Fridays they would not fast because of honouring the Sabbath, all the more so on the Sabbath itself. And why not on a Sunday after the Sabbath? Rabbi Yohanan said: Because of the notzrim. Rabbi Shemuel b Nahmani said: Because it is the third167day of creation. Resh Laqish said: because of the extra soul, as it is said: Resh Laqish etc.

And similarly, about Sunday: “Rav Tahlifa bar Avdimi said in the name of Shemuel: The day of the Notzri according to Rabbi Ishmael is forbidden for 168 ever.” The second is a little more problematic: “They said: He went to hear him 169 from Kfar Sakhnia of the Egyptians [Mitzrim] to the west.” This should prob170 ably read Kfar Sakhnia of notzrim, as Kfar Sakhnia (or Sakhnin) is the arena 171 for clashes between Jews and Christians in several places in the sources. Whether the source was talking of Egyptians or notzrim in Kfar Sakhnia, this does not add or subtract anything from the subject discussed in our chapter. Similarly, the long discussion of Reuven Kimelman on the question of the holi172 ness of Sunday to the Christians in the same context is not relevant to us. In the Palestinian tannaitic sources there is no parallel or trace of these stories and the term notzrim in them. This term, if it is identified with the early Christian community before the end of the first century CE, was not usual or common in the language of the rabbis of the Land of Israel, and it left no traces in Palestinian literature in the following century either. The Mishnah, indeed, uses the words 173 minim and minut as idioms, and even as a matter of principle. This habit took root in the much later Jerusalem Talmud, and it is important to note that the Babylonian Talmud, the only place where we find the controversial appearance of the term notzrim, is very careful to preserve the custom handed on from the Land of Israel, which is interwoven into the Palestinian sources. Thus in dozens of places, and in many different discussions and events, it specifies minut, not notzriut. Moreover, the Babylonian Talmud tells us that when Rabban

167

BT Ta’anit 27b, with a late parallel in Masekhet Soferim xvii, 4. BT Avodah Zarah 6a. 169 BT Gittin 57a. 170 Urbach suggests reading minim instead of Mitzrim. In spite of the circumstantial logic it is not possible to support this suggestion. See E.E. Urbach, The Sages – Their Concepts and Beliefs, (Jerusalem 1982), p. 573, n. 29 (in Hebrew). This footnote does not appear in the English version of this Book). 171 BT Avodah Zarah 17a; 27b; Tosefta, Hullin ii, 24, and see below on Yaakov of Kfar Sakhnia, in Chapter 4. 172 R. Kimelman, ‘Birkat haMinim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’, in: E.P. Sanders et. al. (eds), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, II, (London 1981), pp. 244ff. 173 Mishnah, Berakhot ix, 5; Rosh Ha-Shanah i, 3; Sanhedrin iv, 8; Hullin ix, 2; Sotah ix, 15. This is not the place for clarifying the nature of this minut in the Mishnah and what exactly it means. This will be found in the following chapters. 168

50

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

Gamaliel of Yavneh was asked to clarify the problem, he turned to the rabbis and 174 asked them: “Is there no man who knows how to construct Birkat haMinim?” If notzrim had been the common expression in the language of the rabbis and other people, the Babylonian Talmud would surely have spoken of Birkat haNotzrim. And indeed we see that even the Jerusalem Talmud uses a similar expression to that of the Babylonian Talmud when it writes: “[The blessing] about the 175 minim: the rabbis already instituted this in Yavneh,” (assuming, of course, that Birkat haMinim is directed against sects of notzrim.) And in addition, our sources in several places discuss lists of different sorts of sinners, using a more or less fixed formula, such as this example from the Tosefta: […] But the minim and the apostates and the betrayers [moserot] and the heretics and those 176 who deny the Torah and those who leave the ways of the community […].

In all the places where this formula appears, whether it is based on one or more sources, whether it is early or late, whether it is original or with additions or changes: in not a single place do we find the term notzrim. Even the Babylonian Talmud, the only place where we have seen notzrim mentioned in the contexts just discussed, does not add notzrim to the formula we saw in the Tosefta. 2. Notzrim in Christian Sources Widespread use of the term notzrim before the end of the first century is also not 177 seen, even in the writings of the New Testament. Notzri, the Nazarene is, as 178 noted, the title of Jesus in the Gospels and Acts. In Acts, which describes the crystallisation and activities of the first Christian community, it says: “And the 179 disciples were called messianic [Χριστιανσύς=Christians] first in Antioch.” And in the conversation between Paul and Agrippas, the king says to Paul: “Almost 174

BT Berakhot 28b BT Berakhot 28b; JT Berakhot iv, 8a. 176 Tosefta, Sanhedrin xiii, 5 177 On the spelling of the word notzrim in Hebrew with or without a letter vav, see R. Kimelman, (above, n. 171), p. 399, n. 92. 178 The title added to Jesus’ name, translated as ‘the Nazarene’ or ‘from Nazareth’ appears in two different forms in the New Testament: Ναζαρηνός or Ναζωραῒος. The first appears only in Mark (1: 24; 10:47; 14:67) and in one place in Luke (24:19). In all other cases the latter form appears: (Mathew 2:23; 26:71; Luke 18:37; 23:6; 24:19; John 18:5-7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9). A great deal has been written about the riddle of these two forms. See recently K. Berger, ‘Jesus als Nasoräer/Nasiräer’, TU 38 (1996), pp. 323-335; F. Parente, ‘ΝαζαρηνόςΝαζωραῖος: An Unsolved Riddle in the Synoptic Tradition’, SCI 15 (1996), pp. 188-201. The reason for the use of the two forms is unclear. 179 Acts 11:26. It should be noted that the suffix –ianos is originally Latin. The translations here are taken from the RV. 175

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing

51

thou persuadest me to be a Χριστιανόν”. In other words, there is a tradition that the name of the first Christian communities gave themselves was Χριστιανοί, 181 messianic, and in the writings surveyed there is no other name by which they call themselves. Thus the one time the word notzrim is mentioned in its Hebrew form in the New Testament is quite exceptional. This too occurs in Acts: 180

For we have moreover found this man a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect [αἱρέσεως] of the Nazarenes 182 [Heb. notzrim].

The words are spoken by Tertullus, who according to the story, acts as prosecutor in Paul’s trial before the Roman governor of Judaea, Felix. Paul’s answer to Felix is no less interesting: “After the way they call heresy [αἵρεσιν] so worship I the 183 God of my fathers…” The words used by Paul in his own defence do not repeat the term notzrim, but emphasise the word sect or heresy [αἵρεσιν] and this is no accident. Pritz claims that it is most likely that the prosecution used a negative term which originated outside the sect, so that the terms notzrim/Nazarenes were 184 not positive descriptions. It is difficult to base these suppositions definitely. The term haeresis is not 185 originally negative. However, it would seem from Paul’s statement that the use of words alluding to the particular nature of these notzrim/Nazarenes as a defined group is intended to produce a negative attitude towards them, since according to Paul the words were said as part of an accusation. However it is not necessarily true that the term notzrim/Nazarenes was always used in a negative sense. Justin Martyr uses similar terminology in his polemical Dialogue with Trypho where he accuses the Jews: “You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout 186 all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one

180

Acts 26:28 and see too I Peter 4:16. It is true that there is no total agreement on this in the research literature, and it is possible to understand the sentence as meaning that the Antiochenes were those who called the notzrim ‘messianic’ (i.e., Christians), but philological and historical analysis leads to the more reasonable conclusion that this was what they called themselves. See on this (together with summaries of other opinions) E.J. Bickerman, ‘The Name of Christians’, HTR 42 (1945), pp. 109-124. 182 Acts 24:5: Πρωτοστάσην τε τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως. 183 Acts 24:14: κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν λέγονσιν αἵρεσιν οὕτως λατρεύω τῷ Πατρῷῳ θεῷ. 184 R.A. Pritz, (above n. 162), pp.14-15 and n. 19. Pritz quotes sources in his footnote for the description ‘messianic’ in the early church fathers. 185 Cf: Josephus, BJ ii, 8. 1-14 (117-186). 186 The meaning of this term is ‘denying the true God’ and not the modern meaning of atheism. 181

52

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim 187

188

Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver”. Justin, who wrote his work around the middle of the second century CE, does not mention the term notzrim, so that the possibility that this was a term of abuse for the Christians is much reduced. For it is inconceivable that a whole polemical work devoted to the debate with Judaism would not mention this sort of term, if indeed it was used by the Jews of its time. Justin prefers the term ‘sect’, as in the replies of Paul to the accusation of Tertullus before Felix. Thus it is not reasonable for Justin to have seen the term notzrim as a term of abuse even if external agents were using it like this in his time, and we have to suppose that he would not have hesitated to use it had he come across it. Similarly, one of the unknowns in the study of Justin’s Dialogue is the question whether he knew Birkat haMinim. If he had known about the blessing, and it did include the term notzrim, why did he not mention it? There are only two possible answers. The first is that he did not know about it, and the second is that he did 189 know about it, but it did not include the term notzrim. If he had been aware of the term notzrim from Birkat haMinim or any other source, Justin would not have hesitated to set this term, related as it is to Jesus himself, at the centre of his polemic, or, alternatively, he would certainly have related to it in some way or another. This presumption is strengthened by the statement of Tertullian: 190

The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazarenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, “Her Nazarites were whiter than snow” (Lamentations 4:7) even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding191 place of His infancy … 187

Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo 108, PG 6, col. 725 tr. Ante-Nicene and Nicene . See also Eusebius in this context: “We have found in the works of the old writers, who lived in Jerusalem, priests and elders of the Jewish nation, that they wrote documents and sent them to all nations with Jews everywhere, in which they slander the doctrine of Christos, as a new heresy, hostile to God…” Eusebius, Commentaria in Isaiam xviii, 1, PG 24, cols. 212-213. This is late evidence, but it preserves a tradition of the words spoken by Paul at his trial. 188 Quoted hence forth as Dialogue. 189 On my conclusion that Justin did know about Birkat haMinim, see below p. 355ff. 190 The allusion is to Matthew 2:23: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene [Ναζοραῖος]”. It should be noted that there is no verse like this in the Hebrew Bible, although there are those who suggest this was influenced by the verse: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch [netzer] shall grow out of his roots (Isaiah 11:1)”. There is a large bibliography on this question. See: R.H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, (Leiden, 1967), pp. 97-104. 191 Nazaraeus vocari habebat secundum prophetiam Christus creatoris. Unde et ipso nomine nos Iudaei Nazarenos appellant per eum. Nam et sumus de quibus scriptum est: Nazaraei exalbati sunt super nivem … Christo autem appellatio Nazaraei competitura erat ex infantiae latebris, ad quas apud Nazareth descendit Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, iv. 8,

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing

53

Tertullian brings the quotation from the book of Lamentations on purpose. He 192 deliberately confuses the biblical Nazarites [Heb. nezirim ] and notzrim, as if the biblical term refers to the latter. His intention is to prove that notzrim was a term of honour, and incidentally to give positive significance to the term notzri, when used to mean Christian. So what is the difference between Justin and Tertullian on this question? Justin is much nearer to the subject we are discussing. Nearer literally, both theoretically and geographically. His explicit statement that the Jews curse in their 193 synagogues those who believe in Christ is directed at Birkat haMinim, but, as noted, does not include the term notzrim. Tertullian’s statement, in contrast, does not hint at Birkat haMinim, or any other curse. It is not at all certain that his words are a reaction to a real situation, and it is even possible that when Tertullian says ‘the Jews designate us Nazarenes,’ he saw in front of his eyes the scene described in the book of Acts, where Paul was accused of being the leader of the sect of notzrim or Nazarenes by the Jews, headed by no lesser personage than Ananias the high priest. This evidence from the church fathers does not demonstrate widespread use of the term notzrim even in the second century. On the other hand it is clearly impossible to know for certain if the evidence of the Book of Acts as to the precedence of the term ‘messianic’ (i.e., ‘Christians’) in Antioch expresses real historical truth. However, there is also no reason to doubt its precedence, even if it is not possible to decide how far this term was current in the Land of Israel at 194 the time. At any rate, if the term ‘messianic’ was current at the time of the trial of Paul before Felix, the use of it by Tertullus would be much more reasonable, for the term ‘messianic’ was even worse to Roman ears than the term notzrim, 195 (and Felix was well known as one of the more aggressive Roman prefects. ) PL 2, p. 372; CCEL I, p. 556. English Translation: Dr. Holems, in: A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, III, p. 354. 192 For the Biblical description of a Nazarite (‫ )נזיר‬cf. Numbers 6:2; see also the story about the prophecy that Samson was destined to be a Nazarite: Judges 13:5. 193 Dialogue 16. See discussion of this source on p. 354ff. 194 See my suggestion in an earlier study: The Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls, (MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1990), pp.180-182 (in Hebrew), on the verse from the Damascus Document (ed. Schechter) 2:11-12: “And through His Anointed He made them know His Holy Spirit and He is true and the explanation of their names”. I suggested there that this was intended to be Jesus, and the community of his believers who were called ‘messianic’ (Christians) after him. It is not accidental that the late interpolation in Josephus AJ xviii, 63-64 known generally under the name of the Testimonium Flavianum ends: “And to this day the tribe of messianic (Christian) people named thus after him are still extant”. An act like this is not merely a forgery of a historic document, but certainly included a deliberate intention by the interpolator to include the term known to him in his day as an independent term – and perhaps it was. But in any case, since we are dealing with the terminology of a Jewish curse, it is not possible that Jews referred to the first Christians as messianic. 195 Josephus BJ ii, 13, 5 (261-263); AJ xx, 167-172.

54

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

This is not to say, of course, that the enemies of the Christians or the enemies of Paul could not use the term notzrim as a term of abuse, although it is clear that it would not look like this to the writer or editor of the Book of Acts. In addition, the term ‘messianic’ as noted, was liable to be a far worse condemnation on the local Roman court. And above all, to close the circle, we have in fact seen that there is no mention of the word notzrim in tannaitic sources, or even of the term notzri/Nazarene as an addition known from other places to the name of Jesus, and the same is true of the Jerusalem Talmud. There is also no evidence of the use of this term as a term of abuse in the places where it appears in the Babylonian Talmud. In addition, if we are talking of the mentions of Jesus in 196 Jewish sources, then the name ‘ben Pandira’ in the Jerusalem Talmud sounds much more abusive and demeaning of the figure of the founder of Christianity than his names in the Babylonian Talmud, which are influenced by his names in the Gospels and the Book of Acts, which were, as noted, written later. In sum, it is possible that the term notzrim existed in the time of Paul as a name for the first groups of Christians, but it is difficult to see it only as a term of abuse, and if it was used by Jews then it was not officially or following a ruling of the teachers of that generation, for the use of it by Jews would be analogous to recognition of the Christian fulfilment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. This is what the term ‘messianic’ appears to connote, an even more problematic term, so that the use of the term minim is a much simpler solution, and it was used and common in the period under discussion. The term notzrim was scarcely used by Jews before a period which is no earlier than the fourth century CE. The same is true of Christian sources. Apart from the various differences in the Greek and Latin transcriptions which have been discussed above, there is no common use of this term until the fourth century, to be exact, until the time of Epiphanius and Jerome. Epiphanius (c.320 – 403) bishop of Salamis was the first to talk about the 197 Nazarenes (i.e. notzrim) as a Jewish-Christian sect. In his wide-ranging polemic work against all the sects and ‘heretics’ known to him, which he called 198 ‘Panarion’, Epiphanius notes that ‘everyone called the Christians Nazarenes

196

See above, p. 49. G. Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age. (Cambridge Mass. 1988), p. 289. On the differences between notzrim from the time of Paul (Acts 24:5) and Nazoreans from the time of Epiphanius and Jerome, see M.C. de Boer ‘The Nazoreans: Living at the Boundary of Judaism and Christianity,’ in G. Stanto & G.G. Stroumsa (eds), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, (Cambridge, 1998), p. 252. 198 Panarion (Panarium) adversus haereses 29 (PG 41, cols. 388-405). See also: F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, I, (Leiden 1987), pp. 112-119; P.R. Amidon, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius: Selected Passages, (Oxford 1990), pp. 90-93. 197

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing

55

199

[Ναζωραίους]’ . It is possible to read these words too as a Greek transliteration of the word notzrim, in spite of the fact that Epiphanius is relating to a specific sect, which diverges from the mainstream. Even though he is expressing the spirit of the words from the trial of Paul before Felix in his relation to this term, he does not see it as a term of abuse. According to his explanation, Paul himself did not deny the terms of the charge. Even though Epiphanius makes a long defence of the term notzrim in his original and genuine expression of his stand, and even notes at the beginning of the chapter that ‘all Christians were called Nazarenes once’, (this is certainly under the influence of Acts 24.5; and in addition this is of course the fulfilment of the prophecy), in the continuation of his statement he regrets that in his time dissident sects are also called by this name. He notes especially those who are circumcised observers of Torah and the Sabbath, who in his eyes are totally Jewish even if hated by other Jews, and in particular he states that ‘three times a day they 200 say: ‘May God curse the Nazarenes’. It is usual to add the evidence of Epiphanius here with that of his contempo201 rary and friend Jerome. The latter (c. 340-420) uses much clearer terminology, and in a number of passages of exegesis on the prophets he notes that under the name of notzrim (Nazarenes, Nazoreans) the Jews curse or anathematize or blas202 pheme the Christians. A different kind of information can be found in Jerome’s letter to Augustine:

199 Panarion 29, i, 6: αλλὰ καὶ Πάντες άνθρωποι τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς ἐξάλουν Ναζωραίους . This is the place to note the problematics of the use of the Hebrew term notzrim in this book. The significance of this word is that it includes the notzrim (Χριστιανοί in Greek, Christians in English) as well as the early term used in Acts 24:5, as well as the name of the Jewish-Christian sect in Epiphanius. (The term Ναζωραίοι is translated as Nazoreans or Nazarenes), apparently because of the ambiguity of the term notzri as applied to Jesus. (see above, n.174). In spite of the problematics, there is no substitute for the word notzrim since we do not know when the first Christians were called notzrim and from what time this name was only used for JewishChristian sects or from what time Jews called all Christians notzrim. Similarly, in studies written in Hebrew there has been a tendency to distinguish between ‘notzrim’ meaning the early Christians or Christians in general, and ‘the sect of notzrim,’ meaning the Jewish-Christian sect, i.e., the Nazarenes or Nazoreans. 200 Panarion.ii.9: τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας Φάσκοντες ὅτι ἐπικαταράσαι ὁ θεὸς τοὺς Ναζωραίους. 201 S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis, (Stuttgart, 1992), pp. 106-107. 202 Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah 5:18: “in omnibus synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizent vocabulum Christianum” (PL 24, col. 86 = CCSL 73, p. 76); on Isaiah xlix:7: “… cui ter per singulus dies , sub nomine …” (PL 24., col. 467 = CCSL 73a, p. 538); on Isaiah lii, 4-5: “sub nomine … ter in die Christianos congerunt maledicia …” (PL 24, col. 489 = CCSL 73a, p. 578); on Amos 1:11: “… sub nomine … blasphemunt populum Christianum …” (PL 25, col. 1050 = CCSL 76, p. 227).

56

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim Until this very day in all the synagogues of the east 203 there is a heresy among the Jews which is called the sect of the minim (Lat. Minaeorum ) and was up to now damned by the Pharisees, which are popularly called Nazoreans (Nazaraeos), and believe in Christ, the son of God born from the virgin Mary […] But although they want to be both Jews and 204 Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians.

Many doubts have been raised as to the reliability of Epiphanius and the quality of the information in Jerome. In particular it is unclear whether there is a con205 nection between the words of Epiphanius and Jerome and the text of Birkat haMinim, and whether the term notzrim was included in Birkat haMinim in their time or earlier. Over a hundred years ago, Samuel Kraus related to this, proposing that there was a clear connection between the words of Epiphanius and Jerome, and the 206 Shemoneh Esreh prayer in general and Birkat haMinim in particular. Krauss relied on the explicit words of Epiphanius who ‘quotes’ a curse against the notzrim and decided that this was proof for the presence of the term notzrim in Birkat haMinim. He notes that notzrim was the name for the early Christians and that this name was known to the rabbis of the Talmud, but removed by the censors in the Middle Ages. Proof for this, according to him, was the explanation of Rashi, which escaped the censorship, from which he deduced that in his [Rashi’s] days 207 the term notzrim was part of the blessing. Krauss claims that the words of Jerome in his commentary on the prophets that ‘under the name of notzrim [Nazarenes/Nazoreans] the Jews curse the Christians’ are further proof that this term existed in the blessing, although he adds a plea which negates his explanation of Jerome: that the notzrim had no reason to object to the term minim, since this sect was hated by them no less than by the Jews. Thus Krauss speaks on the one hand of notzrim and on the other of minim, and his two pleas do not really hold up side by side. However, what is more important is his conclusion that in the second sentence of the original bless208 ing it said ‘and all the notzrim shall perish in an instant.’

This Latin transcription could be derived from the Aramaic plural minaei (‫)מינאי‬. See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic Period, (Ramat Gan, 2002), p. 306; See also: H.I. Newman, Jerome and the Jews, (Ph.d Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1997), p. 138 n. 41. (in Hebrew). 204 Ep. cxii:13, in: CSEL 55, pp. 381-382; J. Labourt (ed.), Saint Jérôme: Lettres, VI, (Paris, 1958), pp. 31-32. 205 It seems quiet clear that Jerome refers in his letter to Augustine to the meaning of minaei for the Jews of his time. See: H.I. Newman, loc. cit., pp. 144-145. 206 S. Krauss, ‘The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers’ JQR o.s. 5 (1893), pp. 134135. 207 Rashi on BT Megillah 17b: “The minim are disciples of Jesus the Notzri which is why they put Birkat haMinim next to this”. 208 Loc. cit. p. 133. 203

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing

57

Krauss’ conclusions were published before the finds from the Cairo Genizah, so that they were new, although not all his proposals had a firm basis. His supposition that the term notzrim was known to the rabbis of the Talmud is certainly reasonable. However, his use of Rashi’s commentary is not a really convincing argument, for we have seen that in Rashi’s day, about nine hundred years after the Yavneh period, there were indeed versions of Birkat haMinim which included notzrim, but for completely different reasons which have no connection, after so long a period, with what is said to be the original version of the blessing. As we saw above, we cannot even relate the lack of the term notzrim simply to the demands of mediaeval censorship, even though we can see this censorship working on references to Jesus ha-Notzri in the Talmudim. And although our manuscripts show that it also worked on the term minim, following Christian research and investigation of the Talmud, this did not begin before the events which led to the Paris Dispute (1240). Therefore the conclusion of Krauss that Birkat haMinim included the sentence “and all the notzrim shall perish in an instant”, is possible, but not during the Yavneh period or near it, and anyway there is no proof that this sentence existed in the blessing before the end of the fourth century CE. After the first publications of the Genizah finds, many scholars began to propose a link between the Genizah versions and the evidence of Epiphanius and Jerome, particularly because of the mention of the term notzrim in many of its versions. However, recent studies have produced many doubts as to the reliability of the information of the church fathers, and even suggestions that these were influenced by other factors which are not part of the question under discussion. Epiphanius and Jerome knew Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and Epiphanius’ evidence about the cities where the members of the ‘sect of Nazarenes’ lived appears to be correct. Jerome’s geographical evidence also seems reliable, for he travelled quite a bit in the East, although it is doubtful 209 whether he himself met the Nazarenes as he claims. The opinions of scholars on this subject differ. Klijn and Reinink state that the information of Jerome about the ‘Nazarenes’ is very slight and there are con210 tradictions in his descriptions of their beliefs. Alfred Schmidtke goes much further, and claims that Epiphanius and Jerome were not first-hand witnesses of the curse in the synagogues which mentions the notzrim, but they were both 211 influenced by the same source, probably Apollinarius of Laodicaea. Since we

209 A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects, (Leiden 1973), p. 45. 210 loc. cit., p. 47 211 A. Schmidtke, Neue Fragmente und Untersuchungen zu den judenchristlichen Evangelien, (TU xxxvii, Leipzig 1911).

58

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim 212

do not possess Apollonarius’ work, this claim cannot be proved. Furthermore, Kimelman shows that there is an incompatibility between Epiphanius and Jerome, at least in relation to their reports of the Jewishness of the members of 213 the ‘sect of Nazarenes’. This has been expanded recently by Timothy Thornton, who also claims that Jerome’s information is not from a primary source. He also notes the fact that the information of Epiphanius and Jerome is not identical, so that it is difficult to suppose that they were taken from the same written source, 214 as Schmidtke claims. Whether either or both of Epiphanius and Jerome knew the ‘sect of Nazarenes’ or not, from personal knowledge or another source, is not important for the subject of Birkat haMinim. The fact which is undisputed is that both of them cite the term ‘Nazarenes’ [notzrim] in connection with the curse by the Jews. Following the letter of Jerome to Augustine, Marcel Simon states that the term minim became a synonym for notzrim. Simon’s statement, (or in fact Jerome’s) may well cast light on the doublet ‘notzrim and minim’ in the Genizah version, 215 as a tautological expression. However, as we have shown above, in the Genizah versions themselves, ‘notzrim and minim’ is not tautology, but the joining of two different elements. Epiphanius and Jerome too speak of the curse which is repeated three times a day. From the statement of Epiphanius, even though with him reality and imagination are often mixed, and the information is not always well-founded, it is possible to surmise that he is talking about Birkat haMinim as part of the Shemoneh Esreh. His statement that the Jews are saying the curse in their synagogues is also a further backup for this proposal. Epiphanius understands that the Jews are cursing the sect of the Nazarenes/notzrim. Even if he does not have full information about the sect and his experience of them is not first-hand, he understands and identifies certain shallow characteristics. Above all he knows that this sect is hated by the Jews. Did this sect exist in the days of Epiphanius? The answer is certainly yes, so that in his information there is a kernel of truth and it is correct even if it is not from a first-hand source. The next important question is whether it is possible to learn anything from the words of Epiphanius about the text of Birkat haMinim. We cannot doubt that Epiphanius knew of the existence of the blessing: this was not something which could be hidden. According to Epiphanius’ statement, he does not think this is a curse which is directed at all the Christians, only at the ‘sect’ of Nazarenes. And he can agree with the curse of the Nazarenes, whom 212

See also: H.I. Newman, (above, n. 202), pp. 140-141. R. Kimelman, (above, n. 171), pp. 238-239. 214 T.S.G. Thornton, ‘Christian Understanding of the Birkat haMinim in the Eastern Roman Empire’, JTS 38 (1987), p. 424. 215 M. Simon, Verus Israel, (above, n. 87), p.182; see also M. Pritz, Nazarene, (above, n. 162), p. 186. 213

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing

59

he hated. However there is no certainty that in the days of Epiphanius Birkat haMinim included the word notzrim. It may have had only minim, but there is no certainty that Epiphanius knew or understood that the ancient term minim was used to mean the sect of the Nazarenes. Jerome, his contemporary, casts light on further corners in our uncertainties. His statements are clear and ex216 plicit. He takes the trouble to note on four occasions that the Jews curse all the Christians under the name ‘Nazarenes,’ and he even adds in his commentary on Isaiah (52:5) that this is done three times a day. This statement must be a final basis for the claim that the term notzrim was included in Birkat haMinim, at least in the time of Jerome. Jerome travelled extensively in the East, lived in Palestine, knew Hebrew and was acquainted with the customs of Jews and their circumstances. There is not a shadow of doubt that he knew Birkat haMinim and certainly its exact text in his time. The doubts brought by scholars as to how far he knew the sect of notzrim/ Nazarenes cannot influence and do not have to be connected to his knowledge of Judaism and Birkat haMinim. Simon decided, apparently correctly, that Jerome was more interested in Jewish–Christian relationships in general than in the vari217 ous dissident sects. Recently Thornton has produced a pointed critique of Jerome’s definitive statement that the Jews cursed all the Christians under the name of notzrim/ Nazarenes. Thornton analysed Jerome’s statement in the context of the relationship of the Byzantine authorities to the Jews all over the empire, and decided that if the intention of Birkat haMinim had been what Jerome says, the authorities 218 would not have passed over this in silence. Thornton bases himself on a comparison between Jerome’s letter to Augustine and his commentaries on Isaiah and Amos, which were written later. In the letter it says explicitly: that the minim among the Jews who are rejected by the Pharisees are the notzrim, while in the commentary on the prophets the notzrim are the Christians in general. Thus this inconsistency reduces the reliability of Jerome at least for what his says in his commentaries on the prophets. Thornton explains this as deliberate fudging by Jerome, whose intention was not the problem of the notzrim, as with Epiphanius, but the Jews, and it is from hatred of the Jews that Jerome writes this story about them. Thornton’s conclusions look reasonable at first glance, at least in part. He himself notes different aspects of the policy of the Byzantine Empire towards the Jews: recognition on one side, bans and restrictions on the other. It is clear that it would not have been possible to hide gross expressions directed at the whole Christian church when said in the relatively public forum of the synagogue, three times a day, by all Jews all over the empire. But it is doubtful whether it is pos216

Above, p. 56. M. Simon, (above, n. 87), p. 182. 218 T.S.G. Thornton, (above, n. 213), pp. 421-422. 217

60

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

sible to relate the difference between the sources simply to Jerome’s antipathy to the Jews. The term minim which he uses in his letter to Augustine is taken from the centre of the world of Jewish terminology. In Jerome’s words there is indeed a parallel between minim and the term notzrim, but we should not understand from this that the term notzrim also was taken from the world of Jewish terminology in the context in which it appears in the text, cursing the minim. It is easier to understand that the letter says that the Jews curse the minim. And in what follows Jerome makes clear to Augustine who these minim are, and explains that they are called notzrim. Jerome knows of the sect of the Nazarenes. Like Epiphanius, it is possible to debate the depth and extent of his acquaintance, but even if it was second-hand, it is not correct to see it as merely a shallow acquaintance. Jerome often begins, in places where he mentions the Nazarenes, with statements like ‘the Nazarenes ex219 plain’ or ‘the Nazarenes believe’ This is clear evidence of no little knowledge, if not as a result of first-hand personal acquaintance, then at least from learned hearsay or reading and interest. Having related to Christological characteristics in their faith, Jerome then 220 denies that they are Christians – or that they are Jews. Thus we should not cast doubt on the reliability or nature of the letter to Augustine, not least because Jerome finds himself required to give more details and explanations in the letter to Augustine who lives far away in North Africa and does not know the local situation. However here too there is nothing to contradict Jerome’s later statements that it is by the name of Nazarenes that the Jews curse the Christians. There is a difference between his letter to Augustine and the commentaries on the biblical books that we have been discussing. The commentaries are no less propagandist than the letter, but in the letter Jerome needs to explain to Augustine the meaning of minim. If we accept Simon’s contention that the Jews were of much more interest to Jerome than the sect of the Nazarenes, then we can understand that Birkat haMinim was of no interest to Jerome, unless it could be explained as intended against all Christianity. And indeed it is possible to explain it thus, even if this was not the intention of its authors, or the intention of Jewry in the time of Epiphanius and Jerome, for Epiphanius had already said, in words that seem to have a touch of embarrassment, that the Christians themselves were once called notzrim. Jerome’s tendency in his commentaries on the prophets, as already noted, was propagandist, and intended as polemic, but he uses an existing factual basis which cannot be denied. Therefore it is possible to divide the

219

Commentary in Is: viii, 14; viii, 20-21; ix, 1-4; xxix, 20-21; xxxi, 6-9. R.T. Herford, ‘The Problem of the ‘Minim’ Further Considered,’ S.W. Baron & A. Marx (eds.) Jewish Studies in Memory of G.A. Kohut, (New York 1925), p. 369. 220

The Influence of the Term Notzrim on the Early Versions of the Blessing

61

sentence which Jerome repeats in four variations into two parts, which together make up his whole concept: 1. Under the name of Nazarenes: this is something which cannot be disputed. ‘Nazarenes’ is the Latin transliteration of the word notzrim, and this is included in the blessing and well known to him, since he says that the Jews use it three times a day. 2. The Jews curse all the Christians: this is his own polemic explanation of part one. In the light of all this, it is possible to sum up. The term notzrim may have been included in certain variants of Birkat haMinim which were current mainly in the Middle East, but there is no evidence here of a uniform textual version of Birkat haMinim in the time of Epiphanius and Jerome. Even the similarity to the Genizah versions is not clear from this evidence. The letter of Jerome to Augustine which included the two terms notzrim and minim is not necessarily evidence for the combination of these terms in versions of Birkat haMinim which were current in the fourth century, although we cannot completely reject this possibility. In any case, there is no decisive evidence that the term notzrim was added 221 to Birkat haMinim before the fourth century, and it is even possible to say 222 with certainly that this term was not included in earlier versions of the blessing which were usual in the second century and perhaps even in the third century. For there is no evidence or trace of this possibility in our sources. The explicit phrase in the sources ‘Birkat haMinim,’ and the version of the close ‘humbles the arrogant’ are the decisive pieces of evidence for the central elements in the 223 original version of the blessing, or in the earliest variants which were current around the second century CE. This determination also takes into account the fact that we do not know about the beginning of the ‘sect of Nazarenes’ as a separate stream from the central stream of Christianity, as they appear in Epiphanius.

221

Karl Kuhn claims that the ‘notzrim and the minim’ from the Genizah was an addition which was authored in the Yavneh period, and added to an earlier prayer which included ‘apostates’ and the ‘kingdom of arrogance’. Kuhn bases himself mainly on structure and rhyme. See K.G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet, (above, n. 79), p. 18. He is followed by W.D. Davies, (above, n. 87), p. 276. 222 G. Hoennicke, Das Judenchristentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert, (Berlin 1908), p. 387. According to him, the early version included “and may the minim perish in an instant”, and the term notzrim was added later. The order of development is correct, but it is not at all certain that just the phrase “and may the minim perish in an instant” was the wording of the early version of the text. It would seem that Hoennicke was influenced by the mediaeval versions which, as we have seen, were current in several examples, in the Rambam’s version, in Nicholas Donin’s version etc. 223 J. Jocz, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, (London, 1949), p. 57.

62

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

Even Epiphanius does not know for certain and it is difficult to rely on his information, so that there is no basis for the proposition that earlier versions of Birkat haMinim could have included the term notzrim as Epiphanius suggests. And finally, among all the names current for the early Christians: Ebionites, Galilaeans, Messianists (i.e. Christians), and notzrim, we have not found any preference for the last-named term over all the others, so that there is no factual or circumstantial basis for the existence of the term notzrim together with minim, as in the Genizah version, in Birkat haMinim in the first texts which were produced and which were current in the Land of Israel.

The Combination ‘Minim and Apostates [Meshumadim] etc.’ and its Influence on the Text of Birkat haMinim In a number of places in our sources we find the combination ‘minim and apostates [meshumadim] and betrayers [moserot]’ as a kind of standard construct, with small additions or changes here and there. It is possible that the basis for the different terms mentioned in this construct is the Tosefta description of the punishments of sinners and the wicked in the World to Come: The sinners of Israel in their bodies, and the sinners of the nations of the world in their bodies go down to gehinnom and are doomed there for twelve months, and after twelve months their souls are consumed and their bodies are burned and gehinnom vomits them out and they become dust and the wind scatters and disperses them under the feet of the righteous, as it is said: and You made the wicked as dust etc. (Malachi 3:21) But as for the minim and the apostates and the betrayers and the heretics [epiqorsin] and those who deny the Torah and those who leave the ways of the community and those who deny the revival of the dead and everyone who sinned and caused many others to sin, such as Jereboam and Ahab, and those who spread terror in the land of the living and stretched out their hands against heaven: – gehinnom is locked for them, and they are doomed [to stay] there throughout all 224 the generations…

This combination, with all its different variations, is the best of all our sources for the evidence it provides of the limitations of the spectrum of possible wording in Birkat haMinim, at least when it comes to the words defining the objects of the curse. The words ‘minim and apostates’ are the most common in the oldest extant versions of the blessing in the texts of the earliest prayerbooks and the Genizah documents already discussed. Other words which appear in certain combinations: ‘heretics’ or ‘hypocrites’ [hanafim], are not found in the versions 224 Tosefta, Sanhedrin xiii, 4-5, and parallels and similar passages: Tosefta Bava Metzia ii, 33 (Lieberman, p. 72); BT Rosh HaShanah 17a; BT Sotah 42a; BT Avodah Zarah 26a; Avot deRabbi Natan, version A, xvi, p. 64; Semahot, baraitot from Evel Rabati iii,5; Derekh Eretz Pereq HaMinin, i; ib. vii; Seder Olam Rabbah iii, (ed. Ratner. pp. 16-17)

The Combination ‘Minim and Apostates [Meshumadim] etc.’ and its Influence

63

225

of the blessing which we have examined. The term ‘betrayers’ [moserot] is not usually found in the different versions of Birkat haMinim, but it is possible that the term ‘informers’ [malshinim] was used instead, for the latter is the most usual opening term in the texts of Birkat haMinim from the late Middle Ages until the present day, particularly in the Ashkenazi rite. We cannot know for certain what was the oldest combination which influenced the later combinations. It is possible, as we have noted, that it was the passage from the Tosefta quoted above, (together with the citation in Tosefta Bava Metziah) or even the references which appear in the Minor Tractates such as Avot deRabbi Natan, although this is not necessarily so. In all the other references in the Tosefta and in the Minor tractates, there is only one version of the 226 opening of the list of sinners: minim, apostates and betrayers, and only after this are further terms added, in an order which is generally not uniform (heretics, hypocrites, those who profane the Divine name, those who leave the ways of the community, etc). Thus it would seem that there is a higher level of importance to be attached to the first categories, both because of their order of appearance and the frequency in which they appear. Herford, who discusses the passage in question from Tosefta Sanhedrin, analyses correctly what is common and what is different in the list of sinners: what is common is that this is a list of internal Jewish sinners, and what is different is that each definition apparently stands alone. It is most important that minim, together with apostates, open all the lists. Minim and apostates, like the others, have a place of their own, but they also have something 227 in common with the others. The importance of these terms, ‘minim’ and ‘apostates,’ strengthens the status of both of them equally when it comes to assessing the likelihood of their appearance in the earliest versions of Birkat haMinim, which is quite high. But we cannot be dogmatic about this. Similarly, there is no way of determining which of the two terms might have opened the blessing in the oldest versions. As we know, ‘For the apostates’[la-meshumadim] was the commonest opening in the versions of the prayerbook in the Middle Ages, as well as in most of the texts found in the Cairo Genizah, but the blessing is not called Birkat haMeshumadim but Birkat haMinim. Even this cannot lead to a definite decision that ‘minim’ was indeed the opening of the blessing that bears their name. This problem leads to a wider question which is also related to it: how were the names of the nineteen blessings in the Amidah prayer determined (i.e., the names in the earliest sources) and what influenced the choice of name? Was it the opening or the closing phrase,

225

In Masekhet Semahot: “and the informers [moserin].” In Derekh Eretz , Pereq HaMinin, i, the order is slightly altered: the minim and the betrayers and the apostates, but halakhah vii of this same work returns to the usual order. 227 R.T. Herford, ‘The problem’, (above, n. 219). This source is the basis for his whole article. See especially p. 360. 226

64

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

or words defining the subject in the body of the blessing, or one specific word which summed up the content of the blessing? Obviously each of these options is equally possible. We have already found that Birkat haMinim, which is identified by this name 228 in a number of places in our sources, is also called by its close: ‘humbles the arrogant’ (makhnia zedim). The Jerusalem Talmud writes as follows: For all [these] you do not make him go back, except for someone who did not say: ‘who revives the dead,’ and ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ and ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem:’ I say he 229 is a min.

This passage includes the names of three blessings, including ‘humbles the arrogant,’ and in addition one answer to the question: who is a min? It is rather surprising that in a passage where a min is defined (within a legal discussion of the mistakes of the leader of public prayers) the blessing is not called by this name, but by its close instead. However, the two other blessings whose omission gives rise to a suspicion of minut, ‘who revives the dead’ (the second blessing) and ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ (the fourteenth blessing), are also identified by their close and not by their general content, central subject, or opening word. Indeed, this is usual practice in the Jerusalem Talmud, and perhaps it reflects an earlier tradition of referring to all the blessings by their close. The discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud continues: Shemuel haQatan prayed in public before the Ark and forgot ‘who humbles the arrogant’. When he finished, he turned and looked at them. They said: Our rabbis did not think like 230 that

The end of the passage discussed in the Jerusalem Talmud is even more surprising than its beginning. Here Shemuel haQatan himself is mentioned, who according to the story ‘forgot’ the content of the blessing which he himself wrote, and which is called ‘who humbles the arrogant’ by the source. In the parallel and more detailed story in the Babylonian Talmud, which is accepted as the basis for identifying the date of the blessing, it is explicitly called Birkat haMinim. Even if we decide firmly that the Jerusalem Talmud should have precedence over the Babylonian Talmud, and that its evidence is more reliable than the Babylonian Talmud when it comes to the Land of Israel, this still cannot demonstrate a lower status in the earliest version for the term minim which is dominant on the Babylonian Talmud, nor can it cast doubt on its presence in the earliest versions.

228

See above, p. 9f. JT Berakhot v, 9c. 230 ‘Forgot:’ perhaps ‘left out.’ See Arukh haShalem sv ‫שגר‬. The punctuation of this passage is unclear. An alternative reading would be: “Shemuel haQatan … forgot ‘who humbles the arrogant’ at the end of the blessing, etc.” It is also possible to read: “Our sages did not think thus of you” (reading ‫ בך‬instead of ‫)כך‬. 229

The Combination ‘Minim and Apostates [Meshumadim] etc.’ and its Influence

65

It is true that the Jerusalem Talmud uses the term minim in other places. However, it does not use it as the name of the blessing, but in order to clarify the central subject of it and certainly as the keyword, in particular in a number of places in JT Berakhot where there are general discussions of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. In JT Berakhot there is a long discussion of the rationale of the order of the blessings in the prayer. The discussion is limited to the blessings in the middle only, which are defined as related to human needs. The blessings are not presented as defined by name, but just using their opening words, in a way which exemplifies their request from God and its results: “Favour us with knowledge, and we were favoured with knowledge; be pleased with our repentance and you were pleased 231 with our repentance; forgive us and you did forgive us, etc”. The reference to Birkat haMinim in this passage is by way of a request from God: ‘humble [those who send us to] the furnace.’ This is a textual version which has nothing remotely like it in all the different versions we have found of Birkat haMinim. It is clear that it is a symbolic paraphrase, the only one of its kind in the whole of the Jerusalem Talmud, for all the other requests contain words from the bless232 ings that are under discussion. In the continuation of the discussion, the trend changes. The Jerusalem Talmud cites some hazy traditions which relate the framing of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer to “a hundred and twenty elders, among whom were more than eighty prophets”. Following this, comes the discussion we have already mentioned, about the rationale for the order of the blessings. The discussion takes place in the form of questions and answers about each blessing in the middle: “And why did they put ‘the holy God’ next to ‘the gracious Giver of knowledge’ [honen hada‘at]? … Why did they make the ‘Redeemer of Israel’ the seventh blessing? etc”. Here too the blessings are named after their closures, as is usual in the Jerusalem Talmud. Following this it says: “The exiled are gathered and judgement is given and the arrogant are humbled and the righteous rejoice, and it says on this that the minim and the wicked are included in ‘who humbles the arrogant’, and the proselytes and the elders in the ‘trust of the righteous’ and David in ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem.’” The second half of this passage discusses the combinations of subjects or 233 blessings in the prayer. Here too, the blessings, in their final version, are identified by their close. It is true that in order to clarify the combinations, the baraita brings representations of the content or subject words or specific words from the blessings themselves. In particular it discusses ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ which includes both minim and the wicked. Are ‘minim’ and ‘the wicked’ specific words

231

JT Berakhot ii, 4d. Loc. cit. 233 The problem of the combinations of blessings in this passage and its parallels in the JT and the Tosefta will be discussed in the chapter dealing with the date of writing Birkat haMinim: chapter 2, p. 73ff. 232

66

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

from an earlier version which the writers or editors of the Jerusalem Talmud knew, or are they simply representations of the contents? We cannot know for certain, but this does strengthen the status of the term ‘minim’ in particular. The term ‘the wicked’ is known to us from some of the so-called Babylonian versions in the Genizah, which are to be found in the expanded close: “who crushes the wicked and humbles the arrogant”. In the prayer Havinenu in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim, we find a paraphrase for Birkat haMinim in the sentence: 234 ‘Lift up (or stretch forth) your hand against the wicked,’ so that it is possible that this phrase was included in the expanded close in at least some of the first versions. This unclear picture is further darkened by the problem of the date of the redaction and closing of the Jerusalem Talmud, which is late in relation to our subject. However, what is clear is that, at least at the time of the closing of the Jerusalem Talmud, an early tradition was current which named the blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh by their close, and that at least at that time the term ‘minim,’ and perhaps also ‘the wicked,’ was included in Birkat haMinim. The Babylonian Talmud, which is even later, also has a long and detailed discussion intended to explain the order of the blessings in the prayer, as follows: 235

And since judgement is passed on the wicked the minim are destroyed, and this includes the arrogant with them, as it is said: ‘and the destruction of the transgressors and the sinners shall be together’, (Isaiah 1:28) and since the minim are destroyed, the power [lit: horn] of 236 the righteous is raised.

In contradistinction to the Jerusalem Talmud, the blessings are not identified by their close but by their subjects, and these names in the Babylonian Talmud are those which are preserved in later periods as the more or less ‘official’ ones, for the blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. The juxtaposition in the Babylonian Talmud of the terms ‘the wicked’, ‘minim’ and ‘the arrogant’ also gives cause for thought. These three terms appear together in what it is considered the ‘Babylonian’ version of Birkat haMinim. It is almost certain that in the period of the crystallisation and closing of the Babylonian Talmud the current version included minim (and possibly also notzrim) and closed with the phrase: “Who crushes the wicked and humbles the 237 arrogant”. The quotation from Isaiah in this passage is ‘and the destruction of the transgressors and the sinners shall be together’ is there to explain the fact that ‘minim and the arrogant’ are included in one breath, as it were. Here too, like the 234

JT Berakhot iv, 8a; BT Berakhot 29a. This relates to the eleventh blessing. 236 BT Megillah 17b. 237 It is possible that the scriptural authority for the combination of ‘the wicked’ and ‘the arrogant’ is in Malachi 3.19 [4.1]: “For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud [arrogant] yea and all that do wickedly shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root or branch.” 235

The Combination ‘Minim and Apostates [Meshumadim] etc.’ and its Influence

67

sources which have been discussed and which include the formula ‘minim and apostates’ etc., ‘minim’ and ‘the arrogant’ are two different things, but according to the Babylonian Talmud there is justification for including them together in one blessing. Thus the status of minim as an essential term in the versions of the mid-first millennium CE is strengthened, in the version which includes the expanded close: “who humbles the arrogant.” We may sum up as follows: in the Jerusalem Talmud the blessings are called after their close, so that in general Birkat haMinim is called ‘who humbles the arrogant.’ But the term minim is an element that is inseparable from the blessing and the Jerusalem Talmud recognises this and repeats it a number of times as we have noted, even if the blessing is not usually given the title Birkat haMinim in the Jerusalem Talmud. In the Tosefta, too, it is usual to call the blessings of the 238 Shemoneh Esreh prayer after their closures. This strengthens the Palestinian trend (in the Tosefta the version is corrupt; the close ‘who humbles the arrogant’ is missing; and the term Birkat haMinim only appears in some of the manu239 scripts. ) The Babylonian Talmud closes the discussion and fixes the rite: the blessing, like other blessings, is called after the symbol of its content and its central subject. The remoteness of the Babylonian Talmud strengthens the status of the term ‘minim’ as the central object of the curse and may take a similar stand towards the combination ‘kingdom of arrogance’, perhaps changing its original 240 meaning. Thus in the Babylonian Talmud it is called Birkat haMinim. Similarly, it would seem that the term ‘apostates’ is also given a higher status in Babylonia, but we cannot determine when this word became the opening of Birkat haMinim as we know it from most of the versions in the Genizah and in the early prayerbooks. There is no possibility of determining when this word received its important status and whether ‘apostates’ pushed out minim from the opening to the body of the blessing. The solution is rooted in the problem of when the word ‘apostates’ received significance parallel to the word minim. The nature of the latter is not yet clear, but as long as we are speaking of the later versions, especially those including ‘apostates,’ ‘notzrim’ and ‘minim’ all together, the common denominators of all three of them become clearer. However, in general, when we look at the earlier versions or references it seems that the term ‘apostates’ (or the root shemad/‫ )שמד‬in its early appearances and variations has a weak and not decisive connection with the sort or sorts of minut we are dealing with. The meaning of the word shemad in our sources is generally connected to repressive legislation aimed against the Jewish religion, in particular the legislation instituted by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but also the repressive 238

Tosefta, Ta‘anit i, 9. See pages 9-10. 240 If this combination was indeed included in the Birkat haMinim. See below, p. 148ff. 239

68

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

legislation which preceded the Hasmonaean uprising. Thus for example there are a number of references beginning with the clause: ‘When the dominion of Greece [or the dominion of wickedness] imposed repressive legislation [she241 mad] on Israel.’ These references are found in the Babylonian Talmud, where most of them carry the echo of a distant memory of the repressive legislation 242 of Antiochus Epiphanes, with indirect allusions to the legislation of Hadrian and a more direct citation of the Roman legislation, as in the story of the ban 243 on ordination and the heroic acts of Judah ben Bava. The sources, especially the Palestinian ones, are full of descriptions of the earlier traumatic memory, 244 called the time of repression [shemad], or the days of repression. The early 245 Palestinian midrash adds the following narrative: Two pupils of Rabbi Joshua changed their clothes in the time of repression [shemad]. An 246 apostate [meshumad] soldier [istratiot] met them and said to them…

The pupils of R Joshua – contemporary with the Bar Kokhba revolt – hide their identity and change their clothes during the time of the repressive Roman legislation and meet a soldier who is identified as an apostate [meshumad]. This story draws a connection between the well-known term shemad, which is well defined in time and place (Greek and Roman repressive legislation), and between its result – an apostate [meshumad]. Here the apostate apparently belongs to the Roman army or auxiliary forces. This strengthens the presumption that the formula ‘minim and apostates’ mentioned especially in the Tosefta and the 247 Minor Tractates is talking of two different things, with a common denominator. However it is important to add the reservation that if the closing of the Tosefta 248 was later than the closing of the Talmudim, as some scholars now believe, may241

BT Rosh HaShanah 18b; 19a (and parallel Ta‘anit 18a); Ta‘anit 28a. Cf. “Miriam bat Bilga who was forcibly converted [she-nishtamdah] went and married an officer of the Greeks“. Tosefta, Sukkah iv, 28; JT Sukkah v, 55d; BT Sukkah 56b. 243 BT Sanhedrin 61b 244 Tosefta, Shabbat xv, 17, (Lieberman, p. 75); Avodah Zarah v, 6; etc. JT Shabbat vi, 8a; Eruvin ix, 25c; Yevamot viii, 9d; Genesis Rabbah 64 (Theodor-Albeck, p. 914); 82 (pp. 984985). 245 Loc. cit., p. 82. 246 Thus in most manuscripts, from Greek στρατιώτης. Other MSS. have istrategos = στρατηγός, a general or variants. 247 Perhaps this is the way to explain the following passage from Tosefta, Hullin i, 1: “All are kosher to slaughter, even a Samaritan [Kuti] and even an uncircumcised man and even an apostate [meshumad] Jew. Slaughter by a min is pagan worship [avodah zarah] and slaughter by a non-Jew is invalid.” 248 In general, the question of the date of our Tosefta is not possible to resolve. See S. Havlin, ‘Tosefta‘ Encyclopaedia Hebraica, XXXII, p. 1052 (in Hebrew); S. Zeitlin, ‘The Tosefta’, JQR 47 (1956-57), p. 384. Although no few scholars have decided that the Tosefta is not earlier than the Talmudim. See: J.H. Dünner, ‘Halacha-kritische Forschungen’, MGWJ 13 (1870), pp. 298-308; id.,Die Thorien über Wesen und Ursprung der Tosephta, (Amsterdam 1874), pp. 75242

The Combination ‘Minim and Apostates [Meshumadim] etc.’ and its Influence

69

be then the differences are fudged and even perhaps disappear, which is certainly the case in later periods, when the meaning of the earlier terms changes. In the time of the shemad, the violently repressive legislation following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the apostates [meshumadim] are almost certainly connected to the results of the dire Roman policy in the Land of Israel. Thus the term ‘meshumad’ is much nearer to the term ‘kingdom of arrogance’ than to ‘minim.’ The ‘kingdom of arrogance’ [malkhut zadon] – if indeed this refers to the Roman Empire – is the authority which institutes shemad. The term ‘kingdom of arrogance,’ which is present in almost all the versions from the Middle Ages which we have found in the early prayerbooks and in the Genizah, does not appear at all in our sources. However, the Palestinian close ‘who humbles the arrogant’ [makhnia zedim], which is the oldest combination in Birkat haMinim found in our sources together with the combination of the terms ‘apostates and minim’ in the later formulae, is evidence that there is a high probability that the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ (ie the Roman empire) was the preferred object of this 249 forceful curse. However, this was certainly not true of the original version of Birkat haMinim and not in the second-century Land of Israel, but only at a later 250 time and in a Babylonian atmosphere, as we will make clear later. The term ‘apostates’ in its early meaning expresses the personal and national trauma resulting from the shemad and the ‘kingdom of arrogance,’ at least as it appears in the Babylonian Talmud. But the actual presence of the term ‘apostates’ in the early versions of Birkat haMinim is far from certain. There is no proof of it in a single one of our early sources. And in spite of its traumatic connections and in spite of its link with the kingdom of arrogance and even more, in spite of the fact that in the Palestinian sources an apostate/meshumad is involved with pagan cult and conversion to other religions – the appearance of the term minim 90; I.H. Weiss, Dor Dor ve-Dorshav, II, (Berlin, 1924), pp.194-199 (in Hebrew); C. Albeck, Mehkarim be-Bariata ve-Tosefta ve-Yahsan le-Talmud, (Jerusalem 1969), p. 88; id. Introduction to the Talmuds, I, (Tel Aviv, 19873), p. 57 (in Hebrew); B. de Vries, ‘The Problem of the Relationship of the Two Talmuds to the Tosefta’, Tarbiz 28 (1958-1959), pp. 158-170 (in Hebrew). De Vries claims that the Tosefta was not a source for the Talmudim , and was based on a single early Tosefta, but he adds that even if we accept the view of Dünner and Albeck, at least some of its sources are early. My inclination to accept the views of these scholars is not merely on the basis of their arguments, but also because of my analysis of the sources in the Tosefta on the minim, and comparisons of them with each other. In all there are very few sources and their quality is lower in comparison with parallels on the minim from the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud. See also: J.N. Epstein, Introduction to Tanaitic Literature, (Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 241-262, esp. p. 246 (in Hebrew). Epstein and many others who follow him claim that the Tosefta preceded the Talmudim. 249 See P. Schäfer, ‘Die Sogenannte Synode von Jabne,’ id., Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, (Leiden, 1978), p. 51. 250 Unless the intent of ‘the kingdom of arrogance’ – if this was included in the original version – was not political, but theological. See the extensive discussion of this possibility on p. 148ff.

70

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

in our sources is many times more frequent than ‘apostates.’ We do not know, and we have no way of deciding whether the term minim replaced another term in an earlier or later editing. Thus all we can say is that the term ‘minim’ is the central, leading and most common term in our sources, both in the large number of references to it, and the fact that it is always first, while ‘apostates’ always comes second to it, at least in the early formulae we have been discussing. We can only to put forward the hypothesis that, as time passed, the immediate danger of the original groups of minim became less clear-cut in its historical ramifications, and as a result, also in the national religious consciousness. The term minim was loaded at a later period with new definitions and with new objects, dependent on the time and place, such as the Karaites. The term notzrim also took the place of the original minim who were the first Christians, and maybe 251 then the status of the term ‘apostates’ was greatly strengthened, as a term which is inclusive and wide enough to include within itself more up-to-date definitions of the enemies of the Jews.

Summary and Proposed Partial Archetype/Prototype From our survey so far it is not possible to make a full and definitive reconstruction of the earliest version of Birkat haMinim. The most we can do is to compare terms and combinations of words and phrases from the earliest surviving textual versions with the terms and combinations mentioned in our sources, carefully examining and comparing the sources and taking into account their time and the influence of historical events enfolded within them. The structure of Birkat haMinim, as it has been surveyed in the earliest prayerbooks and the Cairo Genizah, is made up of a number of units, between three and four, and each is sub-divided into two parts. The first part of the individual unit defines the object of the curse – apostates, notzrim, minim, the kingdom of arrogance. The second part contains the requests to curse them: ‘may there be no hope’ etc. From the survey which we have conducted up to now, it appears that the second part of each unit is preserved in a more or less uniform structure in

251 Rabbi Judah haLevi tries in his Kuzari to explain indirectly the term ‘apostates’ in Birkat haMinim, as follows: “The followers of Jesus are the Baptists (‫ )משועמדים‬who adopted the doctrine of baptism, being baptized in Jordan”. See Judah ha-Levi, Kitab al-Khazari, III:212, (ed. Hirschfeld, New York 1904, p. 188); cf. Judah ha-Levi: The Book of Refutation and Proof of the Despised Faith (The Kuzari), (ed. Baneth, Jerusalem, 1977, p. 139). The Arabic word for Baptists al-ma’amudiah is similar to the Hebrew meshumadim, and means Christians, but there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the opening ‘apostates’/a-meshumadim was in any way influenced by this word, even in the versions of the Middle Ages.

Summary and Proposed Partial Archetype/Prototype

71

most of the extant versions, including the close, and usually with no more than two versions, as follows: 252

For [the minim] And may all […]

[and may the dominion of arrogance] Blessed are You, Lord bles the arrogant

may there be no hope perish in an instant (in a smaller number, in comparison to others) be uprooted and crushed…in our days who [crushes the wicked/enemies and] hum-

These facts are correct, as noted, for the Middle Ages, and in order not to go further into over-speculative dimensions it is important to restrict ourselves, and to say that apart from the close ‘humbles the arrogant’ which is pretty certain in the earliest version or versions of the text, there is no evidence for any of the elements described here in our sources, although there is a basis for presuming their existence in the form described or something close to it. The main point of the discussion has been in connection with the fact of their appearance, the order of appearance and the level of importance of the vocabulary, which can be restricted to minim, apostates, kingdom of arrogance, the wicked, and notzrim. The solution of this puzzle is much more difficult. The solution of the order of words in the blessing is problematic. As we have noted, these are the only possible words. The order proposed here is according to their level of importance, mostly according to period. In the period of writing Birkat haMinim, minim is the most important term for the content of the blessing which bears this name. No less important is the term apostates [meshumadim], which enfolds the historical events, the period of repressive legislation [shemad] and the injustices of the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ according to the Babylonian Talmud. The appearance of the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ in the early versions of the text, as noted, is not certain. Similarly, there is a possibility of several early versions and not just one version. The description of Shemuel haQatan who forgets the blessing which he himself constructed according to the story could hint at one of two things: either there were different versions, according to the ability of the public prayer leader to improvise – something which was accepted practice in those days – or they are talking of a single first version which was not yet committed to writing. Anyway, it is not possible to decide this question (in particular before discussion of the story of the

252 Simon Dubnov suggested that the original opening was “For the minim let there be no hope”. In spite of the fact that he does not base this on anything, his suggestion is reasonable in view of our conclusions: S Dubnov, History of the Jews: From the Roman Empire to the Early Medieval Period, II, (trans. M. Spiegel), (New York-London, 1968), p. 40.

72

The Problem of the Original Text of the Birkat haMinim

construction of the blessing in the Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 28b-29a, and the 253 figure of Shemuel haQatan) Additional decisions connected to the status of the term minim in the blessing that bears their name will only be possible after a discussion of the nature and meaning of this term in earlier and later periods, although, as noted, the preference for the term minim over apostates/meshumadim in our sources, and the preference for both terms over all the rest is clear and comprehensible. As time passed (and it is impossible to know at exactly what point in time), the status of the term notzrim as an element of Birkat haMinim grew larger, but only in post-Talmudic and mediaeval sources. In any case, we cannot presume that the term notzrim existed in the blessing before the fourth century CE. Maybe then it was that this term received more significance and became more useful for identifying the minim of this period. From now on, the Palestinian and Babylonian variations begin to crystallise, with slight differences between them. As time went on and the Jewish Diaspora communities grew, so the basic elements began to lose their original significance and validity, and were given completely different meanings. Mostly they were not cancelled, because it is difficult to cancel the decisions of the early rabbis [Rishonim] but they were changed and adapted to the circumstances of the time. Thus we find the earliest textual versions we have – which are extremely late for our purposes – using old terminology. They are used with different meanings and are obviously far from the original intentions, but for all that there is exactitude in the use of ancient terms. The possible vocabulary of the oldest versions of Birkat haMinim is, as we have shown, restricted, and all the known possibilities have been presented here. We may not be able to elucidate the real order incontrovertibly, but the meaning of the words and ideas and the development of the attitude to minut, and through this also the status and intentions of Birkat haMinim, can perhaps be clarified, as we attempt to solve the riddle of the identity of the minim in the following chapters.

253

See below, pp. 73-99.

Chapter 2 The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

Constructing Birkat haMinim The story of the writing of Birkat haMinim appears only in the Babylonian 1 Talmud, in tractate Berakhot: These eighteen are really nineteen? – Rabbi Levi said: Birkat haMinim was constructed in Yavneh. To what was it meant to correspond? – Rabbi Levi said: in the view of Rabbi Hillel ben Rabbi Shemuel bar Nahmani, to “the God of glory thundereth” (Psalms 29:3); in the view of Rav Yoseph, to the word ‘One’ in the Shema prayer; in the view of Rabbi Tanhum quoting Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, to the little vertebrae in the spinal column. Our rabbis taught: Shimon haPaquli put the Shemoneh Esreh/Eighteen Blessings in order before Rabban Gamaliel in Yavneh. Rabban Gamaliel said to the rabbis: Is there no-one among you who can construct a Birkat Minim? Shemuel haQatan arose and constructed it. The next year he forgot it and he tried for two or three hours to recall it, and they did not remove him. Why did they not remove him? For Rav Judah has said in the name of Rav: If a reader make a mistake in any of the other benedictions, they do not remove him, but if in Birkat haMinim, he is removed, because we suspect him of being a min. – Shemuel haQatan is different, because he constructed it. But is there not a fear that he may have recanted? – Abbaye said: We have a tradition that a good man does not become bad. But doesn’t he? Is it not written: But when the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity (Ezekiel 18:26)? – Such a man was originally wicked, but one who was originally righteous does not do so. But is that so? Have we not learnt: Believe not in thyself until the day of thy death? For did not Yohanan the High Priest officiate as High Priest for eighty years and in the end become a min? Abbaye said: Yohanan is the same as Yannai. Rava said: Yohanan and Yannai are different; Yannai was originally wicked and Yohanan was originally righteous. On Abbaye’s view there is no difficulty, but on Rava’s view there is a difficulty? Rava can reply: For one who was originally righteous it is also possible to become a renegade. If that is the case, why did they not remove him? – Shemuel haQatan is different, because he had already begun to say it [the blessing]. For Rav Judah says in the name of Rav – or as some say, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: This applies only if he has not begun to say it, but if he has begun, he is allowed to finish.

1

BT Berakhot 28b-29a. See Diqduqei Soferim on Berakhot, p.148. Tr. Soncino [adapted].

74

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

The baraita about the construction of Birkat haMinim by Shemuel haQatan is quoted in this source within a discussion of mistakes in saying prayers, and in order to explain the structure of the nineteen blessings in the prayer called Shemoneh Esreh/the Eighteen [blessings]. The rabbis had already wearied them2 selves over this contradiction, but usually they only tried to give pretexts for it, using scriptural and other authority as to why the name Shemoneh Esreh should be applied to a prayer containing nineteen blessings. 3 Similar discussions also occur in two places in the Jerusalem Talmud, but these do not make use of the baraita which describes the construction of Birkat haMinim which is only found in the Babylonian Talmud, which in itself is rather strange. The source of this baraita is unknown. The fact that this story, which takes place on such a central stage in the Land of Israel, should be missing from the Jerusalem Talmud and other tannaitic sources is indeed strange. But this is the only source we have which records the important historical milestone of the composition of Birkat haMinim. Although, as noted, the roots of this source are unknown, for all that we must examine it closely in the full knowledge that it is only a single piece of evidence distant in time and place from the original event. We should not suppose that the content of the story is totally imaginary, but we need to examine closely both context and components. The discussion in the Babylonian Talmud has three components: an explanation for the nineteen blessings, the story of the construction of Birkat haMinim, and the later mistake of Shemuel haQatan in reading it. These components are interconnected. The editor makes it clear that the story of the construction is meaningless without the problem of the nineteen blessings in the prayer called Shemoneh Esreh. The two last elements are important for the decision on mistakes in reading the blessing aloud, a decision whose importance, it appears, goes far beyond the mere rules of the liturgy and order of the prayers. The discussion in the Babylonian Talmud with all these elements appears to be an editorial stratification of three different periods of time. This is especially because of the contents of the discussion, but also because of the time of the speakers. The debate about the mistake, or forgetfulness, of Shemuel haQatan 4 in saying the blessing is the latest layer. We cannot know whether there were earlier decisions on how one must relate to a mistake in saying this blessing. The fact that the Babylonian Talmud needs the first example from Shemuel haQatan himself in order to begin to lay down the halakhah shows that the amoraim of Babylonia did not know of a precedent, or perhaps turned a blind eye to it.

2

See below. “On the minim the sages of Yavneh already ruled.” JT Berakhot iv, 8a. There is also a discussion of the mistakes in reading where Shemuel haQatan is mentioned: JT Berakhot v, 9c. 4 It is possible to see support for this stratification in the fact that in the Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot v,2: 9c. There is a parallel to this without the story in the Babylonian Talmud. 3

Constructing Birkat haMinim

75

Anyway, the verbal exchanges and manner of decisions have the appearance of 5 a preliminary discussion. The attempt to explain away the structure of the nineteen blessings at the beginning of this paragraph reflects an earlier stratum. The rabbis mentioned are Palestinian amoraim, and the content of their discussion is known to us from 6 other Palestinian sources. The central story in this passage includes in considerable detail the only evidence of the construction of Birkat haMinim. This appears in the context of a baraita, and it is this which is the earliest stratum in the discussion of the Babylonian Talmud with which we are concerned. The story itself is linked to the Yavneh period and its chief hero Rabban Gamaliel II. On the face of it, the time framework of the baraita is clearly delineated, but this is not enough to determine questions about the source of the baraita, the time of its composition and the accuracy of its historical details. Every one of these questions is important for deciding the final status of this baraita for the question of the time of composition of Birkat haMinim. The baraita begins with ‘our rabbis taught’ [tanu rabbanan], which is only one of the common openings of baraitot. It is possible that this particular opening (or another) has a certain amount of influence in determining the reliability of the content, its origin or the exactness of the details; the first to discuss this was Rav Sherira in his Iggeret. It is true that this is a very late document for the subject of our discussion, but it is the earliest to relate to the possibility of distinguishing between baraitot according to their openings. According to Rav Sherira, the baraitot which open with ‘our rabbis taught’ derive from Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Oshaiya. From this, he says: “we may understand that they are characteristically extremely exact” – which is in itself too sweeping a conclusion and perhaps even somewhat suspect – “so that”, according to him, “they are preferable to 7 other baraitot.” On this Aharon Hyman said “[It is true that it is possible that] all the statements ‘our rabbis taught’ in the Talmud are from the first tannaim, before Rabbi [Judah haNasi] redacted the Mishnah, and everyone repeated his own ruling in a different way,” but he adds later that “the baraitot of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Oshaiya are simply explanations and definitions of the Mishnah, as 8 our holy Rabbi [Judah haNasi] passed on to us through his learning.” Chanoch Albeck completely rejects the idea that ‘our rabbis taught’ is a hint of an older

5 It is true that there are many discussions in the Mishnah, the Tosefta and the Talmudim on mistakes in saying and reading prayers, but Birkat haMinim, because of its exceptional nature, demands to be related to differently, and gives rise to a framework of exceptional decisions. 6 JT Berakot iv, 8a. 7 Iggeret Rav Sherira Ga’on (ed. Levin, pp. 39-41). This probably because of the statement in BT Hullin 141a-141b: “Thereupon Rav Zera said to them: have I not told you that every baraita that was not taught in the school of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Oshaia is not authentic?” 8 A. Hyman, Toldoth Tannaim ve-Amoraim, (London, 1910), p. 430.

76

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context 9

baraita. According to him, the differences in openings are a matter of style only. Albeck relates to the difference between ‘our rabbis taught’ and ‘it is taught’ [tania]. It is indeed true that ‘it is taught’ sometimes serves as an alternative to ‘our rabbis taught’ and in particular it is interesting that this alternative appears in a parallel in the Babylonian Talmud to the baraita discussed above. The parallel runs as follows: To the [Shemoneh Esreh] prayer: From what is this derived? – It is taught: Simeon haPaquli set in order [‫ ]הסדיר‬eighteen blessings in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel in the proper order [‫ ]על הסדר‬in Yavneh. R. Yohanan said: (others report, it was stated in a baraita) a hundred and twenty elders, among whom there were many prophets, drew up eighteen 10 blessings in the proper order.

Here, as noted, ‘it is taught’ is used instead of ‘our rabbis taught’, and indeed, as Albeck says, there is no difference. But the line quoted after ‘it is taught’ is brought here with the express purpose of setting it off against another tradition, and in order to answer the question ‘whence is this derived.’ The possibilities are set out one against the other, so that the baraita from ‘it is taught’ [‫( ]תניא‬or as in BT Berakhot 28b: ‘our rabbis taught’[‫ )]תנו רבנן‬is set against the baraita which is quoted as ‘a baraita in the Mishnah,’ [‫ ]במתניתא תנא‬which, as is well known, does not represent our Mishnah in most cases. Here the difference is not so much 11 stylistic but rather qualitative. If it were possible to demonstrate the precedence of the first tradition over the one which follows it, then this would also be evidence of the precedence of the opening ‘our rabbis taught,’ but perhaps only in this case. This apparent contradiction between the two traditions in tractate Megillah is not accidental, but expresses the real deliberation of the rabbis over the general question of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, for they deliberated a great deal over its components, contents and order. The question of who composed the Shemoneh Esreh prayer is indeed answered in the source, but it is not central to the Talmudic discussions of the prayer. It is possible that an official answer on the time of the composition of the prayer was not available. This trend can be clearly seen in the continuation of the discussion in tractate Megillah, as follows: Seeing now that a hundred and twenty elders, among whom were many prophets, constructed the prayer, why did Simon haPaquli set them in order? They were forgotten and 12 he ordered them afresh. 9 C. Albeck, Mehkarim be-Baraita ve-Tosefta ve-Yahsan le-Talmud, (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 5-6,10; id. Introduction to the Talmuds, I, (Tel Aviv, 19873), pp. 21-23. (both in Hebrew). 10 BT Megillah 17b. 11 Higger shows that in most of the cases amoraim differ on ‫‘( במתניתא תנא‬in the Mishnah there is a baraita’) which is not the case with other baraitot, and this is some evidence of their lower status. M Higger, Ozar ha-Baraitot, ix, (New York, 1946), p. 81. The opposed baraitot in BT Megillah 17b are demonstration of this. 12 Megillah 18a.

Constructing Birkat haMinim

77

The discussants apparently could not close their eyes to the ancient tradition which attributed the composition of the prayer to what was clearly a high authority, but one whose nature was unclear. On the other hand, the story of Shimon haPaquli seems more realistic – it is to be found in a baraita which is almost certainly more authoritative, and it is dependent on the tradition of Yavneh which is also of central importance. From here there does not seem to be any alternative for the rabbis, for it is impossible to decide in the face of two such strong traditions, and the rational exegetical solution which arises from this stale-mate is: “They were forgotten and he ordered them afresh.” But it is may well be that even here there was a hidden but vital agenda, which was to endow Yavneh with an authority which was certainly no less than that of the Great Assembly [Knesset haGedolah] itself, and perhaps even connected with it or deriving from it. For it is possible that there was a desire, perhaps post-dating the Yavneh period itself, to see a link between Yavneh and the Great Assembly. Thus Yavneh is depicted as renewing what appears to have been laid down by this distant and unknown body, which was conceived as the most authoritative institution for the restoration of Judah after the punishment of the destruction of the First Temple and the Babylonian exile. And this is exactly the tradition we have about Yavneh, that it took on the rôle of continuation and renewal after the destruction of the 13 Second Temple. In any case, even if we minimise the importance of the link the rabbis wished to forge between the Great Assembly and Yavneh, this passage defines the maximal time framework within which it was reasonable to deliberate over the time of composition or consolidation of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. This time framework stretches from the days of the authority called ‘elders and prophets’ up to Shimon haPaquli, ie to the Yavneh period. In either case, there are also the different opinions in modern research on this matter, the solution of which, as noted, 14 influences the question of the time of composition of Birkat haMinim. 13

A similar trend can be seen in the discussion of the order of the Grace after Meals: “Rav Nahman said: Moses constructed the blessing ‘who feeds’ at the time when manna fell for them, Joshua constructed the blessing ‘on the Land’ when the entered the Land, David and Solomon constructed ‘buider of Jerusalem.’ David constructed ‘on Isreal Your people and on Jerusalem Your city,’ and Solomon constructed ‘on the great and holy house.’ ‘Who is good and Who does good’ was constructed in Yavneh on those killed at Beitar.” BT Berakhot 48b. Here the tradition has been fixed on the basis of the mistaken version of the Babylonian Talmud, as if Yavneh was after Beitar. This mistake, it appears, is not unique or exceptional in the Babylonian Talmud. See: J. Efron, ‘The Great Sanhedrin in Vision and Reality’, id., Studies in the Hasmonean Period, Leiden 1987, p. 299 n. 50. 14 The goal is to define a period, for this is a sufficient framework. Already at the beginning of research attempts were made at defining a more or less exact time, for the composition of Birkat haMinim, but these were usually unfounded hypotheses: see M. Joël, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, I, (Breslau, 1880), pp. 24-25; D. Chwolson, Das Letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes, (St. Petersburg, 1892), p. 99, n. 3; J. Jocz, The Jewish People and

78

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

The scholar Yitzhak Baer used the baraita under discussion in order to show that the Talmudic tradition attributes the composition of the blessings to the men 15 of the Great Assembly or their period. His presumption that the composition of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, or parts of it, was attributed to the Great Assembly, used a somewhat forced combination of two Talmudic traditions. The first had no mention of the Great Assembly: ‘a hundred and twenty elders constructed the prayer etc’. The other, no less distant and vague, states that ‘the men of the Great Synagogue constructed blessings and prayers for Israel, different versions 16 of qiddush and havdalah.’ In no place in our sources does it say that the Great 17 Assembly included a hundred and twenty members. Thus the only rationale which joins these two sources is, perhaps, a possible juxtaposition in time, as reflected in Avot deRabbi Natan: ‘the men of the Great Assembly received from 18 Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi...’ According to Avot deRabbi Natan, this unknown authoritative body ‘the Great Assembly,’ follows the latter prophets in the chain of tradition, or, according to the more general version of the Mishnah, the Great Assembly continues the reception of the Torah from the prophets. The attribution of the composition of the prayer or parts of it to the Great Assembly is also problematic in other areas. First of all, in respect of the nature of the 19 ‘Great Assembly.’ We know of a few statements attributed to this body, as well as the vague fact that it existed after the prophets and before the time of such figures as Simon the Just (one of the last members of the Great Assembly) and Antigonus of Socho , who preceded the Pairs of Scholars [Zugot]. Although modern scholarship tends not to cast doubt on the historical existence of these Jesus Christ, (London, 1949), p. 337, n. 272. David Gans wrote at the end of the sixteenth century that the Sanhedrin was exiled from Jerusalem to Yavneh forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, and that Shemuel haQatan constructed Birkat haMinim in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. See David Gans, Sefer Tzemah David (Prague, 1592), [ed. M Breuer (Jerusalem, 1983)], p. 81. This opinion and other similar ones are based on the incorrect premise that there was a court of rabbis at Yavneh before the Destruction. On this see G. Alon, Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai’s Removal to Jabneh, id., Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 269-313 .This paper contradicts the ruling opinion up till then which accepted the sources on face value, and was especially critical of M. Stein, ‘Yabneh and her Scholars’, Zion 3 (1938), pp. 118-122. (in Hebrew). 15 Y.F. Baer, Israel Among the Nations, (Jerusalem, 1955), p. 31 (in Hebrew). 16 BT Berakhot 33a. 17 K. Kohler, ‘The Origin and Composition of the Eighteen Benedictions’, HUCA 1 (1924), p. 388. According to him the number 120 is a fiction, joining together different numbers of officials and prophets from the book of Nehemiah. 18 Avot deRabbi Natan, version A, i, (ed. Schechter, p. 2). 19 The only historical foothold is in the book of Nehemiah, 10, the single assembly of the people who signed the covenant. See J. Efron ‘The Great Sanhedrin in Vision and Reality’, id., Studies of the Hasmonean Period, (Leiden 1987), pp. 293-294. For the history of research into this question: H. Mantel, The Men of the Great Synagogue, (Jerusalem, 1983), p. 64f. (In Hebrew).

Constructing Birkat haMinim

79

Pairs, this still is not enough to remove the fog that surrounds their predecessors, and in particular the body known as the Great Assembly. Secondly, attribution of blessings and prayers, different versions of qiddush and havdalah to the Great 20 Assembly, what ever it was, is going too far. Presumably what was intended was both to give honours to what is called in our sources the Great Assembly, as well as to give authority for different sorts of prayers, by making them depend21 ent on an ancient institution. This is the explicit intention of the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud between Rabbi Shaman [Shimon] bar Abin and Rabbi 22 Yohanan: to give a halo of authority to the debate over havdalah. For all that, Rabbi Yohanan claims that even the ruling attributed to the Great Assembly had developed somewhat during the Second Temple period, but this does not add to or subtract from the overt intention to make customs and rulings dependent on the names of great authorities. When it comes to prayer this trend is not unusual. At a later period the construction of the prayers was attributed to the patriarchs in a very similar way: “Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: the patriarchs constructed three prayers: Abraham 23 constructed the morning prayer, etc. Rabbi Pinhas said: Moses constructed 24 the form of prayer…” In spite of this, Baer claims that we should not doubt the precedence of this prayer. However, even if we do accept the precedence of the prayer, two questions still arise. First, how far can we take this precedence? Secondly, even if the Shemoneh Esreh prayer was composed before the Yavneh period, was it composed as a single closed organic whole, or in different stages, each from a different period? From this naturally there also arises the central question of this study: when, given all these questions and uncertainties, was Birkat haMinim composed? There are several different opinions as to the time of composition of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, and the question of whether it was composed all in one piece or not. There were those who decided that the Shemoneh Esreh was created

20 I.H. Weiss, Dor Dor ve-Dorshav, IV, (Berlin, 1924), pp 61-62 was the first to cautiously disagree with the attribution of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer to the Great Assembly. Even before him, Zunz (who tended to accept the nucleus of the story, namely the attribution to the Great Assembly) proposed that in spite of this there were expressions which were characteristic of later periods, and therefore the prayer was composed in stages. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, [Frankfurt a.m. 18922, repr. Hildsheim, 1966], pp. 379-380. 21 Thus the writing of books of scripture is also attributed to the Great Assembly: “The men of the Great assembly wrote Ezekiel and the twelve prophets, Daniel and the Book of Esther.” BT Bava Batra 15a. 22 BT Berakhot loc.cit. 23 Genesis Rabbah lxviii, 9 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 778). 24 JT Berakhot vii, 11c. For further examples see: J. Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tannaim and the Amoraim, (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 17 (in Hebrew).

80

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context 25

in stages. Zunz concluded that the first three blessings and the last three are the oldest part, relying on the Mishnah which cites only these blessings by name: ‘The order of the blessings: one says “the fathers [avot],” “mighty deeds [gevurot],” “sanctification of the Name [qedushat haShem],” and includes with them the “sovereignty 26 [malkhuyot]” blessings etc.

This is in fact the order of prayer on the New Year [Rosh HaShanah] when the middle blessings are not said, but according to Zunz it is exactly this which 27 shows the precedence of this stage. He thinks that the rest of the blessings, the so-called “middle blessings,” are connected to later historical events in Jewish history and were developed over about three hundred years. Birkat haMinim, according to Zunz, was added as a curse against traitors and converts even before the Destruction. Liber went even further and writes that it is possible to trace in the prayer even earlier events, such as the Hasmonaean Revolt, the struggle between the Pharisees and Sadducees, the revolt against Roman rule and of 28 course antagonism to the beginnings of Christianity. Others claimed that the 29 prayer was created in one piece, like ‘the fortress in its proper place,’ as Aharon Mirsky writes, quoting Jeremiah 30:18. Mirsky went even further and claimed that the Shemoneh Esreh prayer preceded the Oral Law, and is not influenced by other periods, but was written by ‘elders and prophets’ and the men of the Great 30 Assembly as cited in the baraita in the Mishnah above. Yitzhak Baer also saw 31 in the prayer a single organic structure which cannot be divided up, but he bases 32 his claims on a comparison of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer with Greek prayers. Hence, he claims, ‘it is also possible to draw chronological conclusions’ about

25 K. Kohler ‘The Origin’ (above, n. 17), pp. 391-392; M. Liber, ‘Structure and History of the Eighteen Benedictions,’ JQR 40 (1950), p. 353. 26 Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah iv, 5. 27 L. Zunz, (loc. cit.); Alon is more cautious and suggests that the first three and last three blessings date ‘before the destruction.’ G. Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, (translated and edited by G. Levi), I, (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 267-268. 28 M. Liber, ‘Structure and History of the Tefilah’, JQR 40 (1949-1950), p. 331f. 29 This is the literal meaning of the Biblical verse: “and the palace shall remain after its manner” (”‫)“כארמון על משפטו‬. 30 A. Mirsky, ‘The Origin of the Eighteen Benedictions of the Daily Prayer’, Tarbiz 33 (1964), pp. 37-39 (in Hebrew). 31 Y.F. Baer, (above, n. 15), pp. 32-33. 32 Various analogies and sources for the Shemoneh Esreh prayer have been proposed by scholars, such as Ben Sirah, as well as analogies in the Psalms of Solomon (Liber); Greek papyri (Marmorstein); the Judaean Desert documents (Talmon); and the prayer of Hannah in I Samuel (Jacobson). It should be noted that the latter idea was already proposed in Sefer haEshkol (12th century): “And it says in the Jerusalem Talmud that there are in the prayer of Hannah eighteen blessings.” Abraham ben Isaac, Sefer haEshkol, Hilkhot Tefillah 12a. For a summary of these views, which are not directly relevant to this research, together with bibliography, see J. Heinemann, ‘Prayer’, (above, n. 24), pp. 138-139.

Constructing Birkat haMinim

81

the time of composition of the prayer: around the Ptolemaic period or in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. At any rate, in his view, the prayer should not be set later than the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. The fundamental question about when the Shemoneh Esreh prayer was composed thus remains unanswered. Not one of the opinions presented is supported by decisive arguments or facts. That the textual versions of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer are dependent in some way on biblical sources such as the prayer of Hannah or other biblical sources, or on apocryphal Jewish sources such as Ben 33 Sirah does not prove anything, for the desire to link the versions of the prayers to biblical phrases and biblical ideas is completely understandable. In addition, it is not possible to draw a clear line of development of the prayer rite, even if we were certain of the sources of every blessing, so that it would be irresponsibly over-ambitious to attempt to define any sort of modularity or pattern of development (such as was attempted by Zunz). The Talmudic evidence which attributes the composition of the prayer to the Great Assembly embarrasses even the amoraim who discuss the question, or the later editors of this tractate. Thus the discussion between the amoraim in the Talmud is presented as a confrontation between two traditions: a contest between the evidence which sets the composition of the prayer back in the days of the Great Assembly, and the evidence which brings it forward to the days of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh. It looks as if the editors of the tractate understood that the evidence of Shimon haPaquli and Shemuel haQatan looks more reliable so that they used the forced excuse of forgetting: (‘they were forgotten’). In other words, the prayer had been forgotten and was simply renewed (‘he ordered them afresh’). Thus even to the eyes of the modern reader the late tradition of the composition of the prayer and the blessing, which includes the stories of Shimon haPaquli and Shemuel haQatan in the beit midrash/Study House of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh, is presented as a realistic basis which cannot be challenged. Can this really be the case? Before deciding on this matter, a number of basic questions must be clarified about the content of this central baraita. The story, as noted, takes place on a Palestinian stage, but is quoted in the Babylonian Talmud only. There is a long time lapse between the historical context of the Yavneh period and the amoraic discussion of its content. The context of the baraita, as well as the realistic nature of the content, tempt us to judge it as a single unit. However it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the baraita is not an assembly of two or more traditions, or even of different stories. Perhaps the tradition of Shimon haPaquli and the tradition of Shemuel haQatan were independent narratives which were crystallised in the far away traditional framework of the Yavneh period and the time of Rabban 33

S. Safrai, ‘The Synagogue’, S. Safrai et. al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, II, (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 924-926. According to him there is not a single real parallel between the apocryphal sources such as Ben Sirah etc. and the Shemoneh Esreh prayer.

82

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

Gamaliel. To decide about this we must look at the stories of Shimon haPaquli and Shemuel haQatan in this context and examine whether the sequence of the stories is rational: did Shimon haPaquli indeed order or compose the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, and did Shemuel haQatan construct Birkat haMinim afterwards? And did both these events belong to the historical setting of Rabban Gamaliel? And who are these two men? The tradition of Shimon haPaquli is paler in comparison to the story of Shemuel haQatan, if only because Shimon haPaquli deals with all the blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh and Shemuel haQatan with only one blessing which is appears in the story by name, so that this stratum, if it can be so defined, seems to be more exact and reliable. These two traditions are brought in the Talmudic story in order to teach us the tradition which was accepted unconditionally around the time of the closing of the Talmud and afterwards, that Birkat haMinim did not exist in any shape or form in the collection put in order by Shimon haPaquli, at least according to this baraita. The difference in the activities of these two men also comes to the fore in the description of their actions: Shimon haPaquli put the prayer ‘in order,’ but Shemuel haQatan ‘constructed’ Birkat haMinim and there is a great deal of difference between ‘setting in order’ and ‘constructing.’ On the face of it, ‘constructing’ would seem to be more exact and authentic than ‘setting in order.’ A distinction like this can be seen clearly in the confrontation between the traditions about the composition of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer in the Babylonian Talmud Megillah 17a: ‘The prayer: From where is this derived? […] Shimon haPaquli put it in order ‫ ]…[ )הסדיר‬one hundred and twenty elders […] constructed it ‫]…[ )תיקנו‬.’ Not only is it the dependence on ancient authority which gives the force of authority to the decisions at Yavneh, as we saw above, but the Talmudic solution to the conflict ‘They were forgotten and he ordered them afresh’ is in itself acceptance of the tradition that ‘they constructed it’ should be understood as composing the prayer. The language of tractate Megillah demonstrates the similarity between the two traditions, according to which ‘set in order’ and ‘constructed’ are almost identical in status, with a certain preference for the early ‘constructors’ over the later one who ‘set in order.’ However, in comparing Shimon haPaquli to Shemuel haQatan the act of ‘constructing’ is repeated and becomes equal in value to the honourable tradition attributed to the elders and prophets or to the Great Assembly. Shemuel haQatan’s ‘construct’ is the composition of a new blessing, at least according to this baraita, and this is what is clear from the whole content. In other words, the forced Talmudic explanation ‘They were forgotten it and he ordered them afresh.’ is not acceptable as the plain meaning. It is possible that there is a statement here to be read between the lines, about the need to purify old traditions and adapt them to new circumstances. But this explanation does not extend beyond the intellectual framework which the Talmud dictates. For us this

Constructing Birkat haMinim

83

is no solution of the main difficulty, which is whether the baraita in question is a single authentic tradition which reflects a historical truth. There have been those who have tried to give a positive answer to this ques34 tion. After a linguistic and textual analysis, Naomi Cohen has decided that there 35 is no connection between the words ‘set in order’ [hisdir] and ‘in the proper 36 order’ [al haSeder]. According to her, al haSeder means ‘a composition which includes halakhot of the prayerbook [seder ha-tefillah].’ Thus, in her view, ‘the invitation to Shimon haPaquli to present the prayer in public before Rabban Gamaliel is an initiative intended to use a simple man in order to fix the textual version of the prayer according to the existing order [seder], i.e., the collection of forms of prayer in the hands of Rabban Gamaliel. This is so as to rule on the debate in the Mishnah: “Rabban Gamaliel says: Every day a man [should] pray 37 eighteen blessings. Rabbi Joshua says: A shortened form of the eighteen.” However rational this suggestion is, it does not have a firm enough foundation. It is true that there is no other convincing explanation for such an important act 38 by an anonymous person, Shimon haPaquli, who has neither title nor position, 39 and who appeared on the stage of history just once, and only for this purpose. The second mention of Shimon haPaquli even mentions the embarrassment connected with his position ‘why did Simon haPaquli set them in order? They were forgotten and he ordered them afresh.’ His function is not clear even to the editors of the Talmud. If the first source in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 28b-29a) had been the only source, perhaps it would have been possible to accept Naomi Cohen’s claim. But the additional source in tractate Megillah is of no less value than the source in Berakhot, and in the first tractate his function is described as ‘he went back and put it in order.’ In other words, they do not know what his function is and use a forced explanation. Similarly, the fact of the disagreement with Rabbi Joshua is not enough to demonstrate that Rabban Gamaliel needed a man from the common people in order to base his claim, as we can see if we examine the other disputes of Rabban Gamaliel with Rabbi Joshua. 34 E. Fleischer, ‘On the beginnings of Obligatory Prayer in Israel,’ Tarbiz 59 (1990), p. 435 (in Hebrew). 35 N. Cohen, ‘The Nature of Shimeon ha-Pekuli’s Act,’ Tarbiz 52 (1983), pp. 548-550 (in Hebrew). 36 The expression al haSeder is not adverbial but a proper noun. 37 Mishnah Berakhot i, 3; N. Cohen, loc. cit. p. 555. 38 Only his occupation is mentioned, paquli, someone who works with paqulin which is ‘carded and cleaned flax made up into a sort of bundle of hair.’ See Y. Gur, Hebrew Dictionary, (Tel Aviv, 19504), p. 818, using BT Niddah 17b “you do not check the bed except with carded flax [paqulin] or clean soft wool.” According to J. Levi, Wörterbuch uber die Talmudim und Midrashim, (Berlin-Wien, 1924), and Jastrow, Dictionary, sv paquli Shimon was a trader in flax; see also M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, (Ramat Gan-Baltimore- London, 2002), sv paqula, a type of cloth. 39 In three places all connected to the same subject: BT Berakhot 28b; Megillah 17b; 18a.

84

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

In any case, a linguistic analysis like this and others supposes that the baraita under discussion is a single unit, and that it reflects historical circumstances from the point of view of a whole with its parts, so that only an analysis of this sort is able to cast light on the riddles of the story. However, as we have noted, the presence of different elements in the story (Shemuel haQatan, Shimon haPaquli, Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh etc.) in the framework of a single baraita are not necessarily evidence of their conjunction in historical realty. Nor does this strengthen the presumption that putting the Shemoneh Esreh in order, and constructing Birkat haMinim, were done in a single process under the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh. This supposition also needs to be demonstrated. Examination of the three elements of the story in the baraita, Shimon haPaquli (‘set in order’) Shemuel haQatan (‘constructed’), and Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh and his authority cannot be symmetrical, because from the point of view of the historical knowledge of these people and their characteristic weight in our sources, it is difficult to join them into one harmonious framework. Rabban Gamaliel II is a central and very active figure, and many details of his character and activities are recorded throughout the whole of the tannaitic and amoraic literature. Shemuel haQatan bears no title or function, nor are there any clear biographical details about him, but he is known as an outstanding figure 40 and described as a hasid, while we have already noted that Shimon haPaquli appears just once in a single rôle – the ‘setting in order’ of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. Other than this we know nothing about him. The question is, then, what are the connections which link these three figures to this one story and how can we uncover them, if at all? Certain problems already appear in the way in which Rabban Gamaliel turns to the rabbis over the subject of constructing Birkat haMinim: Rabban Gamaliel said to the rabbis: Is there no man among you who can construct a Birkat Minim? Shemuel haQatan arose and constructed it.’

This sort of request is also known from other sources in the Babylonian Talmud 41 as a way of putting a question which needs a solution. In one case, the story of the argument between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua on the question of whether the evening prayer is obligatory or optional, it says: “Rabban Gamaliel 42 said to them, to the rabbis: Is there no man who disagrees with this?” It is possible that this form of question from Rabban Gamaliel to the rabbis was added during later editing in order to build a framework of discussions which would be comprehensible to the reader. But when the subject is an argument, as in the first source, it may not necessarily have been aimed at rabbis who were physi-

40

A detailed discussion of the figure and function of Shemuel haQatan: below, pp. 90-99. BT Pesahim 36a; Avodah Zarah 40b. 42 BT Berakhot 27b. 41

Constructing Birkat haMinim

85

cally in the immediate neighbourhood of Rabban Gamaliel. It is possible that this was later criticism of his decisions. (For example: He makes three blessings 43 on them, says Rabban Gamaliel. And the rabbis say: one blessing. ) This form: ‘Rabbi X says…and the rabbis say’ is a way of stylising the argument and it does not denote a discussion where they are all present together. This is not the case in the story we are considering, where it says explicitly: ‘Rabban Gamaliel said to them, to the rabbis’. These are rabbis who are physically in his immediate neighbourhood. From our point of view these rabbis are completely anonymous, mere participants in the discussion. Rabban Gamaliel’s request of the rabbis in this form may be a function of editing, but it is clear that there is a dialogue here between Rabban Gamaliel and those near him, whether they are in his immediate neighbourhood, or simply people who were his contemporaries whose opinion was important to him. We do not know whether this is a collection of opinions of individuals or discussion groups, or if these are leading groups whose members are not known in this case. Rabban Gamaliel turns to the rabbis with a question: Is there no-one among you who can construct a Birkat Minim? And the answer of the source is that Shemuel haQatan arose and constructed it. It looks as if there is a conflict here between the question and its answer. Rabban Gamaliel’s question to the rabbis looks, on the face of it, like a question which is put to them as an opening to a discussion on the subject. But the solution which the baraita brings presents the question as a sort of tender, aimed at anyone who has the ability to shoulder this load, who should then present his suggestion before Rabban Gamaliel (and the rabbis?).The function of the rabbis in this story is not just literary, but appears to carry extra meaning. In the Jerusalem Talmud this story does not appear in full as we saw it in the Babylonian Talmud. The function of Shemuel haQatan is expunged, unless it did not belong there from the first. It says briefly: [the blessing] of the minim 44 the rabbis already fixed in Yavneh. ‘The rabbis,’ and not Shemuel haQatan. Furthermore, in another place in the Jerusalem Talmud, there is a parallel to the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud about the mistake in reading the blessings, including Birkat haMinim. There it is true that Shemuel haQatan does appear, but the source writes as follows about him:

43 44

Mishnah, Berakhot vi, 8. JT Berakhot iv, 8a.

86

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context 45

[he] prayed in public before the Ark and forgot ‘who humbles the arrogant’ (makhnia zedim) at the end. He turned and looked at them. They said: Our rabbis did not think like 46 that.

According to the story in the Jerusalem Talmud, Shemuel haQatan left out the phrase ‘humbles the arrogant’ – which is, as noted, the oldest combination of words known to us from the blessing, and almost certainly an element in the original version of Birkat haMinim. This led to considerable surprise on the part of the rabbis, who did not think that a figure like Shemuel haQatan would leave out words from the blessing. However, it is not clear whether the surprise was caused by the fact that this was the man who composed the blessing, as appears in the Babylonian Talmud. It seems from the Jerusalem Talmud here that he only forgot one phrase ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ (unless indeed the whole blessing is meant here, for we have already seen elsewhere in the Jerusalem Talmud that Birkat haMinim is also called after its close, ‘who humbles the arrogant.’) The main difference between this and the Babylonian Talmud is that in the latter Shemuel haQatan does not leave out only one phrase, but, as it says, ‘the next year he forgot it and he tried for two or three hours to recall it, and they did not remove him.’ In other words, according to the Babylonian Talmud Shemuel haQatan forgets the whole blessing a year at least after he himself constructed it, according to the story. Comparison of the sources raises a question which it is difficult to solve. Is the Babylonian or the Jerusalem Talmud to be preferred here as a source? For if we prefer the Jerusalem Talmud since it is nearer to the time the events took place, then the function of Shemuel haQatan is unclear, or non-existent, in relation to the composition of Birkat haMinim. The function of the rabbis as opposed to the function of Shemuel haQatan over the composition of the blessing becomes even more pointed when we examine the discussion and reaction to the mistake of Shemuel haQatan in the Babylonian and Jerusalem talmudim. The story in the Babylonian Talmud is, as noted, a very late stratum, and we cannot draw conclusions from it. The baraita we are discussing ends the episode of the mistake of Shemuel haQatan 47 with an unexplained statement: “The next year [le-shana aheret] he forgot it and he tried for two or three hours to recall it, and they did not remove him.”

45

Other customs in this situation also serve as a touchstone for minut according to Mishnah, Megillah iv, 8: “Someone who says I will not pray in public before the Ark in coloured clothes or in white clothes may not lead the prayers.” See below, p. 190. 46 Most manuscripts and the early printed versions have ‘our rabbis did not think like that’ [kakh ‫ ;]כך‬a very few MSS have ‘our rabbis did not think thus of you’ [bekha ‫]בך‬. P. Shäffer et al. (eds) Sinopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi, (Berlin, 1991), p. 153. 47 i.e., the next year: see on this Mishnah Bava Batra iii, 2.

Constructing Birkat haMinim

87

Thus we need the later discussion in the names of Rav and Rabbi Judah, (the first generation of Babylonian amoraim). According to this, although someone who makes a mistake in Birkat haMinim must repeat the blessing, ‘in case he is a min,’ it was inconceivable that Shemuel haQatan could be under suspicion, for it was he who constructed the blessing. The Jerusalem Talmud demonstrates a similar reaction. Shemuel haQatan leaves out the phrase ‘who humbles the arrogant’ from the close of the blessing. Perhaps he ends with another phrase, maybe one of the versions known to us from the Genizah texts – which are the oldest phrases we have – such as ‘who crushes enemies’ or ‘who crushes the wicked’ or even another combination which is unknown to us, for we cannot suppose that he did not end the blessing with a formal close. Indeed, the reaction ‘Our rabbis did not think like that’ appears to relate to the fact that there was no suspicion of Shemuel haQatan. Alternatively, if we presume that what was said was ‘our rabbis did not think that of you,’ then it is possible that Shemuel haQatan was not a good yardstick in the eyes of the rabbis. Comparison of the discussions of Shemuel haQatan’s mistake in the Babylonian and Jerusalem talmudim leads to the following conclusions: it is unclear what was the common source, but the Jerusalem Talmud version seems more reliable. It would seem reasonable to suppose that if we accept the tradition which attributes the composition of Birkat haMinim to Shemuel haQatan, he could not have then forgotten it a year later, just as it is not logical that he did not say it during the year. But it is in the later discussion (the later stratum) in the Babylonian Talmud on the question of Shemuel haQatan which is nearer to the spirit of the Jerusalem Talmud: If that is the case, why did they not remove him? – Shemuel haQatan is different, because he had already begun to say it [the benediction]. For Rav Judah says in the name of Rav – or as some say, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: This applies only if he has not begun to say it, but if he has begun, he is allowed to finish.

However, it is not clear whether the speakers are relating to Shemuel haQatan directly, or whether there is here a ruling which is a precedent for every case of forgetting or making a mistake in saying Birkat haMinim. However if the speakers are relating to the story of Shemuel haQatan, then the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud does not entail the unreasonable supposition that Shemuel haQatan forgot the whole blessing, as at the beginning of the discussion, but rather as it says explicitly: “Shemuel haQatan is different, because he had already begun to say it [the benediction].” Shemuel haQatan began the blessing and did not finish it, exactly as appears in the greater detail of the Jerusalem Talmud, that Shemuel haQatan prayed in public before the Ark and forgot ‘who humbles the arrogant’ at the end. In other words, here too he began it. But in contradistinction to the version in the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud is more detailed and less diffuse, and notes that the part left out was the close: ‘Who humbles the arrogant.’

88

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

The most significant point is that the Jerusalem Talmud version stands against the two versions of the Babylonian Talmud. For we have seen that the version of the baraita, the earliest stratum in the Babylonian discussion, is an incomplete description of Shemuel haQatan as someone who forgets the whole prayer, and it is only in the latest stratum that the corrected version appears, according to which Shemuel haQatan apparently begins the blessing but does not finish it. Thus only the late stratum in the Babylonian Talmud matches the Jerusalem Talmud story. Not only this, but in the late stratum in the Babylonian Talmud, the corrected story is attached to Rav Judah, who cites a statement in the name of Rav, both of them Babylonian amoraim from the first generation (beginning of the 3rd century). To this the editor adds that there is also a link (‘some say’) to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, and perhaps the words are attached to this amora, from the first generation of the Palestinian amoraim. The story in the Jerusalem Talmud is also related in some way to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, and it opens as follows: “Rabbi Simon said to him in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: A public prayer leader who forgot two or three blessings is not made to go back [and say them]…” Thus in the Jerusalem Talmud there is an addition which corrects the original statement, to the effect that one does not make a prayer leader go back if he made a mistake, unless he failed to say three blessings, including Birkat haMinim (humbles the arrogant). In another place in the Jerusalem Talmud a statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi is cited by Rav Aha: “Also he who constructed this prayer according to the order of its construction, the three first blessing and the three last blessings, which are praise of God [haMaqom], and the middle ones which are the ways of His creatures: “favour us with knowledge,” etc. In other words there are discussions on the order of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. Thus we may hypothesise the existence of a common source. It is possible that this was connected with Palestinian amoraim like Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, and it was this which influenced the Talmud of the Land of Israel in its discussions of mistakes in saying the blessings. It also looks as if the Babylonian Talmud drew on such a source in its discussion of the same subject, for there are similarities between the stories in the two sources. As noted, the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud of the mistakes in saying the blessings is much later than the baraita. It is attached mainly to the names of Abbaye and Rava, from the first generation of Babylonian amoraim. The discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud is not much earlier, and in any case does not precede the first generation of amoraim. However, as noted, there is a resemblance between the two sources, and both of them are different from the baraita, which should be earlier than both of them, although they look more rational than it does and perhaps even represent another baraita, or common source which is no longer extant. Of course this is no basis for a definitive conclusion that the Babylonian baraita is less preferable than its Palestinian counterpart on the question of the

Constructing Birkat haMinim

89

link between Shemuel haQatan and Birkat haMinim. However, it is enough to cast a shadow of doubt on the degree of accuracy of the only source to tell us that Shemuel haQatan wrote Birkat haMinim. Not only this, but the riddle of the links between the three characters who appear in the baraita, Rabban Gamaliel, the rabbis and Shemuel haQatan, is not only not solved, but becomes even more obscure. Naomi Cohen has proposed that the question of Rabban Gamaliel to the rabbis ‘is there no-one among you…?’ was rhetorical, and that this was his response to the criticism by the ‘rabbis’ of the version of Birkat haMinim in the words of Shimon haPaquli. Hence she supposes that Birkat haMinim was already extant, and only re-constructed by Shemuel haQatan. This is not a new approach 48 and was proposed already by quite a few earlier studies, in particular in the context of the statements in the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud which talk about the composition or the components of Birkat haMinim (and other blessings). From here arise the basic questions: was Birkat haMinim composed prior to Shemuel haQatan and did he simply word it differently or add it to an existing blessing? Or did Shemuel haQatan construct Birkat haMinim in the literal meaning of the baraita in the Babylonian Talmud, in other words, did he word a new 49 blessing? Or was the blessing written as the Jerusalem Talmud presents it: ‘[The blessing] about the minim: the rabbis already instituted this in Yavneh,’ stressing the function of the rabbis and leaving out the function of Shemuel haQatan? A few solutions or at least the beginnings of a solution may be found in our sources by an exacting analysis of the two components of the problem, in other words, an examination of the connection between Shemuel haQatan and the episode of the writing of Birkat haMinim as it is delineated by the different sources. The first thing, therefore, is to make a critical examination of the image of the hero of the story as it is sketched in our sources. We have to confront the figure of this Shemuel haQatan, his time and his function, with the central question of the date of the construction or reconstruction of Birkat haMinim. This must be set in the context of the traditions in the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud about the different components linked together in the structure of the blessings, and in particular in the structure of Birkat haMinim. (“There is a baraita: they are counted including [the blessing] of the minim and the wicked in ‘who humbles 50 the arrogant’ etc.”). Each one of these subjects needs a separate discussion, but in clarifying them we will cast light on the links between them. In other words, from what we know of him from our sources, is it reasonable that Shemuel haQatan could really have written or rewritten Birkat haMinim? Is this reasonable

48

J. Brill, Introduction to the Mishnah, (Frankfurt, 1876), pp. 67, 98; I.H. Weiss, (above, n. 20), K. Kohler, (above, n. 17), p. 401; V. Aptowitzer, ‘Bemerkungen zur Liturgie und Geschichte der Liturgie’, MGWJ 74 (1930), p. 109, n. 3. 49 J. Jocz, The Jewish People (above, n. 14), p. 57. 50 JT Berakhot ii, 5a.

90

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

given what is known to us from the sources on this blessing and its historical developments? The answer, it will become clear, is not at all simple, at least not according to the literal meaning of the story told to us in the basic narrative in the baraita in Berakhot 28b-29a.

Shemuel haQatan The first question is whether it is possible to decide for certain the date when Shemuel haQatan lived and worked. The sources for this subject are very few, and in some of them we find a few words to the effect that Shemuel haQatan was a highly respected figure. But there is a lack of real biographical components in our sources, and where there are such components they do not add up to much. They have the characteristics of legend, serving merely as an illustration or underlining of the exceptional value of this tanna, and anyway their quality is vague. However, like other problematic sources which touch on figures from the Talmudic literature, these are the only sources we have, and we can make some distinctions between them and even, with due caution, come to some conclusions. Apart from the central story we are discussing, the construction of Birkat 51 haMinim, Shemuel haQatan is mentioned in a small number of sources, some of them parallels, in tannaitic and amoraic sources, from the Mishnah, through the Jerusalem Talmud, the Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud up to the Minor Tractates and the late Midrashei Aggadah. The spread is indeed wide, but, as noted, the number of sources is small and their quality dubious. As noted above, there are no clear biographical details about Shemuel haQatan. There are no certain connections to any time or place, apart from the baraitot under discussion. Above all we know neither where he came from, nor his family origin, nor his genealogy, nor does his father’s name appears as part of his own name as is usual. Shemuel haQatan does not have the title of ‘rabbi’ or ‘rabban.’ In other words he was not ordained, and he is known only by the strange addition to his name: haQatan, the small, or the lesser. The sources make a rather forced attempt to explain this: “Why was he named ‘the small’? Because he would make little of himself, and they say it was because he was only a little bit less 52 than Shemuel haRamati [i.e., the prophet Samuel].” Almost all the other sources

51

These will be detailed below according to subject. JT Sotah ix, 24b. Cf. J. Brill, Introduction, (above, n. 48), p. 98. Brill provides different explanations, usually from the sources, but adds a hypothesis of his own, that Shemuel haQatan died young. op. cit. p99. Cf. W. Bachar, Die Agada der Tannaiten, I, (Strassburg, 1903), pp. 370-372. 52

91

Shemuel haQatan 53

continue this line and tell us mainly about the hasidut [piety] and modesty of Shemuel haQatan. Even the single mention of his name in the Mishnah adds one of the moralising verses from the book of Proverbs: “Shemuel haQatan says: (Proverbs 24:17) Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart 54 be glad when he stumbleth” etc. It is also interesting that the saying of Shemuel haQatan in the Mishnah is not his own, but taken from the Bible. In the Tosefta and Tractate Sotah of the Jerusalem Talmud, Shemuel haQatan is mentioned as part of an apparently realistic story. However its context has legendary elements and the main aim of the story is to tell about the function of a heavenly voice [bat qol] as follows: “When the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, the Holy Spirit [ruah haqodesh] ceased in Israel, but in spite of this they hear 55 a Heavenly Voice [bat qol].” The sources tell of two cases where the heavenly voice spoke, both of them at a gathering of rabbis. The first was in the house of Guriah (in the Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud parallel, Sanhedrin 11a) or the house of Gadia (in the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Sotah) at Jericho. When the heavenly voice asked who among those sitting there was deserving of the Holy Spirit, all of them, according to the story, looked at Hillel the Elder. In the continuation of the same story, in this source and all its parallels, the rabbis were assembled at Yavneh, and in answer to a similar question all of them looked at Shemuel haQatan. The continuation of the passage links Shemuel haQatan with Hillel: “And when he died they used to say of him, O, what a modest hasid, pupil of Hillel.” Obviously the intention here is not to make a real connection between Shemuel haQatan and Hillel. The intention of this statement is to show that Shemuel haQatan was the pupil of Hillel in the moral and spiritual sense of the word, as the follower of his example. Similar things are said of Hillel the Elder himself, in a similar funeral oration: “O, what a modest man, O what 56 a hasid, pupil of Ezra.” Thus we cannot extract any biographical conclusions with regard to Shemuel haQatan from here, except for the fact that in this source and parallels Shemuel haQatan is linked with Yavneh, and perhaps with the most important forum in Yavneh. For not only does the comparison of the virtues of Shemuel haQatan with those of Hillel the Elder, and those of Hillel with Ezra the Scribe, give sense to the story, but also it sets Yavneh and its leadership side by side with the leaders of the people at the time of Hillel, and de facto, even the time of Ezra. We have already seen this trend of taking ancient authority from 53 On hasidut at this time, which was ‘the highest level of conduct and concept of the Pharisees,’ see M. Ben-Shalom, Hasids and Hasidism in the Period of the Second Temple and Mishnah, (Ph.D thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1988), p. 1, (in Hebrew). On Shemuel haQatan as part of this: p. 254. 54 Mishnah, Avot iv, 19. 55 Tosefta, Sotah xiii, 3 (Lieberman ed. p. 231); JT Sotah ix, 27b. 56 According to Safrai, this is a general term for the best among the rabbis. See S. Safrai, ‘Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,’ JJS 16 (1965), p. 18.

92

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

early institutions in the Bible and bestowing it on the institutions and authorities of Yavneh. Shemuel haQatan is thus linked with the important figures of Yavneh, and even with the central figure of the time, Rabban Gamaliel II. The Jerusalem Talmud informs us: It happened that Rabban Gamaliel said that they should call seven elders to come up to him in the upper storey, and eight came in. He asked: Who came in without permission? Shemuel haQatan rose to his feet and said: I came up without permission, a law [halakhah] was expounded to me and I came in to ask about it. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: And what 57 of Eldad and Medad, whom all Israel knows are two? Did I say you are one of them?

In this story the Jerusalem Talmud tells us of an assembly whose purpose was 58 to intercalate the year. The parallel to the story in the Babylonian Talmud adds more words said by Rabban Gamaliel to Shemuel haQatan: “He said to him: Sit, my son, sit. All the years are fit to be intercalated by you.” And the text adds: “But the rabbis said: You do not intercalate the year except with people invited to 59 do so.” From here we can learn that on the subject of intercalation of the year there was a fixed forum which assembled on the direct instruction of Rabban Gamaliel. But this is surprising. Was Shemuel haQatan not one of those invited, in other words, not one of the usual participants in this forum? Was it only because of his qualities as a hasid that it was said of him that all the years are fit to be intercalated by him? On the other hand, we can also read into this statement that Shemuel haQatan was one of those invited. It is difficult to decide for certain, but it would seem that the first supposition is more reasonable. The ruling ‘You do not intercalate the year except with people invited to do so’ is said by the rabbis, and may perhaps be later than the story of the event, but there is support for this in the Jerusalem Talmud itself, as follows: It happened that seven elders went in to intercalate the year in the Valley of Rimon and they were: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shim‘on Rabbi Nehemiah 60 and Rabbi [E]liezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Yohanan haSandlar.

It is true that this gathering of rabbis was special because it was the first after the Bar Kokhba revolt, but, as Aharon Oppenheimer says, this gathering can be seen 61 as renewing the leadership institutions. If this were so, it would be very reasonable to suppose that a gathering like this would express the desire to preserve the fixed tradition as far as possible. In this case, the tradition would have been to as-

57

JT Sanhedrin i, 18c, and parallels in Masekhet Semakhot viii, 7 (ed. Higger, p. 152). Cf Mishnah, Sanhedrin i, 2, and see A. Büchler, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem, (Wien, 1902), p. 117, n. 104. 59 BT Sanhedrin 11a. 60 JT Hagigah iii, 78d. 61 A. Oppenheimer ‘Revival of the Jewish Community in Galilee’, Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir, M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 79 (in Hebrew). 58

Shemuel haQatan

93

semble a forum of rabbis whose number was fixed and where even the identity of the members was more or less permanent. The assembly in the Valley of Rimon in Galilee was, as noted, the first after the Revolt, and from this point of view, it represents the direct continuation of the tradition which was founded or existed in the leadership forum before the Bar Kokhba revolt, i.e. in the Yavneh forum, to which Shemuel haQatan had been close for at least some of the time. Hence even the Yavneh forum was fixed in number and apparently the identity of its members 62 was also fixed under the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel II. The link with Rabban Gamaliel is not entirely clear in all the sources. Shemuel haQatan is linked with Rabban Gamaliel in the Tosefta and JT Sotah only when the story takes on legendary elements (the heavenly voice) in the setting of Yavneh. And it is only in JT Sanhedrin that Shemuel haQatan appears together with Rabban Gamaliel. As noted, in the story of the intercalation which takes place in the upper storey (“Call seven elders to come up to me in the upper storey”). However here Yavneh is not mentioned. Indeed, there were scholars in the past who supposed erroneously, looking only at the face of things, and making wrong chronological and subject analyses, that this source is talking of 63 Rabban Gamaliel I (the Elder). Moreover, in Masekhet Semahot it says explicitly: “When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder went in to intercalate the year, he said […] and when Rabban Gamaliel the Elder went in he found […] Shemuel haQatan 64 rose to his feet.” Among the few cases where Shemuel haQatan is mentioned together with Rabban Gamaliel, this is the only one where Rabban Gamaliel is identified by the addition of the title ‘the Elder,’ and of course this title belonged 65 to Rabban Gamaliel I, the grandfather of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh. A further interesting fact is that in the sources where Shemuel haQatan is mentioned in the context of Yavneh, the name of Rabban Gamaliel does not appear. Not only this, but all these sources include the legendary context of the story of the

62

Cf. BT Sanhedrin 11a: “You do not intercalate the year unless the Patriarch (Nasi) wishes it.” Although this is a late statement, it undoubtedly reflects the early custom of intercalating the year, which was one of the most important decisions of the leadership. 63 A. Zacut (Zacuto), Sefer Yuhasin ha-Shalem, (ed. H. Filipowski, London-Edinburgh, 1857), p. 20; J. Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, (Warsaw, 1876), p. 350; A. Hyman, Sefer Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim, (London, 1910, repr. Jerusalem 1964), pp. 1148-1149. He claims that the story of Shemuel haQatan and Shim‘on haPaquli did indeed take place in Yavneh, but in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder and before the destruction of the Second Temple. 64 Semakhot viii, 7 (Higger ed. p. 152). 65 Mostly in clearly tannaitic sources: “Halafta said to him (Rabban Gamaliel): I remember Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, your father’s father, would sit on the Temple Mount etc.” Tosefta, Shabbat xiii, 2 (Lieberman ed. p. 57), and the similar information in Mishnah, Rosh haShanah ii, 5; also Mishnah, Yevamot xvi, 7: “The aforementioned Rabban Gamaliel, when men were killed at Tel Arza, Rabban Gamliel the Elder married their wives on the evidence of a single witness.”

94

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context 66

heavenly voice. In addition, these are the only sources where a prophecy is put in the mouth of Shemuel haQatan, on his death bed: “Shimon and Ishmael are destined to be put to death, and the rest of the associates will die by the sword, and the reminder of the people will be up for spoils. After this great disasters will fall. This he said in Aramaic”. It is generally accepted that this prophecy should be taken as describing the misery of the days which were to come: the Bar Kokhba revolt and the destruction which followed, including the story of two of the Ten Martyrs [Aseret Harugei Malkhut], Shimon ben Gamaliel and 67 Ishmael ben Elisha. The context of the legend of the heavenly voice and the story of the prophecy of Shemuel haQatan make the whole story suspect, for the context is there to justify the content in this case. Thus if we can see the kernel of a real story linked to Shemuel haQatan in this group of sources (and it is not important which is the primary source), this can only be, as noted, his belonging to the context of Yavneh. However, as noted, there is no mention of Rabban Gamaliel in this group of sources (apart from in Masekhet Semahot discussed below), a fact which reduces still further the ‘realism’ of this group of sources under discussion. In contrast, there are sources where Rabban Gamaliel is mentioned in one breath together with Shemuel haQatan, but in these Yavneh is not mentioned, and they are the sources without the clearly legendary elements such as those surveyed above. These sources are made up of stories and parts of stories which look completely realistic, such as the story in the Jerusalem Talmud of the inter68 calation of the year in Rabban Gamaliel’s upper room. Masekhet Semahot is the only source which brings all the elements described together all in one place, including the invitation of Rabban Gamaliel (the Elder), as well as Shemuel haQatan’s prophecy on his death-bed of the bitter fate of Shimon and Ishmael and the rest of the Jewish people. This fact makes this source an exception in comparison with the other sources, which raises the question of the precedence of these or other sources. In addition to this, the source in Masekhet Semahot is the only framing story where Rabban Gamaliel is mentioned as giving a funeral oration for Shemuel haQatan, together with Rabbi Eliezer. In another source in Masekhet Semahot most of the story is given, ex66 Tosefta, Sotah xiii, 4 (Lieberman ed. pp. 230-231); JT Sotah ix, 24c; BT Sotah 48b; BT Sanhedrin 11a. 67 Cf. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Mishpatim, Masekhta de-Nezikin, xviii, (ed. HorovitzRabin, p. 313): “Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Shimon were being taken out to be killed etc.” Also Avot deRabbi Natan, version B, xli, (ed. Schechter, p. 114), where the story of the martyrs appears; and in particular Semahot viii, 8: “And when they seized Rabban Shimon and Rabbi Ishmael and doomed them to be killed etc.” This passage comes immediately after the prophecy attributed to Shemuel haQatan: “Shimon and Ishmael to the sword etc.”, in the preceding halakhah (7). 68 JT Sanhedrin i, 18c.

Shemuel haQatan

95

69

cept that here only Elazar ben Azariah gives the oration for Shemuel haQatan, without Rabban Gamaliel. As noted, the first group of sources discussed above is legendary from start to finish, and it does not matter which is the central source for all the others. But we have no reason to ignore the authentic particles which make up the legendary stories, the fact that the events took place at Yavneh, and that this was the place of Shemuel haQatan as a holy exemplar close to 70 the leadership, although apparently not actually part of it. The source from JT Sanhedrin which presents Rabban Gamaliel with the story of the assembly in the upper room may not mention Yavneh, but its contents are realistic and devoid of legendary and story elements. From this source it would appear that Rabban Gamaliel, together with a council of elders of one kind or another in a permanent form, is engaged with one of the most important functions of the leadership in those days, the intercalation of the year. (This was so important that there is a story that one of the first acts of the renewed leadership after the period of repressive legislation (shemad) was convening the assembly in the Valley of Rimon for what seemed to be the most important and urgent need: the intercalation of the year). Shemuel haQatan appears as undoubtedly close in one way or another to this set-up, although not necessarily an integral part of it. The source from Masekhet Semahot, however, looks on the face of it the most original of all. All the stories are poured into it, and it has the outward show of being the common source from which all the others drew on. In addition the scholar Menahem Hirshman has emphasised that this is the most important source for learning about the history of Shemuel haQatan, both because it is so early, but also because of its function in the general structure of the chapters in 71 the Masekhet. However, there is no firm proof of the precedence of Masekhet 72 Semahot, which is one of the Minor Tractates. Indeed, in my opinion, it is the

69

Masekhet Evel Rabbati iii, 3 (ed. Higger, p. 236). The collection called Baraitot mi-Evel Rabbati does not appear in a number of MSS. of Masekhet Semahot, and is apparently a late collection. See M. Higger, ‘Introduction’, Minor Tractates: Semahot, (New York, 1931), p. 72. 70 Shemuel haQatan is not included in the lists of leaders who travel to Rome, which undoubtedly reflect the leadership of the period: Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Aqiva. See: JT Sanhedrin vii, 25d; Sifre Deuteronomy xliii, (ed. Finkelstein, p. 93); BT Makkot 24a. 71 M. Hirshman ‘Shmuel ha-Katan’, I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimerr, M. Stern (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai, (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 166-167. 72 Higger claims that the compiler of Masekhet Semakhot was Palestinian, and it is possible that Rabbi Judah haNasi had this source in front of him. M. Higger, (above, n. 69), p. 51. Zlotnick determined in his English edition of Masekhet Semahot that although most scholars think that the final editing of Semahot is no earlier than the mid-eighth century, but in fact the source is no later than the end of the third century. D. Zlotnick, The Tractate ‘Mourning,’ (New Haven, 1966), pp. 4-8.

96

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

very multiplication of details which makes this source suspect as compared to others. While, as we have seen, it is possible to divide up the other sources according to the stories which appear in them, some of them being set in a legendary context and some in a realistic context, this is the only source that is made up as a patchwork, which brings all the different kinds. It looks as if we have here a late collection of early traditions about Shemuel haQatan, including traditions known to us, as noted above, but also other traditions whose source was available to the editors of Masekhet Semahot, but is no longer extant. Thus for example there is the strange story which appears after the definitive declaration of Rabban Gamaliel about the senior status of Shemuel haQatan: “… He said to him, they hang his notebook and his key on a man’s coffin, because of distress, and when Shemuel haQatan died they hung up his notebook and his key because he did not have a son.” However, the solution to this riddle in itself, whatever it may be, is 73 not directly related to the subject of this research. It looks as if a further source has been added to the patchwork of sources which makes up this chapter, where, apart from the fact that they are all dealing with the exemplary figure of Shemuel haQatan, the connection between them and the story’s context appears forced. It is possible that the story of the key and notebook laid in the coffin of Shemuel haQatan was imported in order to justify customs of putting objects in the coffin of a dead person, for Masekhet Semahot deals with customs of burial and mourning, and clearly there is a problem here of the outward appearance of idolatry. This is why they hasten to say ‘and there is no fear of pagan cult practice [darkhei haEmori].’ Because of the need to demonstrate that this was not pagan practice, they decided to bring a story of a figure well-known for his exceptional piety and thus brought the story of Shemuel haQatan, from another unknown source or from legends that were common at the time. The same is true of the prophecy attributed to Shemuel haQatan ‘Shimon and Ishmael to the sword, etc,’ which also appears in Masekhet Semahot. The source for this is apparently in the Tosefta or the Jerusalem Talmud or another unknown tannaitic source. Here it is brought for a single literary goal, to provide a transition to the next chapter, which deals 74 with martyrdom. The apparent mistake in this source, which connects Shemuel haQatan with Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, in our opinion, demonstrates the con75 fusion of later editing which patched all these sources together. However, one fact clouds all this. In all the discussion up to now of all the sources dealing with Shemuel haQatan, only our baraita in the Babylonian Talmud (BT Berakhot 28b-29a) brings the main components of the event in a single literary framework. Only here do we have the line up of the triad Shemuel 73

M. Hirshman, (above, n. 71), pp. 167-168, tried to deal with this question. See E. Kaminka, Evel Rabbati, called Masekhet Semahot (Tel Aviv, 1949), p. 51 (see his footnote to chapter 8). 75 M. Higger, ‘Introduction’, (above n. 69), p. 28. 74

Shemuel haQatan

97

haQatan, the context of Yavneh, and Rabban Gamaliel all together. However Naomi Cohen has already shown that syntactical analysis of the sentence does not necessarily mean that there is narrative unity for all its components. And as we insisted earlier, it is possible that there is here a joining of different traditions (together with the tradition of the putting in order of the Shemoneh Esreh by Shimon haPaquli.) In addition, comparison of our baraita with the other sources raises other serious questions: in particular, why the story of the construction of Birkat haMinim by Shemuel haQatan does not appear in any other source except for the baraita in question in the Babylonian Talmud. Was this not an exceptionally important act worthy of being included in every statement which stresses the good qualities of Shemuel haQatan, or was this act not seen like this? Or given that Shemuel haQatan did not remember the blessing or part of it according to the Babylonian story, and the slightly different version in the Jerusalem Talmud – did this lessen even slightly his honour as the one who was seen to have constructed it? We do not have the answers to these questions except for the fact that all the other sources completely disregard or are ignorant of this important event. Above all, we may wonder at the source in Masekhet Semahot, which, as noted, looks like a cut-and-paste patchwork of all the stories about Shemuel haQatan. If Masekhet Semahot is later than the Babylonian Talmud, it would have been reasonable to think it is relating here in some way to the story of the construction of Birkat haMinim by Shemuel haQatan. However, even if the Masekhet is earlier than the Babylonian Talmud, the reason for its disregard is unclear, just as the disregard of the other sources (Tosefta and Jerusalem Talmud) is also strange. The story in the Babylonian Talmud seems to be the most complete, in comparison with the sources which have been surveyed so far, which relate to the triangle Rabban Gamaliel – Yavneh – Shemuel haQatan, in spite of its internal problematics described above. And indeed, we saw that the other sources, which are earlier, support at least some of the elements in the story in the tractate Berakhot in the Babylonian Talmud. Shemuel haQatan was a figure who was admired in the Yavneh period, even by Rabban Gamaliel himself. Evidence of this attitude to Shemuel haQatan is brought in the name of Rabban Gamaliel on a number of different occasions. (“And what of Eldad and Medad, whom all Israel 76 knows are two? Did I say you are one of them? ; Sit, my son, sit. All the years 77 are fit to be intercalated by you. ; For all Israel knows that if I had said that only 78 two people should come in, you should be one of them.” ) However, Shemuel haQatan was not given a title and did not have any official post. Perhaps because of this, his figure was not a threat to the status of the Patriarch and his decisions, as is sometimes seen with Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah. It is in this spirit that it is 76

JT Sanhedrin i, 18c. BT Sanhedrin 11a. 78 Masseket Semahot viii 7, (Higger ed. p. 152). 77

98

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

possible to read the words of the funeral oration of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi El‘azar ben Azariah on Shemuel haQatan: “For him it is fitting to cry, and for him it is fitting mourn. When kings die they leave their crowns to their sons. Rich men die and leave their riches to their sons. Shemuel haQatan took all the best 79 things of this world and left.” The content of the oration is not important. There is a small amount of biographical information, such as the hint that Shemuel haQatan did not have a son, and the fact that those speaking at his funeral were the people named above. Similarly, the ‘prophecy’ said to have been spoken by him on his death bed about the miseries soon to come ‘Shimon and Ishmael to the sword, etc,’ which appears to relate to the Bar Kokhba revolt and its results, give us some idea of when Shemuel haQatan died. It is clear, then, that Shemuel haQatan lived and was active during the Yavneh period, and was undoubtedly connected in some way to the leadership institutions, although he was almost certainly not an integral part of them. We should not doubt that Shemuel haQatan was one of the participants in, or one of the close advisors to important debates or central forums. As an exemplary figure, perhaps some sort of spiritual leader, it is possible that he did not deal in everyday leadership decisions like the Patriarch and his companions. The story which appears in tractate Taanit of the Babylonian 80 Talmud about Shemuel haQatan decreeing a fast is more suited to his special status, and perhaps nearer to the figure of Honi haMa‘agel, also an exemplary figure, with the ability, according to the story, of bringing about rain. This is a popular figure, with miraculous elements, the hero of folk-tales and the subject 81 of popular acclaim. The characteristics of this figure fit well with what is needed 79

Loc. cit. BT Ta’anit , mostly 24a, is full of stories about people who declare fasts in order to produce rain. On most of them it says: “[so-and-so] decreed a fast and rain did not come…” Not everyone who decreed a fast was able to cause rain to fall, but only following a good deed or because he himself was an exemplary figure, like Shemuel haQatan. This idea can be seen clearly in the continuation, when Rabbi Judah Nesiah decrees a fast and there is no rain, and he notes the difference between himself and Shemuel haRamati [the prophet Samuel] who prayed, and rain fell even in the summer. This stresses the idea that success in these circumstances is dependent on special figures. Cf. JT Ta’anit i, 64d. On these people Menahem Ben-Shalom says: “These are not necessarily public officials, but those whose good qualities and deeds lead the way for the community so that the gates of heaven are opened for him, and rain falls.” M. Ben-Shalom, (above, n. 53), p. 418. 81 In this context the most interesting is the figure in the Tosefta, Rosh HaShanah ii, 17 (Lieberman ed. p. 320), called Honi haQatan, although this title is otherwise completely unknown. But Honi haQatan is also mentioned in connection with decisions about prayer. The status of Honi haQatan in this passage is similar to the characteristics of the figure of Shemeuel haQatan, as the revered figure of a hasid who does not belong to the surroundings of those who make day to day decisions but to whose recommendations on subjects where there is no consensus much weight is attributed. A similar status may be attributed to the wonder-working tanna Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, particularly in the statement made about him by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai after ben Dosa his pupil brought about the healing of his son: “Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai 80

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

99

in the assembling of the heroes of an event so important in so many ways as the construction of Birkat haMinim. For it is no accident that only Birkat haMinim merits its own story, above all because of the special nature of the content of the blessing, which is not like the other blessings in the prayer in any way. The summary of the biographical analysis we have made so far does not definitely connect the historical figure of Shemuel haQatan to the writing of Birkat haMinim. There is no doubt that this was constructed in the Yavneh period for additional reasons which we shall discuss below, but apart from this particular baraita, with all its weaknesses, there is no one source which indubitably links Shemuel haQatan with the writing of the blessing, and the source in the Babylonian Talmud is the latest of our sources. But as a literary framework, after analysis of his qualities, and in particular his righteousness, humility and his spiritual and moral virtues, Shemuel haQatan appears as extremely well suited to be linked to this story. The story is, as noted, far distant from the editing of the Babylonian Talmud, both in time and space, but the link to Shemuel haQatan serves to give the actual fact of the composition of the blessing – in the Yavneh period – its virtue, its value and its moral justification. This is the result of what the authors of the baraita, or later authors of the whole piece, knew about the figure of Shemuel haQatan from other earlier sources, in the Tosefta, the Jerusalem Talmud and some of the midrashim.

The Question of the Composition of Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer As we have seen, it is not clear whether Shemuel haQatan constructed Birkat haMinim himself, or whether the blessing was not constructed directly by him, but by a group of rabbis such as a permanent council or an ad hoc group of which he was a member or to which he was connected. Apart from this, our sources raise further questions: was Birkat haMinim as a product of Yavneh all written in the same period as a single entity, or can we propose that this blessing developed or was adapted to changing circumstances up to the time of Yavneh? These questions are based on a further central question: did the blessing have an earlier version or a different constitution, and were circumstances created for adapting or changing it in the Yavneh period in order to relate to the enemy relevant to this period? On this the Tosefta writes as follows: said: even if Ben Zakkai had put his head between his legs all day long – they would not have listened to him. His wife said to him: So is Hanina greater than you? He said to her: No, except that he is like a servant before a king, and I am like a minister before a king.” (BT Berakhot 32b) Hanina ben Dosa’s request in his prayer is accepted, in spite of the fact that he is formally lesser in status than Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, since he is an exceptional figure.

100

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context Eighteen blessings which the rabbis said, against the eighteen mentions [of God’s name] in Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty, [Psalms 29] including [the blessings] of the minim, of the parushin [‫]פרושין‬, of the proselytes, and of David in ‘who builds Jerusalem.’ If he said these 82 by themselves and these by themselves he has fulfilled his obligation.

This is a problematic and difficult text, but against it we have the version in the Jerusalem Talmud, which is slightly different and appears twice with small differences and contexts. In JT Berakhot chapter ii there is a discussion of the order of the blessings of the prayer and its rationale, including the text of the shortened form of the prayer. After this there appears the following baraita: And there is a baraita: they are counted including [the blessing] of the minim and of the wicked in ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ and of proselytes and elders in ‘the trust of the righteous,’ and of David in ‘who builds Jerusalem.’ Afterwards the children of Israel will 83 return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.

In chapter iv of the Jerusalem Talmud there is a discussion parallel to that in BT Berakhot, which deals with the number of blessings in the prayer: Rav Huna said: if a man says to you there are seventeen, you should indeed say to him ‘our rabbis already fixed [the blessing] of the minim in Yavneh.’ Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yose sat. Rabbi Yose stood: Is it not written: “the God of glory thundereth”? (Psalms 29:3). He said to him: And is there not a baraita: Including [the blessing] of the minim and the wicked in ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ and of proselytes and elders in ‘the trust of the right84 eous,’ and of David in ‘who builds Jerusalem,’ you have enough for each one of them.

As noted, the text of the Tosefta is the most difficult, and preferring it over the Jerusalem Talmud is problematic. Thus we must examine all the baraitot to the same degree, without setting arbitrary preferences for one source or another. Saul Lieberman took the difficult text of the baraita in the Tosefta just as it is, and therefore built a mountain of explanations of the strange term parushin [‫]פרושין‬. According to him, this term hints at an earlier version of Birkat haMinim which began, he thinks, as a curse against the parushin: in other words, those who leave [‫ ]פורשים‬the community and endanger its unity. Thus Lieberman writes that Shemuel haQatan constructed the addition to the original blessing, substitut85 ing minim for parushin. Although it is certain that the source from which the baraita in the Tosefta is taken is early, this version has been cut and corrupted between the original and its copying on to the pages of our Tosefta. Therefore we cannot accept it as a complete sentence, and certainly not its corruptions. 82

Tosefta, Berakhot iii, 25 (ed. Lieberman, pp. 17-18). JT Berakhot ii, 5a. 84 JT Berakhot iv, 8a. 85 S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshuta, i, Seder Zera’im, (New York, 1955), p. 53 and following him: E. Bickerman, ‘The Civic Prayer for Jerusalem’, M. Hengel et al (eds.), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II, (Leiden, 1980), p. 298 n. 4; and D. Flusser, ‘Some of the Precepts on the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction against the Heretics,’ Tarbiz 61 (1992), p. 354. 83

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

101

The opening to the baraita in the Tosefta seems completely authentic: “Eighteen blessings which the rabbis said.” This is yet another of the attempts (or a parallel or a copy from another discussion) to deal with the number eighteen in connection with the prayer which bears this name. We can presume there were several discussions like it. In addition, we should note the dependence of the blessings on the rabbis in this source. It is true that it does not say ‘they constructed’ here, but ‘they said’, but in the context this cannot be explained otherwise than as the attribution of the blessings to the rabbis. Which rabbis? The Tosefta does not say, and we know that our sources debate between the elders and prophets of the time of the Great Assembly, and between Shimon haPaquli, who only appears in the version of the Babylonian Talmud. In the baraita in the Tosefta, Shimon haPaquli is not mentioned, and nor is Shemuel haQatan, but the version Eighteen blessings which the rabbis said is nearer to what the Jerusalem Talmud says about Birkat haMinim: “about the minim our rabbis ruled already at Yavneh.” The rest of the baraita in the Tosefta has been cut and corrupted. The term parushin is not known from any other source or context. Its similarity to Pharisees [perushim] negates any basis for seeing it as the object of a curse in any form. In addition, the Jerusalem Talmud provides us with a different textual version: “And there is a baraita: including [the blessing] of the minim and of the wicked in ‘who humbles the arrogant.’” We have no reason not to prefer the version of the Jerusalem Talmud over the Tosefta, if only because we know of the later versions of Birkat haMinim including those found in the Genizah, many of which include the term ‘sinners’ [poshim]. We have also seen deliberations in one of the Genizah documents (Rav Natronai) on the question as to which to use: sinners [poshim] or the wicked [reshaim], for in his time these were common variations on the text. The presence of the term sinners [poshim] in the Jerusalem Talmud demon86 strates the corruption of the version parushin in the Tosefta text. We cannot, as noted, determine whether the Jerusalem Talmud preceded the Tosefta, but here the Jerusalem Talmud looks more reliable than the Tosefta, preferable to it, and 87 perhaps even earlier than it (although it is possible that both of them were drawing on the same source and the Tosefta corrupted the source) and in addition Ezra Fleischer has also shown us a corruption in the continuation of the Tosefta text. It is true that Fleischer presumes that the Jerusalem Talmud corrects the version of the Tosefta, but in any case he describes the version of the Tosefta as corrupt, and proposes a correction which is very reasonable, although it leaves the term

86 On the unlikelihood of Pharisees [perushim] in this text, in particular because of the holy nature of the concept , see J. Levy, Wörterbuch, p. 142; also: E. Schwaab, Historische Einführung in das Achtzehngebet, (Gütersloh, 1913), p. 124. 87 See above, p. 69, n. 248.

102

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

parushin untouched. Fleischer’s correction relates to the unreasonable structure 88 of the sentence, in particular in relation to the Jerusalem Talmud. The fact that the Tosefta is a tannaitic source, and its extreme closeness to the source in Jerusalem Talmud and to the circumstances of the Land of Israel (at least in comparison with the Babylonian Talmud), are no advantage in this case. The version of the Tosefta is corrupted, but the versions of the Jerusalem Talmud are also not certain. Indeed one source in the Jerusalem Talmud has “including [the blessing] of the minim and of sinners [poshim]”, and in another place “including [the blessing] of the minim and of the wicked [reshaim].” There is a suspicion here of different layers of editing, or at least of deliberations which must be very late, judging by the effect they have made on the other textual versions current only at a later period, not before the fourth or fifth century. It would seem that close to the time of the editing of the Jerusalem Talmud and the editing of the Tosefta (as noted, there is no certainty which came first) there were already different versions of Birkat haMinim in current use. As we have seen, these reflect the earliest versions known to us, in particular the versions found in the Cairo Genizah. The Babylonian Talmud indeed does not discuss the dovetailing of the blessings as we saw in the Jerusalem Talmud and the Tosefta, but it brings in a single framework all the phrases and elements found in the difficult and problematic passages under discussion, as follows: Since the exiles are gathered and judgement is passed on the wicked [reshaim] the minim are destroyed, and this includes the arrogant with them, as it is said: ‘and the destruction of the transgressors and the sinners shall be together,’ (Isaiah 1:28) and since the minim are 89 destroyed, the power [lit: horn] of the righteous is raised.

The Babylonian Talmud tries to base the different versions known in its day on biblical verses. It is possible that there is an indirect attempt here to clarify a misunderstanding such as that which is expressed in the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud, although the Babylonian Talmud does not directly mention this confusion except for the deliberate statement: ‘the minim are destroyed, and this includes the arrogant with them.’ According to the evidence of the Babylonian Talmud, we may understand that the arrogant and the minim are two elements differing in nature and quality which are found in Birkat haMinim, for the Babylonian Talmud has a rational discussion of the order of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, and it links blessing to blessing, using central words from the text of the blessing as it existed at the time. But apart from the fact that the Babylonian Talmud uses all the elements and even gives scriptural authority to the links between them, we cannot use this source to make deductions from. This is, of course both because it is so much later, but also because of its forcible and often irrational integration of the elements from the blessing and from other sources. The discussion in the 88 89

E. Fleischer, (above n. 34), p. 436, n. 101. BT Megillah 17b.

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

103

Babylonian Talmud not only fails to solve the problem of the different versions of the Jerusalem Talmud as regards the composition of the blessings, but it even underlines their problematic nature. It is clear that the ‘sinners and the wicked’ included in Birkat haMinim do not reflect the original version: they are among the clearest signs of the later version. In any case, the order of the blessings in BT Megillah 17b relates to the structure of nineteen blessings, which is known to us as the Babylonian rite, in particular because ‘the offspring of David’ is a separate blessing, as it says: ‘And since Jerusalem is rebuilt, (the blessing “who rebuilds Jerusalem”), David comes, as it is said, etc.’ As noted, it is accepted thought that the Palestinian rite comprises eighteen blessings, as published in 90 the Genizah fragments by Schechter, Mann, Assaf and others. As noted above, the accepted term ‘Palestinian rite’ does not necessarily refer to an early version; on the other hand, we may certainly understand that the custom known as the ‘Babylonian rite,’ which took root in Babylonia and the communities influenced by her, including the Babylonian synagogues in the Land of Israel, is definitely not early and does not reflect an early version of the text. Thus the version of the Babylonian Talmud in Megillah that: ‘the minim are destroyed, and this includes the arrogant with them’, cannot be taken into account as a backup for the versions of the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud. These latter appear to be of building one blessing on the basis of another, or of the creation of a new blessing (as a strengthening of the apparent trend in the Jerusalem Talmud, as if this were ancient evidence of building one blessing on another), but the opposite is true. From the point of view of the timetable of the development of our sources, and their editing, the editing of the Jerusalem Talmud and its final redaction is close to that of the Babylonian Talmud. The two of them were worked up and edited long after the time of Yavneh, and they are late amoraic sources. Thus the Babylonian version is close to the Jerusalem Talmud version and it can be considered as taking an opposite trend, as follows: there is no ancient evidence in the Jerusalem Talmud which talks about building one blessing on another. What there is, is a late form of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, for by the time of the editing of the Jerusalem Talmud the use of the rite known to us as ‘the Babylonian rite’ was already widespread. The two sources, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem talmudim, are as noted, close to each other in the time of their editing and working up, at least in relation to the beginning of the period of the tannaim. But they are very distant from what scholars try to attribute to them, as if these sources, in particular the Jerusalem Talmud, reflected the act of building Birkat haMinim, on the basis of an extant blessing, the blessing on the arrogant. Not only this, but the Babylonian Talmud, which in this respect is close to the Jerusalem Talmud, (the minim are destroyed, and this includes the arrogant with them,) brings all the terms which are known 90

Cf. p. 20.

104

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

to us as being included in Birkat haMinim in a very similar way to the baraitot of the Jerusalem Talmud, which deal with the composition in exactly the same place. The Babylonian Talmud also admits, as it were, that it does not know to whom to attribute the construction of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, whether it was ‘a hundred and twenty elders and some prophets’ or Shimon haPaquli. This occurs in two places right next to our discussion. As noted above, the confusion here is explained away by the Babylonian Talmud: ‘They were forgotten and he 91 [Shim‘on haPaquli] ordered them afresh.’ This rather forced explanation of the Babylonian Talmud helps us to define this discussion exactly and definitively. The Babylonian Talmud does not know how to solve the problem of the sources it has, and does not know how to explain the opposing traditions apart from a forced excuse. The judgement of the statement in the Babylonian Talmud ‘the minim are destroyed, and this includes the arrogant with them’ is determined in the same direction. This is a statement whose intention is just to show the logical connections between all the blessings of the prayer in its late Babylonian version, which uses one rather shaky source which is very close to the Jerusalem Talmud in this respect. And just as the Babylonian Talmud has no explanation for this, so too we cannot find a solid basis in the Jerusalem Talmud baraitot. 92 It looks as if the editors of the Jerusalem Talmud had before them a baraita which dealt with the linguistic elements of the blessings, and perhaps with other matters, but that the editors of the Jerusalem Talmud did not understand its significance. It seems clear that the Jerusalem Talmud does not cite the baraita in its original form, but brings it as indirect speech: ‘There is a baraita: including etc.’; ‘There is a baraita (or: ‘is there not a baraita’): they are counted including etc.’ There is no doubt that there is something we can learn and deduce from these Jerusalem Talmud baraitot, but this is not what scholars have tried to deduce from them, (as with the corruptions of the Tosefta), as if this meant that Birkat 93 haMinim was built on top of the basis of an extant blessing. This view has never been proven. Apart from the Jerusalem Talmud’s unclear statements on the subject, there is no incontrovertible authority for the idea of breaking down and re-composing in any place in our sources. The Tosefta brings a surprising addition to the baraita, whose text is anyway corrupted: “If he said these to himself and these to himself he has fulfilled his obligation.” The significance of this statement is that if someone said parts of blessings, or what looked like this, since in earlier periods these were apparently blessings in their own right (like the unacceptable claim for the blessing of the arrogant) then he has fulfilled his obligation of prayer, as if he had said the whole blessing. This decision is not mentioned at all in the parallels in the Jerusalem Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud either does 91

BT Megillah 17b-18a. Quoted above, p. 101. 93 See above, n. 48. 92

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

105

not know of this decision or does not recognise it. And we have also seen that the version of the Tosefta is corrupted to begin with, and has no true basis. The central question which arises from this discussion is what the Jerusalem Talmud baraita really intended. Obviously there is no point in trying to reconstruct what should have been the original version of the baraita, but to keep to the extant written text, where there is more hidden than clear. The first mention in the Jerusalem Talmud opens with the order of prayer known to us as the Palestinian rite, in particular because of the lack of the blessing ‘the offspring of David,’ whose presence characterises the Babylonian rite. The statement in the Jerusalem Talmud attributed to Rabbi Aha in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: ‘Even he who constructed this prayer according to the order of construction, the first three blessing and the last three blessings, which are praise of God [haMaqom], and the middle ones [which are detailed], which are the ways of His 94 creatures.’ The opening of this baraita ‘according to the order’ seems to allude to the Babylonian baraita on the episode of Shim‘on haPaquli. What is said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, a Palestinian amora of the first generation, is an echo of a distant tradition, and is needed in the continuation of the passage to explain or defend the structure of the prayer. To this are added even later strata, in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Levi, both Palestinian amoraim of the third generation. In the continuation of the passage there are further ‘patches’ of debates over the rationale of the order of the blessings, or on the proximity of one blessing to another. To the words of Rabbi Levi are attached a baraita which looks out of place or even an editorial addition: And there is a baraita: They are counted including [the blessing] of the minim and of the wicked in ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ and of proselytes and elders in ‘the trust of the righteous,’ and of David in 95 ‘who builds Jerusalem.’

It may be possible, perhaps, to explain the place of this baraita as an attempt to explain what was already known at the time of editing the different baraitot in the confused Jerusalem Talmud text, that ‘the offspring of David’ is a separate blessing. Thus the function of the baraita is to explain what is supposed to be in 96 the eyes of the editor the original structure, which included 18 blessings. Thus, as the editor understands it, the ‘minim and the wicked’ were included in the old structure in ‘who humbles the arrogant’; ‘proselytes and the elders’ in ‘the trust of the righteous’; and David was included in the blessing ‘the rebuilder of Jerusalem.’ But for all that, the question may be asked why the middle blessings quoted above are not in the Babylonian order and do not include the offspring 94

JT Berakhot ii, 4d. JT Berakhot ii, 5a. 96 See the comment of Fleischer: “The baraita and parallel sources attempt to return the original version of the Shemone Esreh to what it was before.” (above, n. 34), p. 437, n. 101. 95

106

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

of David. However, this is not necessarily extremely important, and we have already shown that the structure called ‘Palestinian’ (such as that published by Schechter, for example) also does not necessarily reflect the early structure and is not necessarily earlier than the structure called ‘Babylonian.’ Further evidence of the confusion in this discussion, and in particular around the baraita in question, is the fact that Rabbi Yirmiyah’s statement is quoted in the source in the Jerusalem Talmud: ‘a hundred and twenty elders and among them eighty and more prophets constructed this prayer.’ The same words are also quoted in the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 17b) in the name of Rabbi Yohanan and set against the baraita before it, where it declares: ‘Our rabbis taught: Shimon haPaquli set in order.’ And as we have seen, it was exactly this which the Babylonian Talmud needed to explain and excuse the difference between the two traditions. The meaning of this is that here too, in the Jerusalem Talmud, and as we have already shown, there is no integral unit of discussion – and it should be said immediately that Talmudic discussion does not demand this – but a discussion which brings different sources which do not necessarily connect with each other and are not necessarily suited to one another. This is also true of the baraita 97 in the Jerusalem Talmud which appears to discuss the building of one blessing on another. The second source from the Jerusalem Talmud is even more difficult, and in explaining it there have been many mistakes in reading and incorrect comprehension of internal connections. It will be useful to look at the whole source, and not only the baraita under discussion which is part of it: Mishnah: Rabban Gamaliel says: Every day a man [should] pray the Shemoneh Esreh and Rabbi Joshua says: the shortened form of the Shemoneh Esreh. Rabbi Aqiva says if he can remember his prayers by heart he should say the Shemoneh Esreh, and if not, the shortened form of the Shemoneh Esreh. And why eighteen [shemoneh Esreh]? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says: against the eighteen psalms up to the one headed ‘The Lord hear thee in the day 98 of trouble.’ (Psalms 20:2). If someone says these are nineteen, tell him that ‘why do the 99 100 heathen rage?’ (Psalms 2:1) is not one of them. From this they said if someone prays and is not answered he needs to fast. Rabbi Mane said this is a hint to a pupil of the rabbis that a man should say to his rabbi ‘may your prayer be heard.’ Rabbi Simon said: against eighteen vertebrae in the spinal column. When a man stands and prays he has to bow down with all of them, for what is the reason it says ‘All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee? (Psalms 35:10) Rabbi Levi said: against eighteen mentions [of God’s name] written in ‘Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty.’ (Psalms 29) Rav Huna said: If a man says to 101 102 103 you: there are nineteen / seventeen mentions, say to him: Our rabbis already fixed [the 97

JT Berakhot ii, 5a. See above, p. 100. Psalms 1-20. 99 This (Psalm 2) is not included, as it is seen as the continuation of Psalm 1. 100 The verse “The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble.” 101 MSS. Paris, London, and Amsterdam. 102 MSS. Leiden and Rome (Vatican). 103 The number of mentions of God’s name in Psalms, chapter 29. 98

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

107

blessing] of the minim in Yavneh. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yose sat. Rabbi Yose stood: Is 104 it not written “the God of glory thundereth”? (Psalms 29:3) He said to him: ‘and is there not a baraita: Including [the blessing] ‘of the minim’ and the wicked in ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ and of proselytes and elders in ‘the trust of the righteous,’ and ‘of David’ in ‘who 105 builds Jerusalem.’ You have enough for each one of them. Rabbi Hanina in the name of Rabbi Pinhas: It is against the eighteen times that the patriarchs are written in the Torah as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If a man says to you they are nineteen, say to him: ‘And behold the Lord stood above it’ [Genesis 28:13] – he [Jacob] is not included. If a man says to you they are seventeen, say to him: ’And let my name be named on them, and the name of my 106 fathers Abraham and Isaac’ [Genesis 48:16] is included.

The main framework of the discussion is clear. This is the well-known attempt to explain the number eighteen which signifies the prayer that is called by this 107 name, in particular by using scriptural authority. The means used to clarify the problem is the well-known opening ‘If a man says to you.’ Three times the text uses the same expression, ‘if a man asks,’ together with a number, but each time the aim is different. The first mention ‘if a man says to you they are nineteen’ is intended to refer, according to the context, to the number of psalms up to Psalm 20. In the second part a statement is brought in the name of Rav Levi which relates to the number 18 as against the eighteen times the name of God is mentioned in Psalm 29 only. Here a question is added in the name of Rav Huna: “Rav Huna said: If a man says to you: there are nineteen [or seventeen] mentions etc.” Here there is great difficulty. In its context, as in the previous statement, it looks as if Rav Huna is referring to the nineteen or seventeen mentions of God’s name in Psalm 29. Here the differences between the manuscripts add to the confusion. In the Leiden manuscript, on which the Venice printed edition is based, as well as the Rome (Vatican) manuscript, it says ‘seventeen.’ In other manuscripts (Amsterdam, London and Paris) it says ‘nineteen,’ but it looks as if 108 the accepted version was ‘seventeen.’ Indeed, the manuscripts which include this number are generally considered to be more reliable in fixing the text version of the Jerusalem Talmud. However, examination of Psalm 29 shows that God is mentioned exactly eighteen times. If this is so, what did Rav Huna mean by his question? For it looks as if his question was aimed at the number of blessings in the prayer. Rav Huna returns to his earlier deliberations: why is the prayer called Shemoneh Esreh? Here, if we look at his question from several possible angles, there is a logical basis for both the versions which appear in the two dif104 This is another mention of God’s name, so that they should have fixed another blessing to match this. 105 In other words: we have enough mentions in Psalms 29 for each one of the subjects and we do not need any more. 106 JT Berakhot iv, 8c. 107 Cf. BT Berakhot 28b; Midrash Psalms xxix, (ed. Buber, pp. 231-233). 108 L. Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, III, (New York, 1941), p. 271.

108

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

ferent manuscript groups, seventeen and nineteen. On the one hand, Rav Huna could have asked how the written sources [Psalms] allude to the holy nature of the number eighteen, when originally there were seventeen blessings, and the answer is that they added Birkat haMinim in Yavneh and with this the holy structure (of eighteen blessings) was completed. On the other hand, it is possible to understand the question of Rav Huna as presenting the problems, in that he says that there are already nineteen blessings, and this oversteps the holy framework. In this case the answer is that Birkat haMinim was added, and this is the justification for breaking the holy structure, for the addition of Birkat haMinim is compared to the further mention of God in Psalm 29 even if not by His name, as in the other eighteen mentions, but in the phrase “the God of glory thundereth” (Psalms 29:3). Therefore, just as in Psalm 29 there are not nineteen uniform mentions of God’s name, but in fact eighteen and one more – which is there, but which is exceptional – so it is with the structure of the prayer: this not a uniform structure of nineteen, but of eighteen and one more. Thus, with a forced argument, the structure of the Shemoneh Esreh is preserved and the addition of Birkat haMinim is justified. As noted, the versions of the Leiden and Vatican manuscripts are generally accepted as more faithful, but the conclusion of this discussion is that in fact the other versions which are generally considered less reliable appear to be more logical, so that it is very difficult to decide between the two versions. This is presumably the reason that in the printed editions we generally see nineteen, but always with a proviso and a note that there is also a second possibility and we must not close our eyes to it. The tendency of traditional commentators and the first modern scholars 109 was to accept the version ‘seventeen,’ especially after they found in the Cairo Genizah a type of textual version which was described as the Palestinian rite, which includes eighteen blessings together with Birkat haMinim. Ginzberg was 110 right in his description of the difficulties within this Talmudic discussion, and in particular that all the discussion turns on the order of blessings which Rabban Gamaliel constructed, and not on any other order, certainly not one with seventeen blessings. Midrash Tanhuma appears to have the right order: Our rabbis teach us how many blessings a man [should] pray in one day. Thus our rabbis taught: a man must say the Shemoneh Esreh. And why eighteen? Against the 18 mentions which are written in [the Psalm beginning] ‘Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty.’ They reply

109

See the collection: Yalkut Perushim la-Yerushalmi: Berakhot, (Jerusalem, 1997), p. 253. See too I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, (Hildesheim, 19624), pp. 35-36. A summary of the research literature on this question: J. Heinemann (above, n. 24), p. 142. 110 L. Ginzberg, loc. cit.

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

109

to Rabbi Levi. And do they not say 19 in Babylonia? This too belongs to the mentions [of 111 God’s name] as it is said: “the God of glory thundereth” (Psalms 29:3). 112

The Tanhuma is indeed a very late midrash and it is known that in its time the so-called Babylonian rite of prayer was current, which included nineteen blessings, but the midrash is not deliberately standing against the Palestinian tradition, but is there to explain the baraita in question. It is clear that the writer of the Tanhuma did not have an explanation which was different from that of the Babylonian Talmud. We cannot find in his words any hint at all that hundreds of years earlier the prayer had seventeen blessings and was perfected to eighteen, according to the Palestinian rite, with the addition of Birkat haMinim. What looks like an answer is given in Midrash Numbers Rabbah: When the Temple still stood they used to make a sacrifice and atone, but now all we have is prayer. The numerical value of the word ‘good’ [tov] is seventeen; in the prayer there were nineteen blessings. Taken out of it were Birkat haMinim which was constructed in Yavneh, and ‘the offspring of David’ which was constructed later according to ‘examine 113 me, O Lord, and test me’ (Psalms 26:2). 114

This late midrash also relates to the Babylonian rite but in its attempt to be exact according to the numerical value [gematria] or to fit it to what it knows, it relates to the well-known latest addition to the blessings, ‘the offspring of David,’ as well as to the addition known to us from the sources under discussion, i.e., Birkat haMinim. Here too, of course, we cannot draw any conclusion. This midrash also does not base itself on any source that is not already known to us, in order to justify a presumption of the existence of a prayer structure which included seventeen blessings in the period before Yavneh. The answer to all these deliberations is to be found in the Babylonian Talmud. The discussion in tractate Berakhot raises the pointed question which does not 115 exist in the Jerusalem Talmud: These eighteen are really nineteen! And Rabbi Levi answers: Birkat haMinim was instituted in Yavneh. And to the question, by 111

Tanhuma, Vayera i, (ed. Buber, p. 42). Not earlier than the ninth century. Thus Zunz, (above, n. 20), p. 247. There are those who bring forward the writing of the Tanhuma to the fifth century. See G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, (trans. and ed. M. Bockmuehl), (Edinburgh 19962), pp. 305-306. 113 Numbers Rabbah xviii, 21. And see Midrash Psalms xx (ed. Buber p.173, n. 7): “and if you say they are 19, tell him that the weekday prayer is nineteen blessings being with ‘who cause his authority to flourish through salvation.” On this Buber says that this phrase is extant only in a few MSS. and was apparently added by one of the copiers who already had before him 19 blessings. 114 A.A. haLevi, Introduction, Numbers Rabbah, I, (Tel Aviv, 1963), p. 11 on the attribution of the Midrash or part of it to Rabbi Moshe haDarshan of Narbonne, (eleventh century) see Albeck apud L. Zunz, haDerashot beYisrael (edited and completed by C. Albeck, Translated from Zunz’s Gottesdienstlichen, [above, n. 20]), pp. 397-398, n. 68. (Albeck’s comments are to be found in the Hebrew edition only); and see too G. Stemberger, (above, n. 112), p. 309. 115 BT Berakhot 28b 112

110

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

what authority, he answers ‘by [the authority of] the God of glory thundereth.’ This answer is very similar to the conclusion of the discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud as well, which also mentions Rabbi Levi, an amora from the third generation of Palestinian amoraim, but in the Jerusalem Talmud the answer is given, as noted, by Rav Huna. In the case of this equation, the question of who gave the answer is not important because the content is almost the same. In both sources they relate the added blessing – whether this is the completion of the eighteen blessings as in the Jerusalem Talmud version (which is one of two possibilities in the Jerusalem Talmud) or whether it is the completion of nineteen, as in the Babylonian Talmud – to the further authority of the Psalm ‘the God of glory thundereth’. But the Babylonian Talmud is more exact. It relates explicitly to the structure known as the Babylonian rite through the fact that it actually raises the 116 question “These eighteen are really nineteen?” Furthermore, the conclusion on the nature of the additional blessing is the same in both sources. In the Jerusalem Talmud it is brought in the name of Rav Huna: ‘our rabbis already fixed [the blessing] of the minim in Yavneh’ as the answer to the question of Rabbi Levi. In the Babylonian Talmud Rabbi Levi himself says ‘Birkat haMinim was instituted in Yavneh.’ The extreme closeness of the two sources in this discussion does not leave room for doubt. The claim that the Jerusalem Talmud is alluding to seventeen blessings prior to the Yavneh period is baseless. In no place is there any mention of this possibility. Midrash Numbers Rabbah, which mentions this possibility, is too late and certainly relies on the discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud without understanding it. In spite of the fact that the story of the construction of Birkat haMinim is wonderfully arranged from the point of view of closing the circle of the Shemoneh Esreh in the Yavneh period, as the completion of seventeen previous blessings, this is a very forced conclusion without basis. We have already shown that our sources themselves do not know how to solve the riddle of the time of writing the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, and use forced logic to decide between ‘the hundred and twenty elders and a few prophets’ in the period of the Great Assembly, and between Shim‘on haPaquli with Rabban Gamaliel II at Yavneh. Therefore it is also possible to add that there is no demonstration of the existence of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer as a uniformly recognised framework before the Yavneh period, and there is certainly no basis for the inference that Birkat haMinim was built on a basis of other blessings. At any rate, we cannot infer this from the main source in the Jerusalem Talmud which implies this. Thus in all this confusion, the peak of the discussion from our point of view comes when the Jerusalem Talmud cites the difficult baraita: “There is (or: is there not) a

116 The Soncino translation has a question mark in this sentence. It could also be translated, in my view, with an exclamation mark - “these eighteen are really nineteen!”

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

111

baraita: Including [the blessing] of the minim and sinners in ‘who humbles the arrogant.” As noted, in all the late discussions in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim where it says that Birkat haMinim was instituted in Yavneh, the blessing is called by the name of Birkat haMinim, as Rabbi Levi says: “Birkat haMinim was instituted in Yavneh, and Rav Huna: Our rabbis already fixed [the blessing ] of the minim in Yavneh.” On the face of it, we can see in the form of this textual version a sort of ratification for the supposition that the blessing called ‘for the minim’ was composed in the Yavneh period on the basis of a pre-existing blessing, which is cited by the name of ‘the blessing of the arrogant’ or by its close ‘humbles the arrogant.’ According to the same rationale, the blessing ‘the trust of the righteous,’ (no. 13) and ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ (no. 14) were also built on the dismantled remains of earlier blessings. However there is no firm evidence for the dismantling and rebuilding of these two blessings either. Elbogen’s hypothesis that the blessing ‘restore our judges’ was dismantled in order to remove from it the reference to the wicked and compose Birkat haMinim on this basis has no 117 evidence or foundation in our sources. So too every other idea of the composition of Birkat haMinim in the Yavneh period using the basis of an older blessing called ‘humbles the arrogant,’ or every other attempt, be it more or less speculative, to show that blessings were dismantled and rebuilt in order to achieve a uniform structure for the Shemoneh Esreh. Even if these presumptions appear to be logical, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there is no real evidence for these ideas, just as there is not a single piece of reliable evidence for the existence of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer in a uniform form before the Yavneh period or during the Second Temple period. The opposite is true. All the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that there was no such prayer structure in the Second Temple period, and certainly no more than lone blessings or prayers of one sort or another, whose text was taken from scripture or made up of scriptural phrases which were current in an incomplete and unstructured form in the Land of Israel at the end of the Second Temple period. In a discussion about mistakes in reading the blessings in the prayer, the Babylonian Talmud teaches as follows: “If a reader makes a mistake in any of the other benedictions, they do not remove him, but if it is in Birkat haMinim, he is 118 removed, because we suspect him of being a min.” This discussion, as we have seen, belongs to the late stratum of those enclosing this blessing, which tells of the construction of Birkat haMinim. As we would expect from a late Babylonian envelope, the blessing is called Birkat haMinim, as is usual in the Babylonian Talmud, and not ‘humbles the arrogant’ which is the usual close in the Jerusalem Talmud. The Babylonian decision is ‘he is removed:’ in other words, he is not 117 118

I. Elbogen, (above, n. 109), pp. 34-35. BT Berakhot 28b.

112

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

allowed to carry on leading the public prayers before the Ark. The Jerusalem Talmud parallel is not very different, but the actual difference is very important for our subject. The Jerusalem Talmud writes as follows: “they found a formulation (in a baraita) that made a difference: all of them say that they do not make him go back, except for some one who did not say ‘revives the dead,’ ‘humbles the arrogant,’ and ‘rebuilds Jerusalem:’ I say he is a min.” This baraita is attached to an anonymous source, and we can see that it is early and close to the events it describes. In any case, this is a better source than its Babylonian parallel for this subject. In the Jerusalem Talmud the conclusion is similar to that of the Babylonian Talmud, with a small difference: here someone who does not say ‘humbles the arrogant’ is a min, but additional blessings are added to this, and not saying them is also defined as minut. Thus the additions ‘revives the dead’ and ‘rebuilds Jerusalem’ confirm even more strongly the precedence and preferability of the Jerusalem Talmud version. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud brings us a unique equation – someone who does not say ‘humbles the arrogant’ is a min. ‘Humbles the arrogant’ it says, not Birkat haMinim. Although it is usual in the Jerusalem Talmud for a blessing to be called after its close, we have already seen that the blessing we are discussing is called Birkat haMinim in the Jerusalem Talmud as well (‘our rabbis already fixed [the blessing ] of the minim in Yavneh.’) and there is no obligation here to a single version. The importance of the statement in the Jerusalem Talmud is that it contains a backup for the link between ‘the arrogant’ and ‘minim.’ It may indeed weaken the possibility that ‘humbles the arrogant’ was a separate blessing before the Yavneh period, which was used as a basis in composing a new blessing, i.e., Birkat haMinim. In any case we have seen that our blessing is called by two names in the Jerusalem Talmud, ‘humbles the arrogant’ and Birkat haMinim, where it is clear from the different contexts that these refer to the very same blessing. These differences seem to be merely technical or editorial, but not significant. Thus usually the blessing in the Jerusalem Talmud will be called by its close, for this is what the Jerusalem Talmud does with other blessings, and there is no further significance. At other times it will be called ‘of the minim’ when the Jerusalem Talmud wishes to relate to what distinguishes the blessing from the rest. In this case the Jerusalem Talmud notes the blessing according to its central subject – minim. In the continuation of the same passage, the Jerusalem Talmud brings a strange episode about Shemuel haQatan, which is parallel to a similar but slightly different version in the Babylonian Talmud. In this story Shemuel haQatan omits the end of the blessing (“he omitted ‘who humbles the arrogant’ at the end”) and according to the juxtaposition to what was said just before in the same passage, the ruling that he is a min should have been applied to him. (As noted the Babylonian Talmud brings a late and complex version – apparently a wrong one – ‘Shemuel haQatan is different, because he composed it’ – but this is close in spirit to the ruling in the Jerusalem Talmud.) As we have already shown, Shemuel haQatan

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

113

apparently omits the close of the blessing ‘at the end’ and if we may relate to every element on its own as the Tosefta says: “If he said these to himself and these to himself he has fulfilled his obligation”, then Shemuel haQatan’s omission is not problematic at all. However, as noted, the version of the Tosefta is completely corrupt and lacking in any logical basis. If every one of the elements of the blessings, especially those mentioned in the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud, were each a blessing in its own right, then with the additions of ‘proselytes,’ ‘elders,’ and ‘David’ the number of blessings would rise even higher than nineteen, and our discussion would be completely confused. But this is not the way things are. The Jerusalem Talmud does not confirm the version of the Tosefta, nor does the Babylonian Talmud, so that treatment of the omission of the close of the blessing ‘humbles the arrogant’ is like the omission of the whole blessing. Thus ‘humbles the arrogant,’ either as an element or as a close, is the epitome of Birkat haMinim and, as we have seen, we should not differentiate between the two elements of the blessing. Why then do the talmuds deliberate over the question of the number of blessings in the Shemoneh Esreh prayer and the reasons for this? It is clear from the very existence of this discussion and the questions – in the two talmuds – that there are nineteen blessings. Otherwise we cannot understand even from the Jerusalem Talmud why the questions are raised and what is the reason for the excuses and the attempt to fit them to scriptural structures. This is the reason why modern research makes so many assumptions, rationally or irrationally based, as if blessings were dismembered one from another in the days of Yavneh, and reconstructed one on top of another. The blessings which appear to have hints of having being assembled from different blessings are those which include more than one request. This is the case for the blessings detailed in the baraitot in the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud: Birkat haMinim (requests for minim, the wicked and the arrogant); ‘the trust of the righteous’ (for proselytes and the Elders); and ‘rebuilds Jerusalem’ (for David, the Temple and Jerusalem). In any case, the source of the Talmudic explanations is not known, so that it is not possible to attribute them to any particular period and certainly not to site them in earlier periods. The most we can say about the date of these baraitot comes from the fact that they appear in the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud, so that they cannot be later than the time of editing of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Tosefta, as noted, is very corrupt in this context, and we are also unable to determine whether it precedes the Jerusalem 119 Talmud – and not only on this subject. The great liturgical scholar Ezra Fleischer claims, justifiably, that it is not reasonable that Shemuel haQatan should be ap119

Even with respect to the Jerusalem Talmud itself, the problems of the reliability of the MSS. in general, and the determination of the authoritative text in particular, are well-known difficulties in research into this important source.

114

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

pointed just to add four words of the close to Birkat haMinim. This argument of Fleischer’s in effect cancels the possibility that one short sentence should have been the act of assembly which takes precedence, perhaps, in the statement of the Jerusalem Talmud on the one hand, and the conclusions of scholars on the other, over the existence of an earlier blessing or the dismemberment of the structure of another blessing. Although our study casts doubt on the supposition that Birkat haMinim is dependent solely on Shemuel haQatan, nevertheless, whether or not this hasid indeed held the copyright, as it were, on the blessing or whether there was some sort of forum of rabbis, as is our opinion in this study, there can be no doubt that Birkat haMinim was indeed created in Yavneh and is not earlier than this period. And in that case, then, it was created in its full version, 120 as can be deduced from what Fleischer says. However, contrary to Fleischer’s opinion, there is no evidence that the inclusion of the blessing in the Shemoneh Esreh prayer produced problems, nor, as he suggests, that it was because of this that they joined up the blessings next to it, on David (‘who causes the power of his salvation to flourish’); and on Jerusalem (‘rebuilds Jerusalem’), in order to make room for Birkat haMinim. However, we have no convincing evidence that there was an independent blessing for David before the construction of Birkat haMinim, in spite of these and other attempts to find them – or indeed to invent 121 them. Specifically, we have no convincing evidence that the Shemoneh Esreh prayer had crystallised as a single entity before the Yavneh period. Indeed, it has already been noted that certain blessings within the Shemoneh Esreh prayer (the 120 E. Fleischer, (above, n. 34), p. 436; see the criticism of Fleischer’s article: S. Reif, ‘On the earliest Development of Jewish Prayer,’ Tarbiz 60 (1991), pp. 677-681 (in Hebrew).In Reif’s opinion, in the time of Rabban Gamaliel there were different texts of the prayer (p. 680). See too Fleischer’s reply to this criticism: E. Fleischer, ‘Rejoinder to Dr. Reif’s remarks,’ loc. cit.,. pp. 683-688. Fleischer clarifies the difference between prayer as a spontaneous expression and the compulsory prayers which were constructed in the Yavneh period. In this we find confirmation for the conclusion we have come to that it is not possible to find support for the construction of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer before the time of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh. 121 Libes made an interesting suggestion when he tried to explain why, in his opinion, ‘the offspring of David’ was not included as a separate blessing as in the Palestinian rite. Libes tried to prove that ‘the offspring of David’ in the form in which we now know it, was worded by Jewish-Christians by building the close ‘who causes his authority to flourish through salvation [matzmiah qeren yeshuah/‫ ’]ישועה‬using the name of the Jesus [Yeshu’a/‫ ]ישוע‬instead of the original close “who causes the authority of David to flourish.” Libes even tried to base this supposition by comparing the text of the blessing with the text of the Benedictus in the gospel of Luke (1:68-69). His final conclusion is that Birkat haMinim was constructed in Yavneh and ‘the offspring of David’ was omitted, because of Christian reasons. Y. Libes, ‘Matzmiach Qeren Yeshu’ah’, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish thought, 3 (1983-84), p. 323f. Libes’ article gave rise to sharp and correct criticism. See I. M. Ta-Shma, ‘Review of Y. Libes’, loc. cit., 4 (19841985), pp. 181-189; M. Kister, ‘The Horn of David and the Horn of Salvation’, loc. cit., pp. 191-207; and Libes’ reply to them, loc. cit., pp. 209-218, as well as a further paper by Libes, An addition to my article “Mazmiah Qeren Yeshu’a”, loc. cit., pp. 341-344. (all in Hebrew).

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

115

early versions) were known to have had some sort of other ritual uses already in the Second Temple period. These blessings also have a verbal and intellectual content rooted in scripture, and we can find antecedents for most of them in different sources, from the prayer of Hannah (I Samuel 2:1-10) up to Ben Sirach’s Ecclesiasticus. Thus we can say that Shim‘on haPaquli may not have produced anything new in the nucleus of ideas which are to be found at the basis of the blessings. But our main conclusion is that the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, as a uniform framework of blessings (including Birkat haMinim) included in the daily prayers following a ruling and decision of the rabbinical Court, did not exist before the Yavneh period or before the patriarchate of Rabban Gamaliel. Obviously we do not know for certain – both after the uncovering of the Genizah versions and even after analysis of the allusions in the Jerusalem Talmud – whether the so-called Palestinian rite which included eighteen blessings was the original structure which reflects that created in Yavneh. And even if this were so, the supposition that in order to include Birkat haMinim in the prayer it was necessary to join up the two adjacent blessings, cannot be based on a firm foundation of proof from our sources, however logical it may seem. Moreover, it is clear to us that the Babylonian rite was characterised by the addition of the blessing ‘the offspring of David.’ In spite of this we cannot accept in full the claim of Fleischer, that joining up the blessings, which was done in the Land of Israel in order to set Birkat haMinim in the framework of eighteen blessings, could not have been accepted in Babylonia. It was because of this, he proposes, that they added Birkat haMinim to the current number of blessings in Babylonia where ‘the offspring of David’ was a separate blessing, and thus the nineteen blessings of the Babylonian rite were created. In essence, we cannot accept this because here too the supposition would mean that the Shemoneh Esreh prayer preceded Birkat haMinim in particular, and even the Yavneh period in general; and chiefly because we have no convincing evidence of the precedence of the construction of the blessing ‘the offspring of David’ in the Land of Israel. As noted, we find in Midrash Numbers Rabbah explanations and numerology of the construction of the blessings: “…[tov] is seventeen; …there were nineteen blessings. Taken out of it were Birkat haMinim which was constructed in 122 Yavneh, and ‘the offspring of David’ which was constructed later […].” This is, according to this midrash, the explanation for what is supposed to be the 123 early number of seventeen. Obviously there is no backup for the supposition attached to the numerology that there were seventeen blessings in a uniform 122 Libes tries to excuse the grammatical difficulty of ‘later’ [literally: after him] as an allusion that ‘the offspring of David’ was constructed ‘after him’ i.e., in the name of Jesus. …..see: M. Mishcon, ‘The Origin of ‫ את צמח דוד‬and its Place in the Amidah, JQR 18 (1927-1928), pp. 39-40. 123 Elbogen (above, n. 109, [pp. 40-41]) also thinks so. 17 blessings to begin with then the other two were added later.

116

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

format like the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. However there is some truth even in this late midrash, for ‘the offspring of David’ was indeed constructed later as an additional blessing which fixed the format of the nineteen blessings. It is impossible to know for certain when this blessing was added and there is no reason to go too far in suppositions. According to the baraitot in the Jerusalem Talmud, the blessing of David was included in the blessing ‘rebuilds Jerusalem.’ If indeed what is meant here is the blessing known to us as ‘the offspring of David,’ which we know of as a separate blessing (no. 15) in the Babylonian rite, then the editors of the Jerusalem Talmud knew the additional blessing and relate to it, even though in the Palestinian rite it is included in the blessing ‘rebuilds Jerusalem’ (no. 14). Sadly, our sources do not bring the texts of the blessings in the prayer, apart from certain allusions or individual words which touch on content or close. As is well known, the manuscripts found in the Cairo Genizah include the oldest versions we have today, with all the problems of the questions of dating and antiquity of these finds. In any case, the Cairo finds are very much later than the latest of the amoraic sources. Without attaching too much importance to the decision which fixes a particular textual version as the ‘Palestinian rite’ and another as the ‘Babylonian rite,’ and without relating to the flimsy supposition as to the link between the ‘Palestinian rite’ and the earliest textual version, we cannot ignore a number of facts which arise from the Genizah data. In all the versions and fragments where there is a mention of the House of David and the close ‘God of David’ in the blessing ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’, the blessing ‘offspring of 124 David’ does not appear as a separate blessing, and vice versa. The blessing in the Jerusalem Talmud which includes David appears in the context of the groups defined by Luger as Version B, most of which are identified as the Palestinian 125 rite, as follows: Have mercy, O Lord our God, in Your abundant mercy, on Israel Your people and on Jerusalem Your city And on Zion the abode of Your glory, and on the royal House of David Your anointed Rebuild Your House and perfect Your Temple, Blessed are You, Lord, the God of David who rebuilds Jerusalem.

This version is different from that known and accepted today. The opening ‘have mercy’ is known from the Grace after Meals, but does not exist in the modern rite, and in particular there is no close ‘God of David who rebuilds Jerusalem’ in the modern Shemoneh Esreh. This has been identified as one of the outstanding characteristics of the Palestinian rite, and certainly this version can be seen as an 124

Y. Luger, The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah, (Ph.d Thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1992), p. 176. 125 Taylor-Schechter collection, MSS. K27.33; K27.18; and especially H18.3. See also the first publications: S. Schechter, ‘Genizah Specimens’, JQR 10 (1898), p. 659 and others. Above, p. 22.

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

117

126

old rite or an ancient format, and certainly that to which the statements in the Jerusalem Talmud baraitot refer when they say that the blessing of David is included in ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem.’ However, the question of why the Jerusalem Talmud has to mention this here is still not solved. Apparently, as noted above, the editors of the Jerusalem Talmud knew the Babylonian rite where the blessing of David was separate, so that David is not mentioned in the blessing ‘rebuilds Jerusalem.’ In the Babylonian Talmud itself, the separate blessing is mentioned once according to its close, as follows: “Rabbah bar Shila said, In the Prayer, 127 who causes the power of his salvation to flourish (matzmiah qeren yeshuah).” 128 And this is hinted at as well in the short form of the prayer known as Havineinu. In the Jerusalem Talmud there is merely a hint in tractate Rosh HaShanah, as follows: Rabbi Ba in the name of Abba bar Yirmiah: In the prayer he says ‘God of David and who rebuilds Jerusalem’ After [lit. in] the prophet he says: ‘God of David who makes salvation 129 flourish.’ 130

The first baraita we saw from the Jerusalem Talmud is to be found in the chapter which clarifies the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. The opening section details the short form of the blessings called the middle ones, using the structure of the Jerusalem Talmud type, which has eighteen blessings. Following this there is a discussion of the order of the middle blessings, from the fourth blessing (‘gracious Giver of knowledge’) up to the fifteenth (‘who hears prayer’), according to 131 the Jerusalem Talmud rite. The discussion is carried on in a more or less similar and harmonising form up to the eleventh blessing. After this comes the baraita whose opening is “And there is a baraita: they are counted including [the blessing] of the minim etc.” and this notes the twelfth blessing (Birkat haMinim), the thirteenth (the trust of the righteous) and the fourteenth (who rebuilds Jerusalem). This baraita breaks the format of the discussion before it, and after it there is a return to the fixed format of discussion, which opens with the question of Rabbi Tanhuma: “why did they construct ‘who hears prayer’ as the fifteenth blessing?”

126

In the Short form of the Shemoneh Esreh according to the Jerusalem Talmud, the abbreviation for the blessing ‘rebuilds Jerusalem’ is ‘rebuild Your House:’ JT Berakhot ii, 4d. 127 BT Pesahim 117b. 128 BT Berakhot 28b. 129 Although what is meant are the blessings after the reading from the prophet on the Sabbath: JT Rosh haShanah iv, 59c. See too Midrash Samuel xxvi, (ed. Buber, p. 126), Libes claims that ‘who makes salvation flourish’ was preserved specifically in the blessings after the haftorah, because the liturgical status of the haftorah was lower than that of the Shemoneh Esrehh prayer. See Libes’ claims and the counterclaims (above, n. 121). This claim is not reasonable. If the problem was with the word ‘salvation,’ it would have been censored everywhere, even if the word ‘power’ [qeren] appeared. See also the critique of I. M. Ta-Shma, (loc. cit. p. 182). 130 JT Berakhot iv, 5a. 131 This is the sixteenth blessing in the Babylonian rite and the rite followed today.

118

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

Between the fourteenth blessing and the fifteenth, there is a digression from the process of the discussion, which opens with the statement: “Afterwards the children of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.” According to the format of the discussion up to now, this line should institute the logical development of the blessings which come after it. Thus it summarises the implementation of the expectations which arise from the blessings: “the exiles are gathered and judgement is passed and the arrogant are humbled and the righteous rejoice.” In other words, four blessings are mentioned in one breath in their logical order. After this comes the desired result ‘Afterwards they will return’ as a logical development of the place and function of the additional blessings. And indeed ‘Afterwards the children of Israel will return’ is juxtaposed with the blessing ‘who builds Jerusalem,’ so that we may suppose that there is a concept here of a hope of realising the redemption, in the shape of the return of the Children of Israel to Jerusalem. This request will be fulfilled ‘after they return’ exactly as in the language of the paraphrase of the eighteen in the Jerusalem Talmud, where the requests are fulfilled as follows: “favour us with knowledge You favoured us with knowledge, desire our repentance, You will desire our repentance, etc.” After the realisation of the last blessing, the Children of Israel seek the Lord their God and David their king. It may be possible to see in this further elements of the realisation of the blessing ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem,’ for this blessing includes God (as in ‘Have mercy’) and David, although, as noted, the format of the discussion may hint to us that there is here the appearance of deliberations. If this line had been in the Babylonian Talmud, it would have been clear to us that it is speaking of the typical format of the Babylonian Prayer, for the blessings which come after it are in the Babylonian order, i.e., ‘the offspring of David,’ (following ‘they sought David their king’) and ‘who hears prayer’ (following ‘they sought the Lord their God.’) In the Jerusalem Talmud, however, this presumption is not certain, and even the order of subjects is the reverse from that of the Babylonian Talmud, for God comes before David. However, the long discussion of the anointing of David which appears in the continuation of the Jerusalem Talmud version and carries on up to the question of Rav Tanhuma about the construction of ‘who hears prayer’ as the fifteenth blessing, shows us that in the Palestinian discussions too there was already some kind of conceptual order. At the end of the process this leads to the well-known addition of what is known to us as the Babylonian rite of a special blessing for David, i.e., ‘who causes the power of his salvation to flourish’ (matzmiah qeren yeshuah). And this is exactly the same place where the discussion takes place about the messianic figure of David, in other words, between the fourteenth and fifteenth blessings. The blessing ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ in its ancient form, at least as it appears in the Genizah version, is completely infused with the spirit of messianic ideas as they appear in the Bible. The request is to have mercy on Israel and on Jerusalem, a request in which we can identify a realistic outlook, said in good faith and

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

119

with an understanding of reality. The request expresses a national aspiration for the renewal of political independence and freedom of worship. Interwoven with this is the ancient aspiration of renewing the royal house of David as a symbol of the renewal of distant independence by those intended for the office under God’s mercy. This is a request which is recognisably post-destruction (rebuild Your house) and, as we claim in this study, very close to the destruction of the Temple, or to be more exact, to the Yavneh period. It was only later that a need was created for an additional special blessing for the object of the redemption. The additional blessing separated David from Jerusalem, making him the object of hope in himself, and very much strengthened his image and office, and of course his messianic function. It is a blessing which is similar in atmosphere to developments in the Jerusalem Talmud, which records discussions about the image of David and the names of the Messiah. Thus we must note what is said in the same place by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, alluding to the prophecy of Zechariah (3:8): the ‘his name is the Shoot [tzemah].’ The text of the thirteenth blessing in the Cairo Genizah, i.e. the blessing ‘trust of the righteous,’ is also one of those to which the Jerusalem Talmud baraitot relate, and it too raises questions: And for righteous proselytes may Your mercy be stirred And give us good reward with the riches of Your favour 132 Blessed are You, Lord, who is the trust of the righteous.

The visible difference between this version and the Jerusalem Talmud baraitot is the omission of ‘the elders’ in the Genizah version. The problem created by this difference is two-fold: on the one hand, this casts some doubt on the early nature of the Genizah version, and this doubt is quite reasonable. However, we have seen that in other blessings we find parallels to allusions or single words from the versions of the blessings to be found in our sources. On the other hand, this may also cast doubt on the reliability of the Jerusalem Talmud’s presentation. Could this be expressing one of the late versions of the text which were current in the Land of Israel at a period close to the crystallization and redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud, where some of these were not accepted and perhaps even disappeared and were forgotten? It would seem that there is some truth in both these suppositions, for we have already shown that it is not possible to rely on the Genizah textual versions as certain examples of the early rite, unless it is possible to dovetail them with the ancient allusions, insofar as these exist, which are sparsely scattered over the early sources. From all this there arises the pointed question, why did they quote these baraitot which show the joining of the three blessings in question? What aim in the discussion were they supposed to help? What were they supposed to prove? There is no certain answer, only a

132

Version B from the Genizah: see Y. Luger, (above, n. 124), p. 163.

120

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

circumstantial one. We have already shown that the baraita in chapter 2 of the Jerusalem Talmud which begins with ‘There is a baraita: they are counted etc’ cuts off the stream of discussion in that particular passage. Only in these three blessings is there any relation to their elements, which is not the case with the remaining nine blessings. From this we can see that at the time this was written in the Jerusalem Talmud, or at the time it was edited, there were no doubts about the content and requests of these nine middle blessings. Thus it is clear that there was a problem or disagreement about the text of the other three blessings. The reasonable possibility is that at the time of the editing of the Jerusalem Talmud there were already different versions of the blessings current in the Land of Israel. It is clear that the nineteenth blessing was already extant, i.e., ‘the offspring of David’ (matzmiah qeren yeshuah) in Babylonia or in the Babylonian rite, and this may also have been in use in the Land of Israel at this time. Of all the blessings, it seems that only these three under discussion existed in different versions, for we have found differences in the different versions in the Genizah texts. Rav Natronai’s deliberations in the ninth century about the close, ‘crushes 133 our enemies,’ or ‘crushes the wicked,’ is an example of this in connection with Birkat haMinim. The omission of the word ‘elders’ in the blessing ‘the trust of the righteous’ is another example. In addition, as noted, there is the blessing ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ which includes the close which begins ‘God of David’ in the Palestinian rite, while at this period the nineteenth blessing of David already existed in the Babylonian rite. There can be no doubt that questions and uncertainties were raised here as to the ‘correct’ rite and this deliberation is what created the need to use the baraita which cites other versions, perhaps earlier ones, but not necessarily the original versions. Here, apparently, the need was to preserve the Palestinian rite as against what was happening all around. Against the background of this explanation we can now understand better what is said in the parallel in the Tosefta: “If he said these by themselves and these by themselves he has fulfilled his obligation.” From this Tosefta it looks as if there is a possibility of saying each element of a blessing as a blessing by itself. This possibility does not exist in the Jerusalem Talmud versions. As we have seen, all this passage in the Tosefta is corrupt and not reliable. The only possibility of accepting these by themselves and these by themselves is only if we suppose the 134 Tosefta is later than the Jerusalem Talmud, and in this case we are talking about a period when the blessing ‘the offspring of David’ already stands by itself. The Jerusalem Talmud cites the baraita in order to establish uniformity in the Prayer, while the Tosefta cites something opposite in its intent. Indeed, the Tosefta is some kind of confirmation of the use of different versions and even fragments of blessings in their own right, perhaps as a compromise between the Jerusalem 133 134

See above, p. 13. See above, p. 68, n.248.

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

121

Talmud decision and the Babylonian trend. In any case, as noted, we should only relate to this source as of secondary importance in comparison to the Jerusalem Talmud baraitot. The baraita is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud mainly according to the order discussed in chapter 2, and is aimed at putting the Prayer in order. Thus it is not by chance that the discussion opens with the statement of Rav Aha in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: “Indeed whoever constructed this prayer constructed it in order,” which is an allusion to the arrangement of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer by Shim‘on haPaquli ‘in order before Rabban Gamaliel 135 in Yavneh.’ Thus it also includes exact details of the number of blessings and their content: the three opening blessings, the three closing blessings, and the contents of each one of the middle blessings. This assumption also fits what has already been said above, for we have here a picture of the state of the versions of prayer which were current in the Land of Israel in the period when the Jerusalem Talmud was redacted. The distance in time between this period and the Yavneh period leaves its mark on the character of the discussion. The Jerusalem Talmud remains faithful to the rite which was apparently current in the Land of Israel, but this faithfulness is limited by its deliberations about part of the blessings. These deliberations are expressed in the Talmudic discussion about the way the baraitot are presented. The difficulty for the modern scholar in these baraitot is that their content and context was obviously clear to the editor of the Jerusalem Talmud, but at this distance in time the subject is no longer clear, as is the case with a number of other baraitot for the reader of our times. Thus we have examined all the elements making up the baraitot, linking them to the logical structure of the whole discussion, and including a comparison of the Jerusalem Talmud baraitot with the Tosefta. The picture now obtained cuts down drastically the position taken by some scholars, that the project of Shemuel haQatan or of the Yavneh period was the construction of Birkat haMinim on a basis of a pre-existing blessing, or as the result of the dismantling of another blessing. The possibility of dismantling and combining is completely ruled out. The proposal that there was a uniform framework of eighteen blessings before the period of Yavneh and during the time of the Second Temple is similarly ruled out. This, of course, holds true apart from various sorts of fragments based on scriptural verses which were used for prayer or cult purposes. According to the sources discussed so far, Birkat haMinim did not exist before the time of Rabban Gamaliel, either as an addition or as a fragment (of the wicked, arrogant etc.). For apart from the Jerusalem Talmud baraitot whose degree of validity for this has been discussed here at length, there is not a single piece of evidence to be found for the supposition that Birkat haMinim – or indeed the whole of the rest of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer – pre-dated the Yavneh period. 135

BT Berakhot 28a.

122

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

We can also learn something about the dating of Birkat ha-minim from the baraita attributed to an anonymous tanna in the Jerusalem Talmud: “all of them say that they do not make him return, except some one who did not say ‘revives the dead,’ ‘humbles the arrogant,’ and ‘rebuilds Jerusalem:’ I say he is a min”. We do not know who this tanna is, except for the fact that he disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, a Palestinian amora of the second generation. The editorial comment ‘they found a formulation (in a baraita)’ shows us that this is a tannaitic source. Obviously the placing of the baraita in the Jerusalem Talmud completes the Palestinian atmosphere of this statement. A baraita with similar characteristics, which is tannaitic, is brought in the Babylonian Talmud as follows: There is a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: everyone who does not say ‘a desirable, good and spacious land’ in the blessing of the land, and ‘the kingdom of David’ in ‘who rebuilds 136 Jerusalem’ – has not fulfilled his obligation.

The baraita here is referring to the Grace after Meals, but the text of ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ in the Grace is very close to the version of the blessing in the text of the Shemoneh Esreh found in the Genizah. Thus, although it is talking of another subject, we should not ignore the Palestinian character of this passage, which also includes David in ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ and was all attributed to Rabbi Eliezer, i.e., Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, one of the central figures of the second generation of tannaim. The Babylonian baraita, which is parallel in content to the Jerusalem Talmud baraita of this same anonymous tanna, is cited as part of a discussion about mistakes in reading the blessings. But here, as opposed to the Jerusalem Talmud, they accept the man who made the mistake in every one of the blessings except for Birkat haMinim: “If he made a mistake in all the blessings they do not remove him, but in Birkat haminim they do remove him, suspecting that he might 137 be a min.” This saying is brought in the name of Rav Judah in the name of Rav, who are among the leading Babylonian amoraim. Here there is no longer any need to remove (or to ‘put back’ in the language of the Jerusalem Talmud) the prayer leader if he made a mistake in ‘who revives the dead’ or ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ when saying the Shemoneh Esreh prayer. This passage, as noted, is 138 unique to earlier periods as a decision of Palestinian tannaim. It seems that the problems and polemics involved with the other blessings disappeared as time

136

BT Berakhot 48b. BT Berakhot 29a. 138 See: “The minim asked Rabban Gamaliel : how do we know that the Holy One blessed be He revives the dead?” (BT Sanhedrin 90b). It is true that the discussion is in the Babylonian Talmud, but it reflects the situation in the Land of Israel, both in the content of the statement and in relation to the hero of the story. On the question to Rabban Gamaliel and a similar question directed by minim to Rav Ammi, and on this ben Pesisa see at length below, pp. 155-160. 137

Birkat haMinim in Relation to the Shemoneh Esreh Prayer

123

passed, and with the change in atmosphere between the time of Rabban Gamaliel in the Land of Israel and the time of the yeshivot of Babylonia hundreds of years later. Sometimes a difference of opinion arises among the Babylonian rabbis because of the fog surrounding the old Palestinian polemics, for there were those who perhaps felt that their time was past. Thus Rabbah bar Bar Hana in Sura wants to revive the reading of the Ten Commandments which was cancelled hundreds of years earlier during a dispute with the minim, and later Amemar 139 makes the same attempt at Nehardea. A late expression of these assumptions linked to Birkat haminim itself can be seen in Midrash Tanhuma, which claims: “If he made a mistake in Birkat haminim they remove him even if he doesn’t want this. They suspect him of being a min and therefore remove him, for if there is something of minut in him he is made to curse himself, and the congregation say ‘amen.” Up to now the statement has been taken from the Babylonian Talmud and based on its concept. Now the midrash adds: “And everyone who does not say ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ they remove him, they suspect he is a Kuti 140 [Samaritan].” There is probably a corruption here deriving from a comparison with the Jerusalem Talmud, where the tanna says ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ is one of the touchstones for minut. In addition, in the Babylonian Talmud on which this passage from the Tanhuma is based, it says: “they suspect that he is a min” and not a Kuti. However this is not a mistake here, for a min was mentioned one line previously and if censorship or editing had been used here, then the first min in the opening line would also have been changed to a Kuti. Help in this question can be found in tractate Kutim as follows: “When shall we receive them? When they renounce Mount Gerizim and acknowledge Jerusalem and the resur141 rection of the dead.” Thus from the outset the Tanhuma was aimed against the Kuti. Jews and Kutim differed over the status of Mount Gerizim as opposed to 142 Jerusalem, and of course over the concept of the revival of the dead. We can ignore a further question which arises after reading the Tanhuma: What is a Kuti doing in a synagogue? For the problem of the Kutim is not under analysis in this book. In addition, the Tanhuma underlines the contraction of the definition of minut at the beginning of the time of the Babylonian amoraim, at least in the

139

BT Berakhot 12a. On the episode of the removal of the Ten Commandments because of the minim see at length below: pp. 155-160. 140 Midrash Tanhuma Vayiqra iii, (ed. Buber, p. 2). 141 Masekhet Kutim ii 8, (M. Higger, [ed.] Seven Minor Treatises, [New York, 1930], p. 46). 142 Cf: “Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shim‘on bar Yohai: How do we know that the Holy One blessed be He revives the dead and knows what will be, as it is said behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and there shall rise up etc. (Deuteronomy 31:16). There is a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yose said: Over this I forged the books of the Kutim who used to say there is no revival of the dead in the Torah, for it says etc.” (BT Sanhedrin 90b). And see below, p. 175, n. 183.

124

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

context of prayer. The problem of the minim exists, indeed, in third and fourth century Babylonia, but it is far smaller in dimensions, and its proximity is far less threatening to the Jewish community in Babylonia and its institutions, in comparison with the period of the tannaim in the Land of Israel. The more the distance grows, the more the foci of acute friction shrink and get smaller. The extreme remoteness of the minim from synagogues in the period of the Babylonian Talmud which was the result of the situation in the Land of Israel in the days of Yavneh and the consequent rulings, blunted the controversy which had been the result of shared prayers and communities entwined with each other. The blessing ‘who revives the dead’ and the blessing ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem’ were the focus of the polemic between normative Judaism and the minim close to the crystallisation of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, and the construction of Birkat haminim 143 at the same time. Midrash Tanhuma and Tractate Kutim from the Minor tractates express the tendencies which crystallised in later periods, especially when the centre of gravity for halakhic decisions and principles moved to Babylon. Thus the Shemoneh Esrehh prayer crystallised in its present form when they added the blessing ‘the offspring of David’ in Babylonia. Thus in Babylonia Birkat haminim was preserved as the only definition of minim, and the only differential between Jews and minim. It is therefore not accidental that the only example in front of the amoraim of Babylonia when discussing mistakes in the prayer, was that of Shemuel haQatan, who, in the words of the baraita, ‘tried to recall’ for two or three hours the blessing he had forgotten a year after he constructed it. Apparently there were no other outstanding examples in the hands of the Babylonian amoraim, for in their time there was not contact, at least within the walls of the synagogue, between 144 Jews and minim.

143

Jacob ben Asher has difficulty in understanding the different versions of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds in defining a min. Thus he uses the words of Rabbi Yonah: “In Birkat haMinim in particular we may suspect lest he be a min, and does not want to curse himself, but in ‘who revives the dead’ although he does not believe this, he might say it. For why should it bother him if he says it or refrains from saying it since he does not curse himself by doing this. For he can say this and be a min and we will not be able to recognise him even if he does not say it. They do not remove him because of this. And this claim will be enough to say also that they do not remove him if he did not say ‘who rebuilds Jerusalem.” Tur Orah Hayyim, § cxxvi. 144 See: “Rabbi Abbahu said: They (the sages) enacted that this should be recited aloud, on account of the resentment of the minim. But in Nehardea, where there were no minim they recite it quietly.” BT Pesahim 56a. See also R.T. Herford, ‘The Problem of the Minim further Considered’, S.W. Baron & A. Marx (eds.), Jewish Studies in Memory of G.A. Kohut, (New York 1935), p. 369.

Establishing the Historical Framework

125

Establishing the Historical Framework The question of the contacts between minim and Jews, or more exactly between minim and rabbis, and classification of these contacts should cast further light on 145 the problem of the time of composition of Birkat haminim. These contacts, presented as inevitably characterised by controversy, the identity of the participants and their time all underline the period in which such contacts were so problematic as to create the need for the construction of the blessing-cum-curse under discussion. We must not make light of the link between these factors, for the prayers and the liturgy express more than anything else the national feelings and aspirations of the time they were constructed. One of the polemic frameworks which quotes a sort of confrontation between rabbis and minim opens with a sentence in Aramaic: A certain min said to him (a named rabbi) [‫]אמר ליה ההוא מינא‬. All the citations which begin with this sentence 146 are only found in the Babylonian Talmud. This fact already raises doubts as to their historical reliability. We cannot use these arguments to build good quality explanations about the times when the controversy was closer and sharper, but it is important to note that the description of all the controversies is apparently 147 restricted to the land of Israel. Five times it is said: ‘A certain min said to Rabbi 148 Abbahu,’ who was a Palestinian amora of the third generation. His period is indeed later than the time of Yavneh, but Rabbi Abbahu is also known from other sources as a disputant against minim whose identity as Christians is already

145

Wide discussions of the content of these contacts and especially the debates between the rabbis and the minim will appear in the coming chapters according to subject. In this chapter they are brought in order to aid us in fixing a time frame. 146 BT Berakhot 10a; 56b; 58a; BT Shabbat 152b; BT Eruvin 101a; BT Sukkah 48b;BT Yevamot 102b; BT Sanhedrin 31b; 38b-39a; 91a;106b. In the following sources ‘a certain Zadokite’ appears in the printed versions instead of ‘a certain min’: BT Yoma 66b; BT Ketubot 112a; BT Gittin 67a. In BT Berkhot 10a we have ‘a certain min said to her (Beruriah, wife of Rabbi Me’ir). 147 Apart from two slightly strange mentions, about an argument between a min and two of the most famous leaders in Babylonia, Rav Yehudah bar Yehezqel, the founder of the yeshiva at Pumbedita (BT Megillah 23a) and with Rava (BT Hullin 84a). In both these cases the min is mentioned by name: Yaakov. This is a rare occurrence. A min called Yaakov is known to us from the meeting with Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (Tosefta, Hullin ii, 24) and with Rabbi Abbahu (BT Avodah Zarah 28a). Clearly he is not the same as the first Yaakov. Rabbi Abbahu lived in the Land of Israel at the same time as Rava in Babylonia. On this cf Tosefot to BT Avodah Zarah 17a. Anyway it is strange that from these few occurrences when the min is called by name, that the name should each time be Yaakov. On this see below p. 240ff. 148 BT Berakhot 10a; BT Shabbat 152b; BT Sukkah 48b; BT Sanhedrin 39a; BT Avodah Zarah 28a.

126

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context 149

indubitable. We should note here the fact that this exceptional amora lived in 150 Caesarea, one of the centres of Christianity in his contemporary Palestine. Two of these meetings and controversies, are described as taking place with 151 two of the leaders of the generation of Yavneh, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi 152 Joshua ben Hananiah. There is no special conclusion to be drawn here, although most of the meetings under this formula take place in the Land of Israel. This in itself strengthens what we said above, that in Babylonia Birkat haMinim was the only touchstone for the expulsion of the minim from the synagogue, or for their identification, for in Babylonia the number of meetings, their quality 153 and their frequency were much less than in the Land of Israel. However, the appearance of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua and other leaders of their generation as disputants in meetings with minim is not restricted just to this formula. Our sources describe meetings and disputes like this in other ways too. The most famous descriptions of meetings such as these take place in the period of the tannaim of the second and third generations, from the days of Rabban Gamaliel’s Yavneh onwards, and in all of them the leaders of the generation of the time take 154 part in some function or other. It is true there are certain doubts about these and other stories, but it is no accident that most of them relate to a single time framework, which is their importance for our discussion here. One of the better-known meetings, which has been much discussed, is the incident when Rabbi Eliezer ben Dama was bitten by a serpent. Yaakov of Kfar Sakhnia [or Sama] came to heal him by using the name of Jesus and but Rabbi 155 Eliezer’s uncle, R Ishmael, did not allow him to do this. Rabi Ishmael ben Elisha was one of the greatest of the tannaim of the third generation, the pupil of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who were contemporaries of Rabban Gamaliel. On Rabbi Eliezer himself, legend tells at length of the suffering he underwent when he ‘was caught for minut’ because of Yeshua [Jesus] ben Pantiri [Pandera] (or Jesus haNotzri according to the source) and was even taken to court for this in 156 front of a Roman judge. In one place in the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Joshua 149

JT Taanit ii, 65b; BT Pesahim 56a; Genesis Rabbah xxv, 1 (Theodor-Albeck, pp. 238-

239). 150

On Rabbi Abbahu, see below, p.156, n. 87. BT Yevamot 102b. 152 BT Eruvin 101a. 153 It seems that the next passage shows the comparative rarity of such meetings in Babylonia: “Rav Nahman said: Only someone who knows how to answer the minim, such as Rav Idith (or Idi) should answer, and anyone who doesn’t, should not answer. BT Sanhedrin 38b. 154 As noted, this is not the place to discuss the stories themselves and the contents of the controversy, but only the time they took place. Detailed discussions of the stories will be found in chapter 4. 155 Tosefta Hulin ii, 22 and parallels. 156 Loc. cit. 21 and parallels. 151

Establishing the Historical Framework

127

ben Hananiah, the contemporary and great debating partner of Rabban Gamaliel, 157 argues with a min in front of the emperor. At the end of this passage it also says: “Before Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah died, the rabbis said to him: What will be with us against the minim [when there is no rabbi among us who can answer them]?” Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah brings a meeting of Hananiah, the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother, with the minim, and of him it says as follows: “Rabbi Hananiah went to Kfar Nahum (Capernaum). The minim cast a spell on him, and brought him to ride an ass on the Sabbath. His uncle Joshua went to him and 158 put an ointment on him and he was cured.” In the chapter in the Babylonian Talmud which discusses the problem of the ‘scrolls [gilyonim] and books of the 159 minim,’ Rabbi Tarfon, one of the leading rabbis of the second generation of tannaim, swears that if one of these should fall into his hands he will burn it to160 gether with what is mentioned in it. Joshua ben Hananiah and Elazar ben Parta 161 do not go to the house of Avidan, which appears to have been a house of minim. The latter even gets into a dispute which includes exchanges of insults with a 162 min who appears to serve as a eunuch [goza]. In the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Qorha, a tanna of the fourth generation, there is already an explicit ban on meeting with minim mentioned: “They say to a man that he should not go to the minim or listen to their words so that he should not fall into the error of their 163 ways. We find a direct reaction to this ruling in Justin Martyr’s statement in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, that the teachers of the Jews forbid contact with 164 the notzrim. Justin lived at the same time as the tannaim, around the middle of the second century CE. Another meeting connected to the name of Rabban Gamaliel himself, and his sister, Ima Shalom (the wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus), who mocks a 165 ‘philosopher’ who apparently lived near their house. Here indeed the minim are not actually mentioned, but from the statement of the ‘philosopher’ it is clear 166 that he is a Christian, perhaps even of pagan origins. This exceptional story, 157

BT Hagigah 5b. Ecclesiastes Rabbah i, 8, (ed. Hirshman, lines 400-416). 159 Extended discussion of this subject below, p. 250ff. 160 BT Shabbat 116a. 161 Joshua ben Hananiah: BT Shabbat 152a; Elazar ben Parta: BT Avodah Zarah 17b. 162 BT Shabbat 152a. For goza=eunuch see Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 220. 163 Avot deRabbi Natan version B, iii, (Schechter, p 13). This is simply a paraphrase of the detailed list of bans in Tosefta Hullin loc. cit. There is a detailed discussion of the content of these bans in chapter 4. Parallel in Avot deRabbi Natan, version A, ii, (Schechter, p. 14). 164 Justin Martyr, Dialog, 38.1, PG 6, cols. 556-557 and see below p. 280. 165 BT Shabbat 116b 166 In particular it should be noted that the statement put in the mouth of this ‘philosopher’: “I have not come to take away from Law of Moses, but to add to the Law of Moses”, is quoted with slight changes from the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17. Alon sees this philosopher as an educated man, a Christian or a Christianiser, who functioned in a 158

128

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

which has in it some sort of questioning of relations with Christians in general at the time of Rabban Gamaliel, demonstrates the atmosphere of polemic which was current with all sorts of Christians. We should also see this story in the wider context of the chapter in which it is found, which deals broadly with the question of the ‘scrolls [gilyonim] and books of the minim,’ particularly because the philosopher himself claims: “From the day you were exiled from your land, the 167 Law of Moses was taken away and the Gospel was given, and there is written in it etc.” Before us, then, are different sorts of meetings and different sources which deal with these disputes, and in spite of the fact that every one of these sources has within it different problems of historical reliability etc., for all that we may identify one characteristic: there are no meetings, debates or controversies before the Yavneh period, and more exactly, before the patriarchate of Rabban Gamaliel 168 II. In one of the disputes where Rabban Gamaliel takes part, he is asked by the 169 minim: “How do you derive the revival of the dead from the Torah?” and it is no accident that Rabban Gamaliel himself is a party to this dispute, for the concept of the revival of the dead became an important motif of controversy, as already noted, in the words of this tanna, anyone who does not say ‘who revives the dead’ is a min. These examples express, as noted, the spirit of the generations of the first tannaim, and this baraita also demonstrates how late the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud on this subject is, for there it is ruled that only someone who makes a mistake in Birkat haminim is suspected of minut. The dispute with Rabban Gamaliel opens with the words: “the minim asked Rabban Gamaliel.” This is an exceptional opening for the framework of a dispute, and the only other 170 one like it is directed at Rav Simlai. Like the question to Rabban Gamaliel, this too touches on fundamental problems between the minim and the rabbis, so that the Palestinian setting for these debates seems to be quite authentic. Similar to this is the continuation of the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin of the dispute about the revival of the dead: “A certain min said to legal context in the Roman administration. See G. Alon, The Jews, (above n. 27), p. 214. Another ‘philosopher’ mentioned in Midrash Genesis Rabbah xi, 6 (Theodor-Albeck, pp. 94-95) asks Rabbi Hoshayah a provocative question about circumcision, from which is can be deduced that the inspiration for this question is Pauline Christianity. Here too the intention is a Christian of pagan origins. 167 The Gospel is presented in this source as avon gilyon. This is a scornful play on the Greek word for the gospel, evangelion. Avon means sin in Hebrew, so that avon gilyon would be the scripture of the sinners, or a scripture which represents the way of a sin. 168 The midrash attributed to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai - Iggeret Mehoqeqei Dat Notzrim, was written by an anonymous author very much later than the time of Rabban Yohanan: J.D. Eisenstein, Otzar Midrashim, (New York, 1915), pp. 214-217. 169 BT Sanhedrin 90b 170 Genesis Rabbah viii, 9 (Theodor-Albeck, p. 62) and parallels.

Establishing the Historical Framework

129

Rabbi Ammi: you maintain that the dead will revive; but they turn to dust, and 171 can dust come to life?” This meeting around the problems of the dispute over the revival of the dead belongs to the dubious context of the formula: ‘a certain min said’, and therefore the context of the dispute following it in the same discussion is even more shaky: A min said to Gebiha ben Pesisa: woe to you, you wicked, who maintain that the dead will revive; if even the living die, shall the dead live? He replied: woe to you, you wicked, who maintain that the dead will revive; if what was not (now) lives, surely what has lived, will 172 live again.

There is no connection between Rabbi Ammi and between Gebiha ben Pesisa except for the apparent dispute with the minim on the question of the revival of the dead. the first is a Palestinian amora of the third generation, while the second is a figure from the days of the Second Temple set in a literary, even legendary framework. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that in the Babylonian Talmud itself there are few disputes about the revival of the dead, this did not influence our baraita in tractate Berakhot, just as the concept of the Jerusalem Talmud did not infiltrate it. This was the ancient Palestinian concept, that the blessing ‘who revives the dead’ (and who rebuilds Jerusalem) were also set up as important touchstones for identifying minim, and were no less valuable for this goal than Birkat haminim 173 itself in the Land of Israel of the Yavneh period. As we have noted, this was not the case in Babylonia. The Tosefta, when speaking of what Jewish sinners can expect, and adding afterwards the far worse fate of those who are not included under the rubric of ‘sinners of Israel,’ writes as follows: “But the minim and the apostates and the betrayers and the heretics and those who denied the Torah and those who distanced themselves [porshin] from the needs of the community 174 and those who denied the revival of the dead…. Gehinnom is locked for them etc.”

The Tosefta here expresses a decidedly Palestinian attitude. In spite of the question of the identity of the different parties mentioned in this Tosephta and the fact that the degree of connection between them is problematic, it is clear that there is here a common denominator. Thus it is also clear that there is a connection between the minim and those who deny the revival of the dead, exactly as in the

171

BT Sanhedrin 91a loc. cit. 173 It should be noted in this context that the idea of the revival of the dead is mentioned as a focus of dispute with the ‘Boethusians.’ See Avot deRabbi Natan, version A, v, (Schechter ed. p. 26), and in at least one place the Boethusians are identified with the minim: “What destructive action [qilqul] did the minim commit? First, the Boethusians tried to mislead the rabbis etc.” BT Rosh haShanah 22b. 174 Tosefta, Sanhedrin xiii 4-5. 172

130

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

statement cited in the Jerusalem Talmud (and only there), that anyone who does 175 not say ‘who revives the dead’ is a min. The question of when Birkat haminim was written is thus reflected in the special atmosphere of this stormy period with all its elements, but above all in the figure and leadership of Rabban Gamaliel II. Only in his time did conditions permit to reorganise institutions or to create them ex nihilo. This was not possible during the lifetime of his predecessor Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: his status and the status of the Yavneh of his time are not clear at all. Yavneh of Rabban Gamaliel was known as the supreme institution. Questions 176 about halakhic matters reached him there even from the Diaspora and in addition he took care to establish his leadership by many journeys covering the 177 length and breadth of the country. Sometimes the written sources note that on 178 these journeys Rabban Gamaliel was accompanied by ‘rabbis’ or ‘elders.’ The authority of the leadership forum was spread in this way all over the country and there can be no doubt that it enjoyed the very necessary official confirmation of Rome. It seems that over the time which had elapsed since the days of the First Revolt there was a change in the policy of the conqueror. Perhaps the confirmation of the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel, a member of the leadership chain which had stopped in the time of his father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, expresses this spirit. Perhaps it was even one of the results of the visit of the leadership forum headed by Rabban Gamaliel to Rome (it is also possible that the fall in tension and confirmation of the leadership in Yavneh were what enabled this visit.) In the discussion on the intercalation of the year we have already mentioned it says: ‘You do not intercalate the year unless the patriarch wishes it.’ And there it tells of an episode about Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive 179 approval from a certain governor of Syria. The holding of a meeting like this to ‘receive approval’ is also evidence that the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel was recognised and confirmed by Rome, and even supervised by her senior representatives in the region. Rabban Gamaliel’s leadership strengthened through his struggles with his 180 colleagues. The rivalry with Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah over fundamental questions was not just a questioning of the authority and decisions of the patriarch, but reflects the consolidation of the leadership at Yavneh at this period, in the very dispute over fundamental rulings which were more necessary in this 175 Essentially the dispute about the revival of the dead reflects an anti-Gnostic dispute: see below, p. 175 n. 183. 176 G. Alon, The Jews, (above, n. 27), pp. 232-233. 177 A. Oppenheimer, ‘Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh and his Circuits of Eretz Israel’, id. Between Rome and Babylon, (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 145-155. 178 Tosefta, Berakhot iv, 15 (Lieberman ed. p. 21); BT Pesahim 10b. 179 BT Sanhedrin 11a. 180 See G. Alon, (loc. cit.), pp. 315-322.

Summary

131

period. For this was the first period after the Destruction of the Temple when it was possible to lay the foundations for the re-building of the people and its spiritual resources. The link between Yavneh and the Great Assembly, as the amoraim or editors of the Talmud saw and understood it or even in the Yavneh period itself, was expressed not only by the renewal of the leadership institutions on the model of the Return to Zion in the Persian Period, but also the reconstruction and even sharpening of the processes of self-purification and renewal of the people after the catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple. A great challenge was posed by Christianity developing, as it did, from within and inside the Judaism of the time of the Second Temple. Moreover, the time of the Temple was a time when dissident sects and trends with strange and alien aspects flourished. This process came to a peak after the destruction. Thus in the Yavneh period these challenges rose to the head of the scale of priorities for those who wished to renew the leadership and lay new foundations for spiritual and religious life in the country without the Temple. It is possible that during this period the propaganda of the minim reached its peak. And these two peaks came to an unavoidable confrontation. For this was the first period in which Judaism was able to respond by creating the codes and halakhot of what would be called later ‘normative Judaism.’ Thus, in order to make it possible to define the general, it was necessary to mark out the exceptional.

Summary The Shemoneh Esreh prayer was constructed and crystallised in the time of 181 Yavneh under the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel, the rabbis and the elders, including Birkat haminim. As analysed above, any other theory does not stand up to examination. The dispute of Rabban Gamaliel with Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah: “Rabban Gamaliel says: Every day a man [should] pray the Shemoneh Esreh; Rabbi 182 Joshua says: the shorter form of the Shemoneh Esreh,” demonstrates that the prayer was fixed and its text does not change. The shorter form of the Shemoneh Esreh can only allude to the shorter form of a fixed text, for otherwise it would not be a shorter form, but another version. 181

There is disagreement on the subject of the exact period of office of Rabban Gamaliel. See G. Alon, The Jews, (above, n. 27), pp. 105-106; 119ff. Also S. Safrai, ‘The Recovery of Jewish Settlement in the Yavneh Period,’ Z. Baras et. al. (eds.), Eretz Israel, (above, n. 61), pp. 30-31 (in Hebrew). 182 Mishnah, Berakhot iv, 3-4.

132

The Story of the Writing of Birkat haMinim, its Date and its Context

There is no basis for the hypothesis of the existence of another blessing, against the arrogant or the wicked, before the composition of Birkat haminim. The blessing, like the rest, was crystallised and ratified by the forum of rabbis. The function of Shemuel haQatan is not completely clear, although it is clear that there was a tendency to give this sort of important function to exemplary figure of hasidim, but not to figures who were involved in everyday leadership. Birkat haminim was constructed in the land of Israel in the framework of the general struggle to correct society in the Land of Israel. The question of who were the minim will be discussed in the coming chapters.

Chapter 3 At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

The Objects of Birkat haMinim None of the sources in which Birkat haMinim is mentioned shed light on the central problem: who was Birkat haMinim aimed at? There is a further difficulty attached to this basic question. The sources, as we know, do not cite the text of the blessing, except for a few key words which were discussed in chapter 1. Thus it is impossible to build a hypothesis about the objects of Birkat haMinim on the basis of a single agreed text of the blessing. Thus the basis for the discussion of the question of the objects of the blessing, whether one or more, must be built on these two foundations: the first is the attempt at a reconstruction of the early structure according to the conclusions of the first chapter in this study. Here it is possible to hold a discussion on what appear to be the more certain words and phrases, if not actually from the original version of the blessing, then at least from the spectrum of concepts which were analysed in chapter 1 and led to the archetype we built above. The second is the definition of the possible objects of the curse in the period during which Birkat haMinim was constructed according to the conclusions of chapter 2 of this study. This process of examination must be carried out eliminating those factors which it is reasonably possible to veto as desirable targets for Birkat haMinim. This is the way we must examine, for example, the function of the concept, ‘kingdom of arrogance’ in the blessing. We must clarify whether this is an element which is connected to the subject of the minim or whether it is a separate object. Finally, of course, we must identify the people who are supposed to be the central element in the blessing – the minim. This must be done by analysing this specific term, establishing the historical framework and classifying the relevant sources according to stated criteria. These two foundations together form the basis of the discussion, and neither is preferable over the other, but their importance is in their combination. The conclusions should lead the discussion more clearly towards the central question of the identity of the minim in the next chapters.

134

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

The question of whom Birkat haMinim was aimed at comes up against a considerable difficulty, perhaps the central one in this study. For there are many textual versions, and no fewer proposals for reconstructing the original version of the blessing, or something near to it. In particular, it is known that the different versions were influenced by different events, every one of which was the result of the circumstances of its own time, which contributed their part to these and other changes in the prayer, and in particular to the blessing in question. The attempt made in chapter 1 to reconstruct an archetype of Birkat haMinim rests mainly on classification of the textual versions which are accepted as the oldest extant ones – those in the Cairo Genizah – and comparing them with the few words, phrases and other allusions found in our sources. In addition, we know how to identify from Jewish and other sources various groups which could have been included among the ‘enemies’ of Judaism at the time when we propose that Birkat haMinim was constructed. Similarly, we can also point to objects of hatred and polemical antagonists from then onwards, as the enemies changed or were exchanged. As a result of this, the terminology of Birkat haMinim changed and old terms sometimes got a totally different meaning from their original intent. It is very difficult to follow continuously and simultaneously the development of these two phenomena: the changes in the textual versions of the prayer on the one hand, and the changes in the internal and external enemies of Israel throughout the different periods, in particular from the Yavneh period up to the beginning of the period of the Genizah. We know how to identify the people who were seen as the external enemies of the Jewish people, both in the Land of Israel or in various communities abroad. We also know who were identified as the internal enemies of mainstream Judaism, from the side-streams or at the fringes. But our historical equation is not complete: we cannot set the different textual versions of Birkat haMinim side by side with the different historical events and with the various sorts of groups of external or internal enemies. From this point of view, our reasoned conclusion that the minim in most of the versions of the Genizah are Karaites is the exception. One fact seems to be firmly grounded: the title of Birkat haMinim reflects the concept of its construction. It is true that the name of the blessing appears in sources which are later than the time it was constructed, in the Jerusalem and Babylonian talmudim, but the polemic with the minim also appears in full force in the small number of original passages which deal with minut in the early 1 sources, in the Mishnah and in the early midrashim. The minim are the main subject at the heart of the twelfth blessing of the Amidah prayer. The text of the

1 i.e., in certain midrashei halakhah. Details of the midrashim and references will follow according to subject matter.

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire

135

archetype of the blessing stresses in almost every word the intent of the ideological and doctrinal polemic. However, one concept which arises from the different versions of Birkat haMinim appears on the face of it to be an exception: this is, as noted, ‘the kingdom of arrogance.’ This term appears in the ancient prayer books and in the fragments of prayers which were revealed in the Cairo Genizah, in particular in the textual versions which are known to be Babylonian. It looks exceptional, because it is possible to understand it as aimed against an earthly kingdom of some sort. Thus the beginning of the discussion in this chapter is an examination of the significance of this term and how far it fits into the conceptual harmony of Birkat haMinim, from the point of view of both the religious polemic and the historical circumstances.

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire From the Middle Ages onward, the phrase ‘kingdom of arrogance’ (with Birkat haMinim in general) caused many problems for Judaism, in particular for the communities which lived under the aegis of Christian kingdoms from Byzantium 2 to Western Europe. These problems were caused especially because this phrase was understood simply, according to its literal meaning, as a curse against an earthly kingdom. Rabbis and Jewish polemicists had to cope with the problem of this phrase and to defend themselves in public disputes and polemical writings against priests, popes and other people ill-wishers. Thus Jewish commentators and polemicists created hair-splitting arguments to worm their way out of the interpretation of ‘the kingdom of arrogance’ and some of them moved far away from its original intention. However, whatever this intention might have been, and in spite of the frequency of its appearance in the earliest prayer books and in the Genizah, it is not at all certain that the term ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was included in the original version, or in the first versions which were in use in the Land of Israel and in other Jewish Diaspora communities from the days of Yavneh and at least up to the days of Rabbi Judah haNasi. Among all the scholars who have examined the aim of Birkat haMinim, Peter Schäfer has explained at length and extremely reasonably the proposal that the target of the blessing in general was the Roman Empire. Thus, he writes, it is 3 the same ‘kingdom of arrogance’ which appears in the different versions of the 2

This tendency even had repercussions in modern times. Thus Elbogen gives evidence that Birkat haMinim was completely erased from the Berlin prayerbook. I. Elbogen, Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, (trans. R.P. Schneidlin, New York-Jerusalem, 1993), p. 46. 3 P. Schäfer, ‘Die sogenannte Synode von Yabne‘, Judaica 31 (1975), p. 62; D. Yitschaki ‚‘The Abudarham’s commentary on Birkat haMinim’, Tzefunot 1/4 (1989), p. 19 ; There have

136

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

blessing. The oldest complete extant versions are to be found, as we have seen, in the Cairo Genizah, and we found that the phrase, ‘kingdom of arrogance’ is indeed frequent, but more in Babylonian versions than in Palestinian versions of 4 Birkat haMinim. However, as we demonstrated above in the first chapter, we cannot determine from this which of the two rites necessarily reflects the earliest textual version, although it should be noted that the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ is totally absent from rabbinic sources. This is in contrast to the phrase, ‘humbles the arrogant,’ which is used as the closure of the blessing, and which in the majority of the sources, especially the Palestinian ones, is used as the name by which Birkat haMinim is called. It became clear to us that this phrase is the oldest phrase known to us from the text of the blessing. ‘Arrogance’(‫ )זדון‬in the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ and ‘the arrogant’(‫ )זדים‬in ‘humbles the arrogant’ are from the same Hebrew root, but this is not enough to suppose that the terms in the blessing are identical. We cannot necessarily infer that the close ‘Blessed are You, Lord, who humbles the arrogant’ is the summary of a curse which is aimed against a ‘kingdom of arrogance.’ The close, ‘humbles the arrogant’ is found in all versions of the blessing which we have characterised in this study as early. The term, ‘kingdom of arrogance’ is less frequent. This fact is appears strange, for if the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ and ‘humbles the arrogant’ are dealing with the same object, this ‘kingdom’ should have been mentioned at least in those versions where ‘humbles the arrogant’ appears, in other words, in all the versions, but this is not the case. Therefore the central question which arises from this comparison is above all that of the nature and identity of this ‘kingdom’ which is accused of ‘arrogance.’ As noted, we cannot decide once and for all which of the versions of the Genizah reflects for certain the early or original version or versions. We cannot even presume this for the accepted versions known to express the Palestinian rite. But the fact that in the examples of the versions of the latter sort the phrase, ‘kingdom of arrogance’ is less frequent, may perhaps illuminate a kind of trend, which is that this phrase – if indeed it is aimed against the Roman Empire as Schäfer proposes – did not appear in the really old versions. This hypothesis can be based on historical reasoning. It is highly unlikely that in the period of the iron rule of Rome over the Land of Israel, and in particular also been far-fetched suggestions without any basis in reality, such as the identification of the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ with the Seleucid kingdom of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). See K.G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim, (Tübingen, 1950), p. 20. In his opinion the blessing was originally anti-Seleucid, and only later became anti-Roman. See also: A. Karlibach, ‘Birkat haMinim’, Shanah beShanah (annual), (1981), p. 288. 4 In spite of this, Flusser assumes that the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was the most important part of the 12th blessing before the appearance of Christianity. See D. Flusser, ‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction Against the Heretics’, Tarbiz 61 (1992), p. 352.

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire

137

in the time between the two major revolts in the years 70 and 135 CE, the local leadership under the aegis of Rome should instigate an official curse against the empire. Therefore it is not reasonable for the phrase ‘kingdom of arrogance’ to have appeared in the early or original versions. Hence there is thus circumstantial support for the precedence of those early versions where this phrase does not appear. Anyway, we have already seen that the phrase itself does not appear as such in Talmudic sources, whereas we have found mentions and allusions to other elements from Birkat haMinim. If, in spite of this, the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was intended against Rome, it could have been added to the blessing at a much later period, and then too, only in Jewish communities outside the borders of the Roman Empire. An excellent example which can be suggested is the ban by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I on reading from the Torah, studying the Mishnah and perhaps also saying the 5 prayers. However, this emperor was not the emperor of Rome. Rome is condemned often in our sources, especially under the title of ‘the wicked kingdom 6 [malkhut haresha‘ah].’ Byzantium also, given that it was a Christian empire with a Roman heritage, could certainly have been the object of the curse in Birkat haMinim under the definition of ‘kingdom of arrogance.’ However this applies only to this late period, and Byzantium would certainly not be called thus by the Jews who lived within her territory. This sort of trend could only have existed in a Babylonian context. Therefore we may presume that the phrase, ‘kingdom of arrogance’ became an integral part of Birkat haMinim only from the time of the Christianisation of the empire onwards. And as we have shown here, this element is extant mostly in the version of the blessing according to the Babylonian rite, and this is certainly not accidental. The late textual version of Birkat haMinim includes the concept ‘kingdom of arrogance’ aimed at two goals: Rome as the kingdom of wickedness, and Rome as the centre of Christianity; each goal separately and both of them together. The division of the empire into east and west does not affect this concept. Byzantium answers to the definition of the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ almost exactly as Rome does, with one difference: it was Rome which was responsible for the traumas and long reckoning of blood in the Land of Israel, from the conquest of the country to the destruction of the Temple, and for the loss of Jerusalem as the national centre and for the bloody repression of the Bar Kokhba revolt. 5

Novella 146 (553 CE). See A. Linder, The Jews the Roman Imperial Legislation, (Detroit, Mich. 1987), pp. 402-411; cf. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, (Frankfurt a.m., 18922), p. 361, and Albeck’s note 133 (in the Hebrew edition, HaDerashot beYisrael, [Jerusalem, 1946], p. 469); C. Merchavia, The Church versus Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (500-1248), (Jerusalem, 1970), pp.8-11 (in Hebrew). 6 There were also other condemnatory expressions, such as Edom, Esau, Amalek etc. On this see M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine, (Oxford, 1976), pp.128-129.

138

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

The emperor of Christian Byzantium in the sixth century, Justinian, initiated new restrictions on the Jews of the empire; in addition, there are those who see in 7 the statement of Rav Yehudai, as quoted by Pirqoi ben Baboi, evidence of further bans and repressive legislation enforced on the Jews by the Byzantine emperor 8 Heraclius. Even if it was not due to Heraclius himself, the repressive legislation of ‘the kingdom of Edom’ [malkhut edom] mentioned in the source, certainly represents restrictions imposed by the Byzantine Empire. There can be no doubt that this Jewish concept of the function of Birkat haMinim in the early Middle Ages as a curse against the Christians was a godsend to the Jew-hating feelings of Agobard, bishop of Lyons, in the days of the Carolingian king Louis the Pious. According to the scholar C. Merchavia, Agobard was the first Christian writer whose anti-Jewish writings had both ecclesiastical and political aims: – to remove the Jews of his day from Christian 9 economy and society, thus reversing the status which the Jews of different communities in western Europe had achieved through documents of ‘privileges’ which had been given to them by Christian leaders. We do not know which version of Birkat haMinim was current in western Europe in the time of Agobard, and his statement does not confirm for certain that he knew Birkat haMinim. Agobard indeed needed the aid of the writings of Jerome as an authoritative source on which to base his accusations that the Jews 10 curse the Christians and Jesus their Messiah in his days also. However, from 11 the fact that he quotes the deuterosis of the Jews, it is possible that he knew the blessing which was current in his days, including the concept, ‘kingdom of arrogance’ for the existence of this concept in the blessing would have served his purposes – blackening the Jews in the eyes of the kingship of his days, and the negation of their status and rights. A further mediaeval characteristic of this subject is to be found in the midrash Panim Aherim, where there is a quotation attributed to Haman about the Jews, that: “they say in their prayer ‘who humbles the arrogant,’ and they say that we 12 13 14 are the arrogant.” This late midrash certainly relies on Christian accusations. 7

See above, chapter 1, p. 20. J. Mann, ‘Changes in the Divine Service’, HUCA 4 (1927), pp. 253-254. 9 C. Merchavia, The Church (above, n. 5), p. 71. 10 Agobardus, De insolentia Iudaeorum, CCCM 52:194. For a summary and bibliography on Agobard, and his fight against Judaism, see J. Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jews in Medieval Christianity, (Berkeley, CA 1999), pp. 123-145. 11 Deuterosis is the literal translation of Mishnah and appears to refer to the Talmudic literature in general. 12 See above pp. 11-12. 13 It is difficult to determine its date. It is possible that it was edited in the twelfth century: M.D. Herr, ‘Smaller Midrashim’ EJ 16 (1982), p. 1515. 14 See the ban on mocking Christianity on Purim, a law of Theodosius II from 408CE. Cf. A. Linder, The Jews, (above, n. 5), pp. 236-238. 8

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire

139

The function of Haman in this midrash is not just as the most extreme example of hatred of Jews over the generations, but also as an allegory of the right hand of the monarchy. In this case, the story of the Book of Esther, and in particular the blood libel of Haman who sees Birkat haMinim as a curse against the kingship, reflects decidedly mediaeval circumstances. This is apparently one of the results of the probable inclusion of the phrase, ‘the kingdom of arrogance’ as an integral part of the blessing, from the days of the late amora’im in Babylonia onwards. The dominance of Babylonian authority in matters of halakhah and custom spread this textual version as far as Western Europe. Rav Natronai and Rav Amram Gaon update the Sepharadi communities of the ninth century from far away Babylonia, and the custom spread from one end of the Jewish world to the 15 other. In the spirit of this far-reaching Christian explanation of Birkat haMinim, Nicholas Donin rules in his complaint to Pope Gregory IX that the curse of Birkat haMinim was not directed only against the Church and her representatives, but also against kings. It seems it was convenient for those who hated Jews to widen the scope of the exposition of the blessing. The text which Donin and his generation knew, and probably the generation after him as well, did not include the term 16 notzrim, but included in its centre the phrase, ‘kingdom of arrogance.’ It was therefore easier for this apostate and his followers to relate the aim of this phrase to a kingdom of their own time, and thus to concretise the case for prosecution against the Jews of their time. At this point we can already see the first signs of Jewish apologetics, together with hair-splitting interpretations of the sources, in order to set up a reasonable defence case. At first it was as a barricade for which there was no alternative in the great debates, and later, especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as an act of self-defence in the literary polemics between Judaism and Christianity. Only in the context of this can we understand the forced explanation of Rabbi Yehiel of Paris in the great debate which took place in 1240, that the aim of the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was originally against the kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, which have long since disappeared, and not against Christianity, 17 the Pope in Rome and the kingdom of France. This was of course a claim for 15

See above, p. 13. Loc. cit. 17 Rabbi Yehiel writes:“ And in respect of the question of reading the prayer on the kingdom of arrogance which is this kingdom, here it arises on your tongue…that we did not speak of this kingdom, and the only person who is called arrogant is someone who recognizes his Creator and hits out against him…. Like Pharaoh … and Nebuchadnezzar …and the king of Assyria …and it is about these kingdoms that we say may the kingdoms of arrogance be speedily cut off…but this kingdom, and the Pope who commands with all his power to preserve us ….it would not enter the mind of a Jew ever to return evil for good, but about this kingdom it is said ‘let us pray for the peace of the kingdom.” J.D. Eisenstein, Otzar Wikuhim: a Collection of 16

140

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

which there was no alternative against the accusations of Nicholas Donin and the investigation of the church. It would seem that Rabbi Yehiel started a trend of ignoring the original aim of the blessing. Rabbi Ishmael Hanina Valmontone, one of the rabbis of Italy in the sixteenth century, went even further. He claimed in his debate with the apostate Alessandro of Bologna (1568) that “the intention when we say ‘the kingdom of arrogance’ is supposed to be the kingdom of the Evil Inclination [...].” He too, like Rabbi Yehiel of Paris, needs to quote the helpful baraita “let us pray for the peace of 18 the kingdom” as a proof of a halakhah which obliges Jews in every time and place. Years later, Jewish apologetics and polemical literature used the debates of the rabbis over a contradiction in the Babylonian Talmud as to the date of the composition of Birkat haMinim. This helped to solve the mediaeval problem of the use of the blessing by Christian polemicists, for, as we have seen, tractate Berakhot describes the construction of the blessing at the behest of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh, whereas in tractate Megillah we find the attribution of the construction of the blessing to the one hundred and twenty elders, a legendary setup which was mistakenly understood as the Great Assembly (Kenesset 19 haGedolah). At the beginning of the seventeenth century, it seems that the first to use this debate as a sticking-plaster, was Salman Zebi of Offenhausen, in the work where he conducts a polemic with the apostate Samuel Friedrich Brentz. Although Salman Zebi did not relate directly to the phrase ‘the kingdom of arrogance,’ he does attribute the composition of Birkat haMinim or its reconstruction (for he bases himself on the statement ‘the prayers: the patriarchs constructed 20 them,’ in BT Berakhot 26b and parallels) to the days of Ezra the Scribe. This Was of course an expression of a natural tendency which was quite comprehensible, given the circumstances, of distancing evidence, i.e., attributing moral inten21 tions to Birkat haMinim, and in particular the phrase ‘kingdom of arrogance.’ Polemics and Disputations, (New York, 1928), p. 86. cf J. Katz, Between Jews and Gentiles, (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 109; 114 (in Hebrew). 18 See S. Krauss (W. Horbury ed. and rev.) The Jewish Christian Controversy, (Tübingen, 1996), p. 243-244. 19 See chapter 2, p. 76f. 20 The work of Salman Zebi ‘Der yiddischer Theriac’ which was written in 1615 is cited by Johannes Wülfer, Theraica Iudaica, (Nürnberg, 1681); See also Krauss / Horbury, loc. cit., pp. 244-245. 21 This tendency is expressed also in the prayer ‘And also give your fear’ (‫)ובכן תן פחדך‬which is said at the New Year [Rosh haShanah]. Its source is unknown and there are those who tend to attribute great antiquity to this prayer. We should note the semantic propinquity to Birkat haMinim, in particular in the request which is expressed in the prayer ‘give your fear’: “for let all the wickedness disappear as smoke and let the kingdom of arrogance [memshelet zadon] pass from this earth.” Jewish expositors deliberately attributed moral intentions to this prayer. Thus, according to this opinion, the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ is a symbolic term for evil, and not,

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire

141

They therefore moved back the time of composition of the blessing to the be22 ginning of the days of the Second Temple, in order to save themselves from pursuit by the authorities and the Church. Thus the Jewish rabbis and expositors emptied the blessing, and especially the phrase, the ‘kingdom of arrogance,’ of 23 its original intentions. It seems that even educated Christians were influenced by this approach. In his dubious defence of Judaism at the time of the controversy with Pfefferkorn and the Dominicans, Johannes Reuchlin claims that Birkat haMinim is not aimed 24 against Rome. But other Christian scholars did not accept this explanation. Both Buxtorf senior and his son, two Christian scholars who were professors of Hebrew and well-versed in Jewish sources returned the discussion to more realistic grounds. In their opinion, the blessing was constructed in Yavneh and it was aimed against the Christians, and also against the Roman Empire. The Jewish apologetics were only partially successful. No-one returned again to the old claim that Birkat haMinim, including the ‘kingdom of arrogance,’ was a curse intended by the Jews against contemporary kings and kingdoms. From now on, the Christian attacks concentrated on the religious polemic trend only, 25 and therefore continued to note that ‘the Jews curse the Christians,’ and that originally the blessing was also aimed at the Roman Empire. It is easy to understand why they assumed this. Jewish sources are full of accusations and anger against Rome, and they were read and learned well by the Christian Hebraists, but the latter lacked the means by which to distinguish between sources and to read between the lines about the ambivalence of the relationship between Judaea and Rome. Examination of the term malkhut [dominion, kingdom, empire] in our sources in relation to Rome produces the following conclusions: the combination, ‘the kingdom of Rome,’ [malkhut Romi] appears on only one occasion in the

of course, an earthly power. This apologetic was begun in parallel and even applied strongly to Birkat haMinim. See W. Horbury, ‘The Benediction of the Minim’, JTS 33 (1982), p. 41. 22 Thus as noted above David Abudraham in the fourtheenth century distances the intention of ‘give your fear’ and Birkat haMinim to the Roman Empire. Sefer Abudraham haShalem, (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 263. 23 This apologetic tone was even heard in the 19th century. See Seligman Baer, Avodat Yisrael, (Rödelheim, 1868), p. 96. 24 Johannes Reuchlin, Augenspiegel, (Tübingen, 1511), p. 5 (Quoted from: W. Horbury, ‘The Benediction’ [above, n. 21], p. 31). 25 It would seem that the apologetic tendency also influenced Jewish scholars from the beginning of the 20th century. Isaac Weiss wrote: ‘All the statements mentioned have nothing to do with the Christians among the nations.’ I.H. Weiss, Dor Dor ve-Dorshav, I, (Berlin, 1924), p. 222.

142

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed? 26

27

Jerusalem Talmud and a few times in the Babylonian Talmud, and, so that we should be in no doubt, in quite a large group of allusions we find ‘the wicked 28 kingdom’ [malkhut ha-resha‘ah]. Most of these are in the Babylonian Talmud, and the minority (two cases) in parallels in the Jerusalem Talmud. None of these terms appears in any tannaitic sources. In all those sources where the question arises why Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, the guilt of Rome is in the spirit of the traditional approach found in Scripture, which sees the enemies of Israel, even the worst of them, 29 as the instrument of God and his punishment for sin. This trend can be seen in the statement of Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta from the period of the Bar Kokhba revolt: Jerusalem (and) the first Temple, why were they destroyed? Because of the idol worship and promiscuity and murder which were within. But the second exile, we know that there were among them those who studied the Torah and took care to observe the mitzvot, so 30 why were they exiled? Because they loved money and hated their fellow men.

This attitude of ben Torta does not deny the national need for a revolt against 31 Rome. Certainly there is no contradiction here to the wide support of the Jewish leadership for the popular uprising which characterized the Bar Kokhba revolt. The bitter feelings of the people against the Roman authorities are not in doubt. But the moral is clear. The suffering may have come from an external enemy, but the guilt must be sought within. Even in those difficult days when ben Torta makes his statement, days in which there would seem to be, on the face of it, 26

JT Avodah Zarah i, 39c. BT Shabbat 49a; Pesahim 118b; Yoma 10a; Bava Qama 38a, although the source seems to be in JT Bava Qama iv, 4b. 28 BT Shabbat 49a; Pesahim 112b. A later source has two variants on ‘wicked Rome’: Midrash Psalms xvii, (ed. Buber, p. 134). 29 Scripture is influenced by this approach. The conceptual basis comes mostly from I Kings, chapters: 15-16 f., the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat and his successors which finally result in the exile of Israel, and in II Kings 21:11-16, the sins of Manasseh king of Judah, which lead to the exile of Judah. 30 Tosefta, Menahot xiii, 22; JT Yoma i, 38c. Most of what is written about ben Torta relates to his upbraiding of Rabbi Aqiva over the messianism of Bar Kokhba: ‘Aqiva, grass will grow from your cheeks and still the son of David will not come.’ JT Ta‘anit iv, 68d. Ben Torta was not part of the leadership circles of those days and is only known from these few sayings. (See J. Efron, ‘Bar-Kokhba in the light of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmudic Traditions,’ A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappoport (eds.), The Bar Kokhba Revolt: a New Approach, (Jerusalem 1984), pp. 55-56 (in Hebrew); and A. Oppenheimer, ‘The Bar Kokhba Revolt’, Z. Baras et. al. (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 59 (in Hebrew). Denial of messianism clearly represents a more realistic attitude in the context of the time, and it is possible that early Christianity was also an influence, but ben Torta’s attitude also suits his diagnosis, that in his time too, which was many times better than the preceding time, sin multiplied, so that suffering multiplied too. 31 J. Efron, loc. cit. 27

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire

143

every reason to curse Rome, there is no reason or justification for asking God to destroy the kingdom of arrogance – if this is about Rome – at a time when 32 this kingdom (of arrogance?) is the instrument of his wrath. And if this was the situation at the most difficult time from the point of view of relations with Rome (at least since the destruction of the Temple), how much more so was it for the situation in the days between these two fateful events, i.e., the period when the prayer crystallised and Birkat haMinim was constructed, in Rabban Gamaliel’s Yavneh. 33 The leadership of Rabban Gamaliel was recognized and ratified by Rome. 34 Rabban Gamaliel and the leadership group travel to Rome themselves, and the former actually takes the trouble to appear before the Roman ‘governor’ [he35 gemon] in Syria to be approved [litol reshut]. It was under the aegis of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh that the Shemoneh Esreh prayer was created, and on his express instructions, according to the sources, that Birkat haMinim was constructed. Even if the core of the blessing from the beginning was indeed the curse against Rome, we cannot suppose that the blessing was composed in this period.

32

This understanding also comes from the baraita as follows: “When Rabbi Yose ben Kisma fell ill, Rabbi Hanina ben Teradyon went to visit him. He said to him: Haninah, my brother, do you not know that this people received its kingship from heaven? For they have destroyed His Temple and burned His Sanctuary and killed His Hasidim and they still survive.” BT Avodah Zarah 18a; The ambivalence in the relationship to Rome also appears from the following passage: “Rabbi Judah opened with these words: ‘How pleasant are the acts of this nation. They established markets. They established bathhouses. They established bridges.’ Rabbi Yose was silent. Rabbi Shimon answered and said: ‘everything they established, they established only for their own needs: they established markets – to place prostitutes there; bathhouses – to pamper themselves; bridges – to take tolls.’ Judah ben Gerim went and retold their words and it became known to the [Roman] government. They said: Judah who praised – let him be praised. Yose who was silent – let him be exiled to Sepphoris. Shim‘on who disparaged – let him be killed.” BT Shabbat 33b. See A. Oppenheimer, ‘Revival of the Jewish Community in Galilee’ Z. Baras et. al. (eds.), Eretz Israel, (above, n. 30), p. 82, n.13. We should note also the view of Ben-Shalom that the whole story is a literary creation with no basis in fact: See I. Ben-Shalom, ‘Rabbi Judah b. Ilai’s Attitude towards Rome’ Zion 49 (1984), pp. 9-24. See too the criticism of D. Rokeah, Zion 52 (1987), pp. 107-110, and the reply of Ben-Shalom, loc. cit., pp. 111-113. It would seem that Ben-Shalom is correct in his conclusions, (and see J.L. Rubenstein Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture, [Baltimore-London, 1999], pp. 105-138), but even without a historical basis the story expresses the ambivalent attitude towards Rome which no doubt was current. On the different, sometimes contradictory attitudes to Rome, see N.R.M. de Lange, ‘Jewish Attitudes to the Roman Empire’, P.D.A. Garnsey & C.R. Whittaker, (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World, (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 268, 276-277. 33 On cooperation with the Roman authorities in the Yavneh period, see: G. Stemberger, ‘Die Beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen Literatur’ , ed. W. Haase, ANRW II 19.2, (BerlinNew York, 1979), pp. 382-386. 34 S. Safrai, ‘Visits to Rome by the Sages of Yavneh’, R. Bonfil et.al. (eds.), Sefer Zikaron le-S.U. Nahon, (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 151-167. 35 See above, p. 130.

144

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

Indeed, we have seen that this was not the case. The question which remains open is, if the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was included in the earliest text of the blessing, and if it was aimed against Rome, how did the Empire respond to it? A review of the relations of Rome to Judaea does not reveal in general an attack or any act on the part of Rome against the halakhah, customs or Jewish cult. It was not the custom of pagan Rome to intervene in foreign cults. Tertullian was right when he defined the status of Judaism in the eyes of Rome as religio licita, a per36 mitted religion. Although this is not an official Roman definition, it reflects the circumstances which prevailed in his times, as they had from earlier times in the Second Temple period. Josephus quotes official statements of Julius Caesar and 37 other Roman officials as to the tolerant relations towards Jews and their religion. Such was the face of things without any evidence to the contrary, at least until 38 the destruction of the Temple. Even straight after this, we do not see direct evidence of this sort of interference, although the balance of relationships changed, and certain expressions which might hint at censorship or at least some sort of Roman intervention begin to appear. The BT brings a baraita as follows: Our rabbis taught: The government of Rome had long ago sent two commissioners to the sages of Israel with a request to teach them the Torah. It was accordingly read to them once, twice and thrice. Before taking leave they made the following remark: We have gone carefully through your Torah and found it correct with the exception of this point, viz. your saying that if an ox of an Israelite gores the ox of a Canaanite there is no liability, whereas if the ox of a Canaanite gores the ox of an Israelite, whether innocuous [tam] or forewarned [mu’ad] compensation has to be paid in full. In no case can this be right. For if the implication of ‘his neighbour’ has to be insisted upon, why then, in the case of an ox of a Canaanite goring an ox of an Israelite should there also not be an exemption? If [on the other hand] the implication of ‘his neighbour’ has not to be insisted upon, why then even in the case of an ox of an Israelite goring the ox of a Canaanite should there not be liability? We will, 39 however, not report this matter to our government.

36

Tertullian, Apologeticum 21:1, E. Dekkers (ed.) CCSL 1, p. 122-123, although it is perhaps possible to distinguish in the words of Tertullian a tone of irony and even sarcasm. See B. Isaac, ‘Roman Attitude towards Jews and Judaism’, Zion 66 (2001), pp. 41-72. 37 AJ xiv 10,12-21 (190-246). Cf. the edict of Claudius in AJ xix 5,3 (286-291) as well as his letter to the Alexandrians in V. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, II, (New York, 1979), pp. 66-81. It looks as if in spite of the fact that it is possible to find Roman criticism, misunderstanding of the Jewish religion and much vilification (the whole paper of Isaac cited above is devoted to this) it would seem that this antagonism did not necessarily influence the official status of Judaism at Rome, and that in spite of the poor relations in the time of the Roman Prefects we have no evidence of interference in matters of halakhah. 38 Then not only was the Temple in Jerusalem destroyed, but an edict was made also to close the temple of Onias in Egypt. See Josephus BJ vii, 10, 2 (420-421); 4 (433-436). 39 BT Bava Qama 38a. Trans. acc. to Soncino. Cf. JT Bava Qama iii, 4b. Discussion in the latter source: A. Oppenheimer, ‘Jewish Penal Authority in Roman Judaea’, id., Between Rome and Babylon, (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 173-174.

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire

145

We do not know the date and source of this baraita. According to the evidence, the episode ends as well as it could have possibly: “We do not tell this to the authorities,” but there is here evidence of exacting examination of a halakhic 40 ruling. This is the only evidence of its kind, but there is no reason to doubt its correctness, in particular as an allusion and sign of the interference of Rome even in matters of halakhah. In other words, at least the precedent exists, and in this case, this is simply the small part which exists which is evidence of the large part which is missing. The Mishnah tells of the complaint of a min as follows: A Galilean min said: I complain against you perushim that you write the date of the au41 thorities together with the Hebrew date [lit. date of Moses] in a bill of divorce.

Here there is a custom, apparently an ancient one, to write the date according to the era of the Roman emperors. Alon claims here that this is a case of objec42 tions by Zealots against this custom. Whether or not this identification of the Galilean min is correct, this is not only a reaction of nationalist insult, but also a religious reaction, and we have no reason not to suppose that there is a hint here of enforcement by the Roman authorities expressed in this episode in official documents, even if they deal with the carrying out of halakhic laws such as a bill of divorce. The repressive Roman legislation of the time of Hadrian was, however, an exceptional chapter, not only in the relations of Rome towards the Jews (or at least to the Jews of the Land of Israel) but also in the relations of the emperor to all the people of the empire. Together with this, we should see the extension by Hadrian of the general ban on castration and its imposition on Jewish circumci43 44 sion, as well as the permitting of circumcision by his successor Antoninus Pius, as punctilious Roman interference in Jewish customs. Circumcision is indeed an outstanding characteristic which differentiates between Jews and non-Jews, but from this we can presume that Jewish worship and prayer customs could not

40 See A. Oppenheimer, ‘Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh and his Circuits in Eretz Israel’ id., loc. Cit., p. 148. 41 Mishnah, Yadayim iv, 8. 42 G. Alon, ‘By the Name’, id., Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, (trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem, 1987), p. 251; id. The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, (trans. and ed. G. Levi, Cambridge Mass. 1988), pp. 538-539. See also, M.D. Herr, Rome in Rabbinical Literature, (Ph.d Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1970), pp.73-92. 43 G. Alon, ‘The Origins of the Samaritans in the Halakhic Tradition’, id., Jews, loc. cit., pp. 366-367; M.D. Herr, ‘Repressive Legislation and Martyrdom in the Days of Hadrian’, in: Holy War and Martyrdom in Jewish and General History: Collection of Papers given at the Eleventh Conference on Historical Research, (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 73-92. 44 The rescript (imperial decree) of Antoninus appears in the collection of laws: Digesta 48:8:11, (ed. Mommsen & Krüger), p. 853. For discussion with English translation, A. Linder, The Jews (above, n. 5), pp. 99-102.

146

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

escape their investigatory and supervisory eye. Rome’s authority even stretched out a long arm in judgments dependent on halakhah in respect of capital punish45 ment. And even if there was no probing supervision in far-away Judea – and we have seen that there was – at the very heart of the empire, in Rome itself, there was a large and varied community of Jews, who observed their rites in many synagogues in the capital city of the empire. There is no reason to suppose that in the days of Domitian and Nerva, and even in the days of Trajan and afterwards, there should have been a prayer which attacked Rome as the ‘kingdom 46 of arrogance.’ Rabban Gamaliel himself, together with his colleagues in the leadership, came to the capital of the empire. The rulings which they ruled in his time and according to his demands, as well as new prayers like Birkat haMinim, 47 certainly arrived in the capital of the empire, but not one which included ‘the kingdom of arrogance’ aimed against Rome. The Land of Israel in the days of the Flavian dynasty was under close surveillance. The echoes of the First Revolt had not yet died away. We learn that other Jewish communities, too, were under close surveillance for fear of further revolt, for example in the story of the temple of Onias in Egypt which was closed be48 cause of the same sensitivities. The fears of Rome came true in the events of the Diaspora revolt in the time of Trajan. Even though the Land of Israel apparently did not take part in this uprising, we cannot doubt the exceptional sensitivity of 45 This is to be understood from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: “I have heard that the court may [when necessary] impose punishments even where not [warranted by the Torah; yet not with the intention of disregarding the Torah, but to safeguard it. It once happened that a man rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of the Greeks and he was brought before the Court and stoned, not because he was liable for this, but because it was [practically] required by the times. Again a man had intercourse with his wife under a fig tree. He was brought before the Court and flogged, not because he merited it but because the times required it.” BT Sanhedrin 46a. According to Alon this late evidence also expresses silent Roman de facto agreement in exceptional events. The ban was of course de jure. G. Alon, The Jews in their Land, (above, n. 41), pp. 207-211. 46 Certainly not against the background of the words of Cassius Dio, Historia Romana xxxvii,17,1 (Dio’s Roman History, III, trans. E. Cary, LCL [Cambridge, Mass. 1961], p. 127). “This class [the Jews] exists even among the Romans […] and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances.” According to this statement, the Jewish rite was visible and there can be no doubt that its contents also was not unknown to the authorities, so that we cannot imagine a public anti-Roman curse from the time of Rabban Gamaliel (i.e., the time of the Emperors Domitian, Nerva and Trajan). 47 On the links between the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh and the Jewish Diaspora see G. Alon, loc. cit. pp. 119-120. This close connection with the community of Rome can be seen from the following: “Rabbi Jose said: Thaddeus of Rome accustomed the Roman Jews to eat helmeted goats [gedi’im mequlasim] on the eves of Passover. The rabbis sent to him: If you were not Thaddeus we would proclaim the ban against you, because you make Israel eat sacred flesh without the Temple.” BT Pesahim 53a (trans. Soncino adapted). 48 Josephus BJ vii, 10, 2, (420-421).

The ‘Kingdom of Arrogance’ and the Roman Empire

147

Rome to all that might hint at an atmosphere of revolt, particularly in the Land of Israel. Gedaliah Allon claims that the second journey of Rabban Gamaliel to Rome, accompanied by the rabbinical leadership, took place in the year 115, at 49 the end of the days of Trajan. It was apparently then that the great tension began, that was to result in the Diaspora revolt. Birkat haMinim already existed then in its original form, and it was transmitted to the Jews of the Diaspora, certainly to the large communities of Alexandria and Rome. Thus it is not reasonable to think that there could be an explicitly anti-Roman curse said in the prayers three times a day, whether in the Land of Israel or in Rome itself, which would have been received with tolerance in the atmosphere of the relationships of those days. Birkat haMinim in its original form, with its different elements, was not aimed against Rome. The phrase the ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was apparently not part of the original version of the text. It was included in the later versions, particularly those used in Babylonia, where an explicitly anti-Roman atmosphere was not forbidden, and was not problematic, in particular in view of the fact that the Babylonian communities were at times under the rule of the Parthian empire, the enemies of Rome. However, even if the phrase, the ‘kingdom of arrogance,’ was in the first version, we still cannot see it as aimed against Rome. As noted, this was impossible, especially in the period between the two revolts in the Land of Israel, as well as in the days between the cancellation of the repressive legislation and the end of the second century. The Jewish sources are indeed full of attacks on Rome and negative attitudes towards her. But this fact does not conflict with our opinion. There is a significant difference between the definition of Rome as the ‘kingdom of wickedness’ (‘the 50 kingdom of arrogance does not appear in the sources ) in the retrospective view of later editing of the sources, for most of them are summaries and workups of internal debates in the institutions of learning in the Land of Israel, and especially in Babylonia, and between the public nature of the Prayer which was said in the Jewish world all over the Roman Empire, including in the city of Rome itself. For this reason there is no conflict between defining Rome as the kingdom of wickedness in our sources and between refraining from cursing her as the kingdom of arrogance in the Prayer. It is clear that the rabbis cannot and do not want to cut themselves off in their discussions, as in their aspirations, from Scripture and from the tradition which arises from this. Seeing Rome as the fourth kingdom

49

loc. cit. Only in the Mahzor Vitry (twelfth century) is there a similar phrase: “May the rule of arrogance [memshelet zadon], the dominion of wickedness [malkhut ha-resha‘ah] pass away, and may You rule.” This is apparently a development of what is written in the earlier Seder Rav Amram (no earlier than the tenth century) “And may all the wickedness [resha‘ah] vanish like smoke and may the rule of arrogance [memshelet zadon] pass away from the land.” On the value of these prayer-books, see Chapter 1, p. 13. 50

148

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed? 51

from the book of Daniel is what the text there demands. The expectation of the 52 punishment and fall of Rome at the End of Days, together with the acceptance that her existence in the present is the result of God’s plan, is understood. But from here to a public curse under the very nose of Rome, is too great a leap. Thus to sum up the conclusions: The general Roman policy towards the Jews was indeed tolerant, and her laws and restrictions did not offend Judaism, apart from the once-off restrictive legislation of Hadrian, but we should not see this tolerance as an opening for agreeing to attacks on Rome in the daily prayers. Despite the close surveillance of Palestinian Jewry in general, and in particular of halakhic rulings which might contradict Roman policy, Rome did not interfere in prayer or rites in this case, and did not need to interfere, for all through the second century there was no public anti-Roman curse in the prayers. Thus we have two different possibilities before us, the first more likely, and the second, a careful suggestion which can be given a logical base: 1. The phrase ‘kingdom of arrogance’ appears only in Babylonia and is aimed against Rome. From the general Jewish attitude which sees Rome as the kingdom of wickedness, in the Babylonian political atmosphere this phrase could be an element of public prayer without any fear of censure. Only hundreds of years later did this relationship in the prayer to Rome, i.e., the Babylonian version, arrive in the Land of Israel, since there were Babylonian communities in the Land of Israel whose prayer rite was the Babylonian rite. 2. The phrase, ‘kingdom of arrogance,’ appeared in the original blessing, which was current at least from the period of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh up to the end of the time of Rabbi Judah haNasi. But this phrase could not have been aimed against Rome because of the reasons we have mentioned, so that it is likely that it was aimed at another rule, as a term taken from a different dictionary of terms, for example, a theological one. In other words, its aim was religious polemic.

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven In rabbinic literature there is a clear distinction between an earthly kingdom and the kingdom of God. An earthly kingdom, which means the lordship and the area

51 Especially chapter 11. See I. Ben-Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots’ Struggle against Rome, (Jerusalem, 1993) pp. 277-278 (in Hebrew). 52 Genesis Rabbah lxiii, 10 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 393) or even in their own days, as it says in the Midrash: “What bit [zemam] did the Holy one blessed be He make for Esau? Said Rabbi Hama bar Rabbi Hanina: the Barbarians and the Germans [Goths and Huns], of which the Edomites [Romans] are afraid.” Trans. Soncino, loc. cit. lxxv, 9 (p. 887).

149

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven 53

54

ruled by kings, is mostly called by the name of the king or the dynasty or by 55 the name of the kingdom. When they are talking of a kingdom contemporary with the speakers or the editors of such discussions, and they can presume that people know which kingdom they are referring to, sometimes the expression is 56 simplified, such as ‘this kingdom’ and sometimes words are added which express a moral judgement, as we have seen already: ‘the kingdom of wickedness,’ etc. In contrast, the rule of God is called ‘the kingdom of heaven’ countless times 57 in our sources. 58 This was a new expression created by the rabbis, which appears in the Mishnah, and in the Jerusalem and Babylonian talmudim, mostly in tractate 59 Berakhot. It is not accidental that the ‘kingdom of heaven’ should be so common in a tractate which deals with the laws of prayer. For especially after the destruction of the Temple and the end of the public worship there, prayer became a substitute for these rites. Prayer itself becomes more organised and institutionalised, in particular under the aegis of the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh, who ordered the most important part of it, the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, and in particular Birkat haMinim. The link between the considerable frequency of the idea of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ in the tractate, and between the construction of Birkat haMinim in the Yavneh period is essential and very important. An intellectual expression of this link can be seen in the following Mishnah: 53

The kingdom of Saul [malkhut Sha’ul] : Avot deRabbi Natan, version B, xliii (ed. Schechter, p. 118) 54 The kingdom of the House of David [malkhut beit David] :Tosefta, Sotah xi, 1 (ed. Lieberman, p. 225) and in many other places in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmudim. 55 “The kingdom of Media […] the kingdom of Greece”: Mishnah, Gittin viii, 1; “the kingdom of Rome”: BT Shabbat 49a etc. Note a number of kingdoms in one passage: “One kingdom degrades and another kingdom raises up. When the kingdoms of Greece and Persia came in, the kingdom of Babylonia went out”: Midrash Psalms lxxvi, 3, (ed. Buber, pp. 338-339). 56 Mekhilta deRabbi Shimeon bar Yohai xiv, 10 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 53); Sifre Numbers cxxxi (ed. Horovitz, p. 170). The short form ‘kingdom’ in Mishnah, Avot iii, 2, in “he used to pray for the welfare of the kingdom,” means Rome. 57 Sometimes these are set off against one another, such as: “Since the kingdom of the house of David is mentioned, it is not seemly that the kingship of Heaven also should not be mentioned.” BT Berakhot 49a trans. Soncino. In other words, if the Royal house of David is mentioned in the blessing ‘rebuilds Jerusalem,’ one must also mention the kingdom of Heaven. 58 The expression does not exist in Scripture, although the idea of the kingdom of God is found in a number of places, in particular in the psalms. On the origin of this expression in Talmudic literature, see E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, (trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 66-79. 59 Mishnah, Berakhot ii, 2; 5. JT Berakhot ii, 4a; 4d; 5d etc. Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 10b; 13a-b; 14b; 15a; 16a; 20b-21a; 49a; 61b. in addition there are many mentions in the midrashei aggadah, but there is no need to bring them here for they are all based on the Talmud, and as such they are later, and demonstrate the later development of the expression the ‘kingdom of heaven,’ apparently in particular against the exceptional importance of this expression in Christianity.

150

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed? Rabbi Joshua ben Karha said: why does the section ‘Hear O Israel’ precede the section ‘And it shall come to pass if ye shall hearken [in the Shem‘a prayer]’? So that a man may first take upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and afterwards take upon him 60 the yoke of the commandments.

It looks as if it was not possible to disconnect the stress on the idea of the unity of God, which is the main part of the Shem‘a prayer, from the polemic with developing Christianity, which reached its peak in the fact of the construction of Birkat haMinim. There can be no doubt that the idea of unity is here, not only as the most important principle in the Jewish faith, but also as a barrier against the growing and crystallising ideas in Christian theology which wave the banner of the messianism, and in particular the godhead, of Jesus of Nazareth. These became the foundations of the faith which were set as the basis for the idea of the New Testament of God with his people, and the new age of the kingdom of his son, the kingdom of heaven. In the New Testament the idea of the kingdom of heaven appears as a central element in Christian thought. It is the heart of the gospel, and as such, it is presented, according to the theological form of the New Testament, as the fulfillment of the expectations found in the Hebrew Bible [the so-called Old Testament]. This idea is found in particular in the synoptic gospels and especially in the gospel of Matthew. As an answer to the expectations of the Old Testament and as a realisation of its prophecies, the idea of the kingdom of heaven in the gospels has a significance for the Time to Come. This significance is not only eschatological, as the expectation of the End of Days, but also, and more immediately, it relates to the period of the activities of Jesus on earth, and to the idea of the messianic revelation at the time of his crucifixion. It is difficult to draw the borders exactly between the nearer or further eschatological meanings, but it will be easier to distinguish defined stages of the building of the idea of the kingdom of heaven, stages which are parallel to the development of the new history according to the Christian theology implicit in the appearance of Jesus and his functions. In the further eschatological meaning too, it seems that the idea of the End of Days in the gospel is still in its first stage, i.e., it is speaking of an End which is visible and near. “[…] Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,” says Jesus 61 to his companions. This saying is not aimed at a clear future, but in another place in Matthew, this kingdom is connected to the End of the World, when “the Son of man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom 62 all things that offend.”

60

Mishnah, Berakhot ii, 2. Matthew 8:11. 62 Matthew 13:40-41. 61

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven

151

But even in his words about the End of Days, Jesus hints at the hidden existence of the kingdom of heaven which will soon be revealed: “Then shall the King say […] Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you 63 from the foundation of the world.” This idea develops in the Gospel of Luke into a near actuality visible to the eye: “[…] there be some standing here, which 64 shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God”. The imminence of the kingdom of heaven in its immediate meaning is even more clear in the sayings of Jesus right from the beginning of his activities, after he is tempted by Satan. These are his first words in the gospel of Matthew: 65 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The parallel in Mark is even more exact: “[…] The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent 66 ye and believe the gospel”. This is a kind of allusion to the belief that the kingdom of heaven is also linked to the period of the earthly activities of Jesus himself, or at least to the time of the revelation of the gospel at the end of his days on earth. Thus the idea developed its contemporary meaning. The existence of the kingdom is revealed by the acts of Jesus on earth. Like other ideas which touch on the realisation of the gospel, here too Jesus only speaks in hints: And the disciples came and said unto him Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the 67 kingdom of heaven.

In Luke the circle is closed of the hidden existence of the kingdom: “For behold, 68 the kingdom of God is within you”. Its revelation, at least to the closest disciples, is dependent, of course, on the degree of belief in the gospel, as Jesus says after exorcising a demon: “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the 69 kingdom of God is come unto you”. From these words it is clear that the idea of the kingdom of heaven is inherent in the figure and acts of Jesus, and therefore the existence of the idea is parallel to the fact of the existence of the Christian messiah. Thus it is possible to see the idea of the kingdom of heaven as equivalent to three main stages: the first, as noted, is the time of Jesus on earth. This is the time when he is revealed as messiah. And in other words, which reflect the idea of the Gospel, it is the kingdom – the same kingdom which exists from the beginning of creation – which is revealed, at first to the chosen among his disciples who

63

Matthew 25:31-34. Luke 9:27. Originally apparently as in Mark 9:1: “The kingdom of God comes with power.” See also Matthew 16:28: “The Son of man coming in his kingdom.” 65 Matthew 4:17. 66 Mark 1:15. 67 Matthew 13:10. 68 Luke 17:21. 69 Matthew 12:28. 64

152

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

believe in his gospel, and afterwards to the whole world at the time of the crucifixion. After this there appears the second stage of the kingdom of heaven, from Jesus’ ascent to heaven after his resurrection, until his second coming. This is the period of the Church. Finally, after the second coming and the defeat of Satan, the final perfect kingdom of heaven will be established. We are concerned here primarily with the second period, when the rule of the Church is the kingdom of heaven. At its outset, the arguments become a pointed polemic with pharisaic Judaism, where the peak from our point of view is the expression of the Jewish response in the form of the construction of Birkat haMinim, and the background to this. This link is can now produce a far-reaching hypothesis about the unclear nature of the kingdom in Birkat haMinim. We noted that the early days of the Church constitute the second stage of the kingdom of heaven. The idea arises from the words of Jesus himself, who links the transmission of his gospel to his disciples with the symbolic act of handing over the key to Peter: Thou art Peter […] and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever 70 thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven etc.

This symbolism defines the papal authority and the status of the Church in this intermediate period between the two comings of Jesus. This is the period which in its first stages this concept was formed, which was set out in the holy writings which were then being written. From now, everyone who joins the Church as 71 an individual decision and accepts its authority has the status of one who joins the kingdom. The book of Revelation closes the circle, as it were: “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us a 72 kingdom of priests to God and his Father.” The idea of the kingdom of heaven in the gospel of Matthew is based on three elements: 1. Jesus himself is the descendent of kings, according to the genealogy which 73 links him with the House of David. This is the legitimate basis of Jesus as the anointed king (christos) and the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the destiny of the descendent of the House of David. 2. The royal coming of Jesus is linked to the idea of heaven as ‘the kingdom of heaven’ by joining the first element, the kingdom, with the vision of Daniel: 74 “Behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,” and this is

70

Matthew 16:18-19. See Romans 14:17-18; and I Corinthians 4:20. 72 Revelation 1:6; and cf. Colossians 1:13: “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us in to the kingdom of his dear Son.” 73 Matthew chapter 1. 74 Daniel 7:13. 71

153

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven 75

confirmed by the acts of Jesus himself. He enters Jerusalem like a king, and he speaks in the Temple, and the peak of his words is the subject of his revelation: Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power 76 and great glory.

3. The use of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew can only seem to have the meaning of a polemic with the Judaism contemporary with the time of the composition of this gospel. This meaning raises even more the importance of the motif of the kingdom of heaven, in this gospel especially, using the method of all the gospels, which underline the unity of concepts and ideas originating in the Hebrew Bible (the idea of the kingdom on the one hand, and the coming from heaven on the other, in this case) with a theological goal which is different from its source in the Hebrew Bible. This is a polemic goal in this case, and it is expressed in a hidden struggle with contemporary Judaism, using a term which seems to be taken from the pharisaic Jewish terminology of the time. It is clear that we cannot know for certain in which of the two worlds, Jewish or Christian, the frequent use of the kingdom of heaven was born, but the massive use, both here and there, is evidence of the function of the kingdom of heaven as an idea which becomes central in the development of the world of Christian ideas and terms, just as in the development of ideas and beliefs in the Jewish world, although with a different significance. All this happens in the particular space of time in which the beginning of the polemic between the two streams is very strong. As such, this idea also expresses the development of the debate between Judaism and Christianity which springs from it, and makes problematic use of its ideas. The frequent appearance of the idea of the kingdom of heaven in the gospel of Matthew actually confirms this phenomenon. The gospel seems to be aimed at the Jewish reader of its time and thus it uses a Jewish term of the time, but, as noted, with the Christian interpretation of an amalgam of terms from the Hebrew Bible. It is even possible to suppose that the ‘kingdom of heaven’ infiltrated Jewish terminology frequently and obviously because of the Christian interpretation which was given to it, although this supposition in no way undermines the hypothesis that the kingdom of heaven in its contemporary form was written as an expression of the authority of the Church, i.e., in the period between the ascent of Jesus to heaven and the Second Coming. This kingdom it is which expresses one of the principles in the polemic between early Christianity and contemporary Judaism. This is what is meant in the Sermon on the Mount, where it is not by ac-

75

Matthew 20:29-31; 21:1-5. Matthew 24:30.

76

154

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

cident that Jesus begins “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom 77 of heaven.” The sermon then continues: Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets….Whosoever therefore shall break one of those least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the 78 kingdom of heaven.

This is clear incitement against the Pharisees, who see their halakhot as the result of being in awe of the kingdom of heaven. The doctrine of Jesus, on the other hand, which supplies what is missing in the Torah and therefore what is missing in the Pharisee halakhot, is an entry permit to the kingdom of heaven in what the gospel sees as its correct form. Thus the disciples of this doctrine are those 79 to whom is given to understand the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, as opposed to the doctrine of the Pharisees whom Jesus accuses: “For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye 80 them that are entering to go in.” It will be easier if we suppose that the existence of this sort of accusation on the gospel is a response to Jewish use of this concept, which grows and takes root at this period. It is even clear that the polemic tone did not remain without an answer. Although we cannot find in our sources a direct and specific answer to Christian use of the kingdom of heaven, various different expressions of polemic against Christianity as it was then crystallising can be found frequently. The most significant answer is the very existence of Birkat haMinim. Therefore we must ask whether this curse, whose very construction sums up and concentrates the Jewish stance against Christian minut in all its forms, is not meant to include within itself the response to the most important principle of developing Christian belief: the idea of the kingdom of heaven, which is revealed in the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, and above all the concept of the kingdom of heaven as an expression of the status of the Church which takes its place as so central a concept at this period. If this is so, and if the kingdom of arrogance was indeed included in the first version of Birkat haMinim, should we not see it as aimed against the kingdom of heaven in its Christian guise, i.e., the concept of its embodiment in the status of the Church? (Of course, this is given the proviso that the status of the Church as the kingdom of heaven in the interim period was already known and crystallised

77

Matthew 5:3. Matthew 5:17-20. 79 Matthew 13:11. 80 Matthew 23:13. 78

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven

155

at the time of writing of Birkat haMinim). The following baraita backs up our proposition: Our Rabbis taught: How did they ‘wrap the Shem‘a? They recited ‘Hear O Israel, our God the Lord is One’ and they did not make a pause: this is Rabbi Meir’s view. Rabbi Judah said: They did make a pause, but they did not recite ‘Blessed be the name of His glorious Kingdom for ever and ever.’ And what is the reason that we do recite it? – Even as Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish expounded. For Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said: ‘And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you [that which shall befall you in the end of days]’ (Genesis 49:1). Jacob wished to reveal to his sons the ‘end of days,’ whereupon the Shechinah departed from him. Said he, ‘Perhaps, Heaven forfend! there is one unfit among my children, like Abraham, from whom there issued Ishmael, or like my father Isaac, from whom there issued Esau.’ [But] his sons answered him, ‘Hear O Israel, our God the Lord is One: just as there is only One in thy heart, so is there in our heart only One.’ In that moment our father Jacob opened [his mouth] and exclaimed: ‘Blessed be the name of His glorious Kingdom for ever and ever.’ Said the Rabbis, How shall we act? Shall we recite it, – but our teacher Moses did not say it. Shall we not say it – but Jacob said it! [Hence] they enacted that it should be recited quietly. Rabbi Isaac said, the school of Rabbi Ammi said: This is to be compared with to a king’s daughter who smelled a spicy pudding. If she reveals [her desire], she suffers disgrace; if she does not reveal it, she suffers pain. So her servants began bringing it to her in secret. [Rabbi Abbahu said: They [the Sages] enacted that this should be recited aloud, on account of the resentment of minim. 81 But in Neharde’a, where there are no minim, so far they recite it quietly.]

We have here a discussion of the late deliberations of the rabbis about the source 82 and structure (sentence by sentence or all at once) of the Shem‘a prayer, and after this a discussion of the liturgical response ‘Blessed be the name of his glo83 rious kingdom for ever and ever.’ In this baraita the rabbis are trying to find in earlier times explanations for the addition of ‘Blessed be the name etc.,’ with the well-known tendency to relate the construction of blessings to the patriarchs. This relation provides the forced explanation, but the explanation fits the atmos-

81

BT Pesahim 56a. The correction in the name of Rabbi Abbahu does not appear in the body of the text according to the Munich MS. of the Babylonian Talmud, but was added in the margin next to the baraita. See Munich MS. (95), p.120; and also Diqduqe Soferim ad loc., p. 166. However Rashi relates to the incitement of the minim quoted from Rabbi Abbahu, and Hannanel ben Hushiel adds: ‘Our rabbis laid down that in a place where there are no minim you should say this quietly, and in a place where there are minim you should say it aloud. Hannanel adds: ‘In Usha minim were common.’ See Hannanel ben Hushiel, Commentary on Pesahim, (ed. D. Metzger, Jerusalem, 1971), p. 129 (in Hebrew). 82 On whether the Shem‘a was read verse by verse with responses [perisa] or all at once [kerikha] see I. Elbogen, (above, n. 2), p.376. 83 From here: ‘Blessed be the name etc.’

156

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed? 84

phere of the time, and the change in the custom of saying the response, quietly 85 or aloud. It is possible that there is in the words of the rabbis a correct analysis that the quiet response preceded the response aloud, and the change of the custom is recorded in the name of Rabbi Abbahu. The end of the baraita tells us that the change was apparently dependent on the time and circumstances, so that it appears that at least at the time of the baraita the custom differed from place to 86 place. At least two of the rabbis mentioned in the baraita, Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi 87 Abbahu, are known from polemical meetings with minim. In this source, according to Rabbi Abbahu, the polemic with the minim is the direct cause of saying Blessed be the name etc., aloud. We do not know why there was a tradition 88 of saying the reponse quietly, and what its source was but it is enough to know that it existed, since this information is given to underline the change in custom which is changing its application, because of the urgent and important need of the time. On the one hand, we can see in the public reading of the Shem‘a itself 89 a suitable response to minut, in that it stresses that God is One, but on the other hand, it is clear that there is, in the make-up of Blessed be the name etc., an element whose value rose so considerably because of the needs of the time, that it had to be underlined and said aloud at certain times and in certain conditions.

84 Various stories [aggadot] were composed to explain why the response Blessed be the name etc was said quietly. For example: “And why does Israel say it quietly? When Moses went up on high he stole it from the angels and taught it to Israel.” Deuteronomy Rabbah veEthanan (ed. Lieberman, p. 68) and see a similar tradition in the Genizah text of Midrash Tanhuma to Deuteronomy, L. Ginzberg, (ed.), Ginze Schechter: Genizah Studies in Memory of Dr. Solomon Schechter, I, (New York, 1929), p. 122. 85 Apart from the custom mentioned above of answering, Blessed be the name etc. only on the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur]. Deuteronomy Rabbah loc. cit. 86 We must note in this context the source about the men of Jericho also: “Our rabbis taught: the men of Jericho did six things: three were approved by the rabbis and three not approved by the rabbis: these were approved by the rabbis: they grafted palm trees all day [on Passover eve]; they read the Shem‘a without a break; they harvest before the Omer.” Mishnah, Pesahim iv ,8. 87 Rabbi Ammi is mentioned in a debate about the revival of the dead under the Babylonian formula ‘That min said to him.’ BT Sanhedrin 91a. Rabbi Abbahu was involved many times in this sort of meeting. See Chapter 2, pp. 125-126. Rabbi Yitzhak the colleague of Hananiah, Rabbi Joshua’s brother’s son, met minim in Capernaum: Ecclesiastes Rabbah i, 8 (ed. Hirshman, lines 400-416). On the status of Rabbi Abbahu in his time, see I.L. Levine ‘R. Abbahu of Caesarea’, J. Neusner, ed., Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults, Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, (Leiden, 1975), pp. 57-76. 88 Like the opinion according to which the custom to pray quietly was instituted against the custom of the pagans to pray aloud: see H.A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy, (Cambridge, Mass. 1948) pp. 248-242, but suggestions like these are not well enough founded and do not relate to the matter under discussion. 89 See E E. Urbach, The Sages, (above, n. 57), pp. 21-36.

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven

157

The response to the public reading of the Shem ‘a prayer blesses the glorious kingdom of God for ever and ever. And here it is clear that the ‘incitement 90 [tar‘omet] of the minim’ is the change they have made in the current custom by saying this response aloud. This change is in contradistinction to the minim, 91 or because of them. In other words, not only does the declaration of unity in the public reading of the Shem‘a respond to the need to cope with minut, but in certain circumstances, perhaps at a time when the minim were still present in synagogues, it also stressed the eternal kingdom of the One God, as a barrier against these minim. The words of Weiss are enlightening here: “The subject of this blessing is the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and it was constructed by zealots who said that one should not accept the yoke of a mortal kingdom, but the kingdom of heaven, but they said it quietly to keep their peace with the earthly kingdom. And now many of the Pharisees were suspected of minut, and perhaps they found that some of the suspects were joining the name of heaven with the name of Jesus in accepting the kingdom of heaven quietly, 92 therefore they ruled that the acceptance should be said aloud.” It is not important whether there is any foundation for the supposition of 93 Weiss as to the exact pretext – whether it was saying the name of Jesus, or whether it was something else – for it is clear that the obvious reason, at least 94 according to what is written, is the kingdom of heaven. Those who constructed Birkat haMinim had exactly the same need to identify which of those participat95 ing in the prayer was a min (‘they suspect he is a min.’ )

90

Trans. of tar’omet in this context follows Jastrow. See the note of Ravidovitch in his edition of Nachman Krochmal’s Guiding the Perplexed of the Modern Age, (Berlin, 1924), p. 163: “ They ruled… that they should say Blessed be the name etc aloud because of the incitements of the minim, the explanation of this is that they should not cheat and deceive us, [claiming] that we give thanks quietly for the element that is hinted at for them in Scriptures, in the matter of the plurality of separate spirits and powers which act by themselves in the Godhead.” 92 I.H. Weiss, (above, n. 25), pp. 219-220. 93 Although there is a similarity between what Weiss says and Ephesians 3:21: “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all the ages, world without end.” And also in Jude 1:25: “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever.” Cf. E. Werner, ‘The Doxology in Synagogue and Church’, HUCA 19 (19451946), pp. 287ff. These suggestions have no firm basis. 94 Heinemann claims that in spite of the fact that there are other versions which are similar, in all of them there are three basic elements: ‘Blessed,’ ‘the name’ and ‘for ever.’ Thus it is possible to see all of them as variants on the same phrase, for as he says: “They certainly must have attributed a theoretical and practical meaning to the motif of the ‘kingdom’ which was in the text of Blessed be the name etc.” See J. Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tannaim and the Amoraim, (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 86 (in Hebrew). 95 BT Berakhot 29a. 91

158

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

This is not the first time that the rabbis needed to make a change in prayer 96 or custom because of minim. The addition of Birkat haMinim to the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, as noted, is the outstanding example, but there is a further precedent, no less instructive. The Mishnah tells us as follows: “At the close of every benediction in the temple they used to say ‘From the everlasting;’ but after the 97 minim had taught corruptly and said that there is but one world it was ordained 98 that they should say from everlasting to everlasting”. Even though it is not possible to know for certain whether there is really a change here, for the version 99 ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ is found in scripture, at least according to the Mishnah, there is a change where the reason is because ‘the minim taught corruptly.’ Therefore the question whether there was indeed an actual change does not add to or subtract from the fact of the existence of the well-known controversy with the minim about the revival of the dead, which is expressed here in the form of an unclear tradition about the closures of the blessings in the time of the Second Temple. Whether or not there was a change, the importance of this Mishnah is in the attempt to explain it by something which was well-known to its contemporaries, i.e., the polemic with the minim. Furthermore, the Tosefta adds another tradition from the time of the Second Temple, which, in spite of the uncertainty in it, can be seen as a sort of closing of the circle: “On the first he says: Blessed be the God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting; blessed be the redeemer of Israel. And they answer after him: Blessed be the name of his 100 glorious kingdom for ever and ever.” It is clear that this is a late tradition, and the two subjects discussed in this source are here combined together, the blessing ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ together with the response ‘blessed be the name, etc.’ Combining these two blessings, which were changed, according to tradition, following the polemic with the minim, demonstrates at the least the consistency of the tannaim in keeping to their aims, responding to the needs of the time as they understood them by changing the custom. As well as all these, it appears that the most dramatic change, also linked to the Shem‘a, was the removal of the Ten Commandments from the public reading. This too was because of the minim:

96

Mishnah, Megillah iv, 9. For a detailed discussion of this, see p. 329. In the Babylonian Mishnah in the printed versions it has zaduqim This is why Lauterbach thinks this is dealing with the Zadokites: L. Lauterbach, ‘Midrash and Mishna’, JQR 6 (19151916), p. 314 n.86. On the changing of minim by Zadokites, see p. 168. 98 Mishnah, Berakhot ix, 5; Tosefta, Berakhot vi, 21 (ed. Lieberman, p. 39). It is possible that this source is dealing with the controversy with the Zadokites, but this does not add to or subtract from our subject. 99 Psalms 21:14; 106:48; I Chronicles 16:36. 100 Tosefta, Taanit i, 12 (ed. Lieberman, p. 327). The main part of this tradition which links the response Blessed be the name etc. to the Temple relates primarily to Yom Kippur. See Mishnah, Yoma iii, 8; iv, 8. 97

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven

159

They say that they used to read the Ten Commandments every day. And why don’t they read them [any longer]? Because of the claim of the minim, that they should not say that 101 these only were given to Moses at Sinai. 102

Here the change is considerable and real. It is not like the change in the response Blessed be the name, etc., where the change was from a quiet response to a loud response, and not like that of ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ where there is a biblical source for the adapted text. Here there is a deletion of a primary basis of belief which demonstrates that the changes involved in the fight 103 against the minim were considerable, and sometimes painful, penetrating deep 104 into the fabric of the prayers. The editors of the Babylonian Talmud even took the trouble to present later disputes over the demands of the Babylonian rabbis to renew the public reading of the Ten Commandments at the time of the reading of the Shem‘a prayer. These demands were rejected. Rabba bar bar Hana asks for this in Sura, and is rejected by Rav Hisda; Amemar asks later to renew the 101 JT i, 3c, and parallels in BT Berakhot 12a (where it says the incitement [tar’omet] of the minim). For a general survey of the subject, see E.E. Urbach, ‘The Place of the Ten Commandments in Ritual and Prayer’, B.Z. Segal (ed.), The Ten Commandments, (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 127-145. 102 On the juxtaposition of the Ten Commandments with the Shem‘a, Mishnah, Tamid v, 1 writes: “The officer said to them: Say one benediction. They said a benediction, read the Ten Commandments, Shem‘a, and ‘It shall come to pass if you hearken’.” A Hebrew text which includes the Ten Commandments next to the Shem‘a is to be found in the Nash Papyrus. See S. A. Cooke, ‘A Pre-Masoretic Biblical Papyrus’, PSBA 25 (1903), pp. 34-56. It is true that there are doubts as to the dating of this papyrus, but these are not really relevant to us here. See V. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, (above, n. 36), I, pp. 197-198. 103 G. Vermes, ‘The Decalogue and the Minim’, In Memoriam Paul Kahle, (M. Black & G. Fohrer eds. Berlin, 1968), pp. 246-249. Note that following the story about the cancellation of the reading of the Ten Commandments in the Jerusalem Talmud there is a story about a further cancellation: “Rav Shemuel ben Nahman in the name of Rav Yehudah ben Zebuda There they used to read the story of Balak and Bilam every day.” They do not read this passage in order not to ‘bother the community’. From the sequel it is possible to understand that there are very good reasons for reading the passage, such as ‘the Exodus and the Kingdom.’ The reason for the cancellation with the excuse of ‘bothering the community’ is not convincing. It is possible that there is here a faint echo of the controversy between Judaism and Christianity on the interpretation of the verse “there shall come a star out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel” (Numbers 24:17), in other words, the king or kingdom of the End of Days, but this needs further investigation. 104 The linking of the cancellation of the Ten Commandments to the construction of Birkat haMinim, has been discussed already by M. Joël, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, I, (Breslau, 1880), p. 36; A. Aptowitzer, ‘‫ ’בשכמל“ו‬MGWJ 73 (1929), p. 111; For the link to Blessed be the name etc: C. Albeck, Introduction to Mishnah, Berakhot, The Six Orders of the Mishnah, I, (Order Zeraim), (Jerusalem, 1957), p. 9. The link between this episode and the beginning of Christianity has been discussed in a further article by Aptowitzer: see A. Aptowitzer, ‘Bemerkungen zur Liturgie und Geschichte der Liturgie’, MGWJ 74 (1930), p. 104 ff. In spite of doubts in this context, (E.E. Urbach, The Ten Commandments, [above, n. 100], p. 133) it seems very possible.

160

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed? 105

tradition in Neharde‘a, and is rejected by Rav Ashi. The problem of the minim in Babylonia is not acute in comparison with the Land of Israel, and certainly not 106 compared with the Yavneh period. We have already seen the text in Pesahim: 107 “But in Neharde’a, where there are no minim, so far they recite it quietly.” So strong is the power of tradition in this respect, that even in Babylonia they do not permit change, even if the conditions and circumstances have changed entirely. Therefore, in comparison to the cutting out of the Ten Commandments, it appears that the change in the liturgical custom of answering Blessed be the name etc. was much easier to accept and adapt to the spirit of the times. Thus we should not doubt its meaning and importance, at least insofar as the tannaim understood it. The explanation of the Mishnah, together with the other decisions, and in addition our discussion above, demonstrate beyond all doubt a certain side of the struggle with the minim and its visible effects on customs and traditions, and especially those which touch on prayer. This clear background casts further light on the supposition that the change in the way of responding in Blessed be the name etc is completely faithful to the spirit of the words cited in the name of one of the best-known polemicists with the minim, Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea. It makes no difference whether the end of the baraita as it exists in the printed versions was in the original text or not. Thus this evidence, which joins a chain of other pieces of evidence, is not just circumstantial evidence but quite direct. The motif of the kingdom, or the kingdom of heaven, was a central value in the tannaitic and also the amoraic dispute with the minim. This fact casts new light on the status and value of the element ‘kingdom of arrogance’ in Birkat haMinim. Birkat haMinim is known by this name in the sources, in the Babylonian 108 Talmud, in the Jerusalem Talmud, and in the Tosefta. From these sources we learn that from the beginning of its construction it was understood that the problem of the minim was the very essence and heart of the blessing. As such, Birkat haMinim was an extremely powerful force in religious polemics. We have already vetoed the suggestion that the blessing existed in any form before the Yavneh period. Thus the motif of the kingdom, as an expression of an earthly kingdom, whether it be the Roman Empire or any other kingdom, cannot be harmonised with the conceptual structure and nature of Birkat haMinim, at least as it was styled for the needs of the period of its construction. It is possible to debate whether there was a reconciliation, or the appearance of a reconciliation, with Roman rule, at least before the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. It is certain 105

BT Berakhot 12a. And see the story of Hanina, the son of the brother of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah who is sent from the Land of Israel to Babylonia after an embarrassing encounter with minim: Ecclesiastes rabbah i. 107 In my view, the Soncino puts the comma in the wrong place: “But in Neharde’a, where there are no minim so far, they recite it quietly.” 108 See chapter 1, p. 9ff. 106

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven

161

that there was such a reconciliation after the revolt, but there can be no doubt that there were no circumstances which allowed a public curse against Rome. In the days of Yavneh, the problem of the minim was far more acute than the question of the complex relations with Rome. Rabban Gamaliel was completely free to institute a curse against the minim among the blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh, but he was not free, and certainly not interested, to institute a curse against 109 the Roman Empire. The attempt to reconstruct the early versions of Birkat haMinim does not allow us to demonstrate incontrovertibly whether the term ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was included among them. If it was included in the original version, this kingdom could have been harmonised with the spirit of the blessing only if this motif was adapted to the general opinion on the minim. But this sort of harmony could only exist on one condition: only if there was a symbolic and conceptual meaning for the kingdom of arrogance which suited the atmosphere which demanded the construction of a curse against the minim, and only if this came from the vocabulary which characterised this struggle at its peak. The motif of the kingdom, or the kingdom of heaven, had quite a central place in this conceptual world. As time went on, at least in the presumed space of time which we can define in our sources, changes occurred and circumstances altered. We know that the problem of the minim did not move from the Land of Israel to Babylonia with the same degree of intensity which had characterised the period of the construction of the blessing. It is possible that the phrase, ‘kingdom of arrogance’ was added only then, in Babylonia, to the text of Birkat haMinim. It is very possible that then it was indeed aimed against Rome, a supposition which it is possible to confirm from the use of this judgmental term in parallel to the other terms of abuse current in the Babylonian Talmud for the Roman Empire (kingdom of wicked110 ness etc), together with the hope that it would fall. It is even very possible that the change in the dimension of time and the new concatenation of circumstances created in this same new atmosphere a different attitude to the problem of the minim, an attitude which had in it a combination of the two hypotheses which have been discussed in this chapter: the first, if the kingdom of arrogance existed in the textual version which was constructed by the rabbis in the Yavneh period, then its aim was only against Christian minut; and the second, that the kingdom of arrogance could have been aimed against the Roman Empire, but only at a period much later than Yavneh. The late combination of these two hypotheses 109

For a similar conclusion see W. Horbury, ‘Benediction’, (above, n. 21), pp. 42-43, although in his estimation the blessing should be seen in the context of the End of Days, since the blessing brings hope of destruction of sins and the end of pagan rule. However this analysis of his can only be correct for the atmosphere of the later Middle Ages, when the Jews were forced to protect themselves in particular in the major controversies against apostates and Christians, so that they took on similar outlooks. 110 Eg: “Victory – this is the fall of Rome.” BT Berakhot 58a.

162

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

means that Birkat haMinim, in its later versions, at least from the fourth century on, relates to Rome and to her Christianity. This understanding arises from the following Mishnah: With the foot prints of the messiah presumption shall increase and dearth reach its height; the vine shall yield its fruit but the wine shall be costly and the empire shall fall into minut 111 and there shall be none to utter reproof.

There can be no doubt that we have here a baraita which was added to the 112 Mishnah long after its redaction in the days of Rabbi Judah haNasi. It is very tempting to see this Mishnah as the crowning demonstration that the kingdom 113 here is a religious value, but it is clear that this baraita is talking about Rome and it is hinting at a historical development which took place during the fourth 114 century: the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Thus Birkat haMinim in its late version, including the kingdom of arrogance, is also aimed at Rome, both because of the long and bloody history, and also against the Christianity of the empire. It is also clear that in the fourth century the term minut is somewhat different from its original intention, and it is also aimed at the Christian world proper, and not just at the early Palestinian situation of a nearby and threatening mixture of populations. This still leaves its mark, and whether or not it was still extant in Babylonia, and perhaps also in the Land of Israel of the time of the later amoraim, the traditions and handiwork of the tannaim are still recognizable. 111

Mishnah, Sotah ix, 15. To be more exact, a Babylonian baraita: see W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, II, (Strassburg, 1890), p. 236. 113 Herford, who denies the attribution of the saying to Rabbi Eliezer as the version of the Mishnah has it, and prefers to relate it to Rabbi Nehemiah, as in the version of the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a, claims that ‘the kingdom shall fall into minut’ is only an allegorical way of showing the amount of universal spread of minut: R.T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, (London, 1910), p. 209 114 Bacher loc. cit. n. 1, deduces this from a similar ruling in the name of Rav Yitzhak the Babylonian: “The Son of David will not come until the kingdom is taken over by minut”: BT Sanhedrin 97a. This is the continuation of the baraita under discussion in the name of Rabbi Nehemiah. The content of this Mishnah is also found in the Palestinian midrash Canticles Rabbah ii, 4, under the name of the tanna Rabbi Nehemiah. A little before this, in the same midrash, it says in the name of Rabbi Berechiah, one of the fourth generation of the Palestinian amoraim, that with the revelation of the king Messiah, “the time of the kingdom of the Kutim will be finished, and the time of the kingdom of heaven will be revealed.” In Pesiqta Rabbati xvi (ed. Friedman, p. 75) “The time will come when the wicked will be broken, the Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked (Isaiah 14:5) the time will come when this kingdom of wickedness will be uprooted from the world, the time will come when the kingdom of heaven will be revealed.” ‘the wicked will be broken/crushed’ belongs to the textual versions of Birkat haMinim from the Middle Ages, and this term is juxtaposed here to parallel the end of the kingdom of wickedness, i.e., Rome, and the beginning of the kingdom of heaven. In the Yalqut Shim‘oni on Canticles, ii, § 986: “The time will come of the fourth kingdom.” 112

The Kingdom of Arrogance and the Christian Kingdom of Heaven

163

From our discussion up to now, two possibilities arise: if Birkat haMinim included the kingdom of arrogance in its second century versions, then it was aimed at a kingdom in the theological sense only; and if this term was included in the blessing from the fourth century, and in particular in the Babylonian versions, its intent was both theological and national. We can find support for both these possibilities in the writings of the fathers of the church who were active at parallel times. Justin Martyr, who lived in the second half of the second century, blames the Jews for cursing the ‘king of Israel,’ i.e., Jesus, in the synagogue 115 after prayers, on the instructions of their Pharisee teachers. In other places, 116 Justin claims that the Jews curse all the Christians. Although there is no decisive proof that this is related to Birkat haMinim, we cannot doubt the reliability of this evidence. Even if Justin did not relate explicitly to Birkat haMinim, the blessing was in fact being said in his day. He even notes that Jesus as king of Israel is being cursed at the instructions of the Pharisees, and here the Christian motif of the kingdom has been placed as a further focus, and quite a central one, in the Jewish-Christian debate of the second century. It is true that this is not an incontrovertible confirmation of the hypothesis that the kingdom of arrogance in Birkat haMinim is a theological concept, but it is a further illustration of our opinion, if indeed this term was included in the blessing in the second century. Jerome, in the fourth century, is even closer to those of our conclusions which relate to his time. Jerome claims three times that the Jews curse the Christians 117 118 under the name notzrim. In contrast, in another source, Jerome says that in 119 synagogues in the East there is a sect called minim among the Jews. This sect is 120 rejected by the Pharisees, and is also called notzrim by the Jews. Jerome’s different use of words in his different works does not necessarily mean that he was confusing terms or contradicting himself. In the situation in the fourth century, these two things could have existed side by side, as we have seen in the Jewish sources. The antagonism to the minim also exists in Babylonia, both because they existed in Babylonia (although their number was much smaller and their danger less) and also because of the power of the early traditions. Thus the influence of the antagonism to the minim, and the condemnation of Christianity in general, join the feelings of animosity for Rome, in particular Christian Rome, and from this point of view there was no difference between the Byzantine Empire or the West. And as we have seen, it is even very possible that it was in this period that 115

Dialogue 137. Loc. cit. 16; 96. 117 For discussion and references see chapter 1, p. 55, n. 199. 118 Ep. cxii:13, in: CSEL 55, pp. 381-382; J. Labourt (ed.), Saint Jérôme: Lettres, VI, (Paris, 1958), pp. 31-32. See above, p. 56 and below, p. 348. 119 Latin: Minaei. See discussion p. 348f. 120 Latin: Nazaraei. 116

164

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

the doublet notzrim and minim was created in Birkat haMinim, as a kind of con121 firmation for the words of Jerome.

The Minim: Sources, Etymology and Time-Frame In the light of the conclusions of our discussion above, on the status and possible explanations of the kingdom of heaven in Birkat haMinim, this heading naturally sums up the main problem of this chapter. The question, who was Birkat haMinim aimed at, is now tested, based on the three main conclusions of the earlier chapters: 1. The archetype of the blessing, which arises from the analysis of the findings and allusions from the whole body of sources which have been examined, shows that the blessing was constructed only against the minim, as its title indicates. 2. The blessing was constructed in the Yavneh period and was not founded on an earlier base with different intentions. 3. The blessing was first worded on the basis of a religious polemic only, and without any nationalist intentions. The central question, who were the minim, cannot be examined outside the framework of these conclusions, for our research canvas cannot spread much further than the framework of investigation of the different passages which touch on Birkat haMinim itself in the period when it was composed. The blessing then developed further, and its elements and its objects changed over the years, and even in the first centuries of its use, as a result of changes in the conditions of time, place and historical circumstances. Old terms were indeed preserved, but a new explanatory covering was added to them, and sometimes objects were defined and added to the blessing (the kingdom of arrogance, notzrim etc). The meaning of Birkat haMinim moved further and further away from its original intention. However, it is this first intention which is the heart and the object of this study, so that the main subject of discussion in this chapter is the question who were the minim against whom the blessing was constructed, in the context of the time, the conditions and the circumstances when it was constructed. More than three hundred passages of sources about the minim and minut 122 are scattered over our sources. However, because of the very nature of such 121

This doublet is found in particular in the versions from the Cairo Genizah, although in the Middle Ages, and in particular the period of the Geonim, the original minim disappear, and their place is taken by groups of Karaites and other divergent groups in this context. See chapter 1, p. 39ff. 122 They are to be found in the Mishnah, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim, the Tosefta, the minor tractates, and midrashei halakhah and aggadah. A selection, classified according to subject is found in H.L. Strack, Jesus die Häretiker und die Christen, (Leipzig,

The Minim: Sources, Etymology and Time-Frame

165

sources, these passages are not dispersed differentially in sections according the periods of time. While there is wide agreement as to the time of editing of the Mishnah and the Talmudim, there is a difference of opinion as to the status of the 123 Tosefta, especially on the question of whether it preceded the Talmudim. Even those sources for which there is agreement as to the time of their editing are made 124 up of different layers. A similar problem, perhaps even more complex, exists in the midrashim. About a third of all the passages dealing with minim are found in this literature, mostly in the midrashei aggadah. Most of the source passages in the midrashei aggadah are taken from the Mishnah, the Talmudim and the 125 Tosefta, and because they are usually secondary their importance is less. Other midrashic passages are unique, and their contents look to be of good quality, but the midrashim themselves are many generations later than the stories brought in 126 them so that they have to be examined one by one, giving some sort of preference, according to the subject, to definitely Palestinian midrashim. In the light of these problems in the sources, methodological principles have been laid down in this study as follows: first preference will be given to definitely tannaitic sources. For the rest of the sources, the question of precedence will be set according to every source separately, if it has good and unique content, and particularly for those set in late sources like the Babylonian baraitot, the minor tractates and late midrashim, or sources whose status is unclear, like the passages from the Tosefta. This, of course, includes classification according to the time of editing of the sources, if this is known to us. All these will be examined in the framework of the defined canvas of the central question of this chapter: who were the minim in the period when Birkat haMinim was constructed? From the beginning of research into the question of the identity of the minim 127 up to the present day, there has usually been no systematic differentiation between sources or tracing of the development of the term in the light of changes 128 in time and historical circumstances. This fact has caused many problems. It is possible that this is the reason that, up to now, no wide-ranging and all-em1906), appendix pp. 1-40; R.T. Herford, Christianity, (above, n. 112), appendix pp. 401-436. For the Christian sources see p. 300f. 123 See the discussion of the status of the Tosefta above, p. 69 n. 248. 124 Eg. Mishnah, Sotah xv, and of course the different Talmudic baraitot. 125 On the problems of using sources later than the subjects under discussion, see: B.L. Visotzky, ‘Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish-Christianities in Rabbinic Literature, id., Fathers of the World, (Leiden, 1995), pp. 143-144. 126 Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah is one of this sort of midrash. 127 Discussion of the development of this research and bibliography will be included in the relevant places. 128 See the analysis of common problems and mistakes in the research literature in M. Simon, Verus Israel, (trans. H. McKeating, London, 1996), p. 180. Simon claims, correctly, that the attempt to give a single answer to the question of the identity of the minim as they appear in all the sources, without differentiation, is doomed to failure.

166

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

bracing study has been written on the question of the minim, but mostly papers limited in their scope and content. It may be the reason, too, that it has been only 129 a side issue in many works which have spread a wide historical canvas, or an element which it was impossible to avoid in countless works dealing with the 130 complex question of Jewish-Christian relations. In the absence of an ordered system for the classification of the different source passages in particular, and in the absence of definitions of times and circumstances by which to examine these source passages, the question of the iden131 tity of the minim is liable to reach a dead end. These source passages deal with many subjects in many contexts where the only common denominator between them is their polemic nature. Thus, for example, we know formulae of lists of 132 sinners whose source is probably the Tosefta, where most of them open with 133 a mention of the minim. There are halakhic bans and changes in customs and 134 prayers which derive from the argument with the minim. Certain acts or prayer 135 customs are defined as raising suspicions of minut. Many passages are edited in the format of a controversy, in particular using the Babylonian formula: ‘That 136 min said to him’. Other passages are presented using a different literary pattern,

129

Works typical of the early stage of historical research – many of them by Jewish scholars – such as Graetz, Weiss, Alon and many others. Exact references will be given according to subject in the discussion below. 130 Most of these have been written by Christian scholars, the majority Germans, in the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. A minority are from the school of Christian Hebraists in the seventeenth century. A partial bibliography is found in E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II, (Leipzig, 19074), pp. 543-544, and further bibliography in the English edition: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, A New English Version, revised and edited by G. Vermes & F. Millar & M. Black, I, (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 462-463; H. Strack, Jesu, (above, n. 121), pp. 6-7, and a wide-ranging and up to date bibliography in Krauss/ Horbury, The Jewish-Christian Controversy, (above, n. 18), pp. 262-284. The latter also contains items which deal with the Jewish-Christian polemic at later times, up to the seventeenth century. Relevant items from these lists will be cited in the body of this work. 131 Naturally there is no possibility of citing the references to all the three hundred sources here. Sources will be noted in the discussions specific to each. Following this, examples will be given of the different contexts in which the minim are mentioned. 132 Tosefta, Sanhedrin xiii, 5: “The minim and the apostates [meshumadim] and the betrayers [moserot] and the heretics [epiqorsin] etc.” 133 For example, those accompanied by a reason: ‘lest he confirm [yehaqeh] the minim’: Mishnah, Hullin ii, 9. See too the extension on the bans in Tosefta, Hullin ii, 20. (On the translation of the term yehaqeh, see below, chapter 4, p. 214. 134 Accepting evidence of the New Moon: Mishnah Rosh haShanah, ii, 1; Changes in liturgical customs such as the response: ‘Blessed be the name etc.’: above p. 155; ‘From everlasting to everlasting’: Mishnah, Berakhot ix, 5 etc. 135 BT Berakhot 29a. 136 There are dozens of source passages with this formula: see chapter 2 p. 125.

The Minim: Sources, Etymology and Time-Frame

167

137

where minim present polemical questions to rabbis. In other places there are more detailed stories of problematic meetings with minim. These places are the 138 only ones where minim appear as individuals identified by names, while some 139 of them even relate to particular places in the Land of Israel. The few sources where there is a hint of a description for the minim or some other form of ascription, not only do not help to reach a solution, but make things more difficult. 140 Thus, when there is min called a ‘Galilean’ in the Mishnah it looks as if this 141 should be more than a simple geographical identification of where he lives; in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah there is a discussion which, from its content, seems 142 to be referring to minim from Antioch; in the Babylonian Talmud there is a con143 troversy between Rav Kahana and a min who seems to be Persian; an aggadah told about a meeting between Alexander the Great and Shim‘on haTzadiq de144 scribes a Samaritan min; the Babylonian Talmud tells us of two sorts of minim who argue with Rabbi Judah haNasi, one of whom is apparently a Gnostic and 145 the other a Jew, since he is given the honour of saying the Grace after meals; in an other place in the Babylonian Talmud there appears a Roman min who argues 146 with Rabbi Hanina; the latter’s uncle, Rabbi Joshua ben Hanania, argues with a min at the court of the emperor in Rome, and according to the content he would 147 seem to be a Christian; Babylonian amoraim engage in controversy over the 148 question as to whether ‘the minim among the nations’ are idol-worshippers; the Jerusalem Talmud also uses exaggerated language in talking about twenty-four 149 sects of minim. Later censorship of the Jewish sources added to the existing 137 “The minim ask Rabbi Abbahu: We do not find a death for Enoch […]” Genesis Rabbah xxv, 1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck pp. 238-239); “They ask Rav Simlai: How many Powers created the world?” JT Berakhot ix, 12d etc. 138 As in the story of Rabbi Eliezer who was caught for minut: Tosefta, Hullin ii, 24 and parallels, especially Ecclesiastes Rabbah i, 8,2. 139 Yaakov of Kfar Sekhnia: loc. cit.; minim from Capernaum with Rabbi Hanina loc. cit. etc. 140 Mishnah, Yadayim iv, 8. 141 Although the mistaken impression has been given that in Galilee, or in certain places there, there was a large concentration of minim: see A. Büchler,‘ The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Second and Third Centuries’, id., Studies in Jewish History, (London, 1956), pp. 246-274. 142 Genesis Rabbah xix (ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 172-173). 143 BT Sanhedrin 37a. On Persian minim see J. Heschel, ‘On the Minim in Talmud and Midrash’, haHalutz 7 (1865, repr. 1972), pp. 86-87 (in Hebrew). 144 Leviticus Rabbah xiii. The min is not mentioned in the MSS. 145 BT Hullin 87a. The printed editions have Zadokite instead of min. 146 BT Pesahim 57a. See S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, (New York, 1965), p. 141 n. 196. 147 BT Hagigah 5b. 148 BT Hullin 13b. 149 JT Sanhedrin x, 29c.

168

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

confusion. In a number of places minim were changed for Zadokites. Although comparison of manuscripts with the printed editions, and in particular diagnosis according to contents can help a good deal in solving such difficulties, sometimes an even sharper diagnosis is needed in order not to convert real Zadokites 150 into minim. The statement in the Jerusalem Talmud: “Israel were not exiled until there were twenty-four sects of minim”, characterises the heap of difficulties in the barren attempt to find a common denominator of the identity of the minim among all the source passages we have available. On the one hand, this is an example of the common usage of a typological number which occurs hundreds of times in our sources regarding different subjects. On the other hand, there is a considerable temptation to see this notice as some kind of record of a reality which could have been characteristic of the late period when the Jerusalem Talmud was edited, when the canvas of ancient terms was already widened to include new definitions. We cannot completely negate this possibility, since we know the differences in definitions which characterise the days of the later amoraim. In addition, the statement of the Jerusalem Talmud can been read as implying that all the sects of minim derive from Israel, i.e., they are all Jews. This ruling does not fit in with the Babylonian debate above, which wondered whether there were pa151 gan minim, and it would certainly contradict the conclusion of the Babylonian 152 Talmud in another place, that a min is someone who worships pagan idols. The statement about the twenty-four sects of minim is quoted in the name of Rabbi Yohanan ben haNapah, a leading Palestinian amora of the second generation, to whom statements of mythological quality about fateful historical events are sometimes attributed, for example, the famous story of Qamtza and bar Qamtza 153 and the destruction of the Temple. In this case, Rabbi Yohanan was explicitly referring to the exile of the Ten Tribes at the end of the time of the First Temple. Thus this statement is totally valueless for our study. The conclusion which arises from the Jerusalem Talmud, that the origin of the minim was from Israel, is certainly not unreasonable. But the more we examine our sources, we see that this conclusion too is not uniform, and we can find pieces of evidence which could be explained as hinting at different sorts of Jewish and other minim in the earlier sources as well. The Mishnah talks of

150 This sort of problem was noted by Lauterbach in connection with Mishnah, Berakhot ix, 5: “After the minim [printed editions: Zadokites] had taught corruptly and said there is but one world.” See above, p. 158, n. 97. 151 In spite of the ruling of Rav Nahman in the same source that the min is a Jew. 152 BT Avodah Zarah 26b. 153 BT Gittin 55b.

The Minim: Sources, Etymology and Time-Frame

169

154

minim who believe in a plurality of Powers in heaven. In other places we find 155 minim who believe in Jesus. Jewish expositors of the Middle Ages simply ruled that the minim were 156 Christians, without distinguishing between sects and trends, but these opinions were silenced and censored under the pressure of circumstances from the thirteenth century on. Christian scholars at the beginning of the modern period, in particular the Christian Hebraists, also proposed that this referred to Christianity 157 in general. But modern research is divided on this issue. Different proposals 158 have been made as to internal Jewish sectarianism. More specifically, there 159 were those who presumed that these were Jewish Gnostics, while in contrast 160 the assumption grew that the minim were simply Jewish Christians. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the hypothesis was even raised that the minim were 161 the first Christians. There was also a suggestion that the minim were Pauline 162 Christians. There was also a hypothesis which was a kind of compromise: that 163 what was meant were Jews who were Christianising Gnostics. In the final analysis, from the wide range of characteristics of minim in our sources, many were

154

Mishnah, Sanhedrin iv, 5; this idea can also be read from Mishnah, Megillah iv, 9: “If a man said in his prayer: The good [pl.] shall bless thee! This is the way of minut.” And see an extended discussion of this, below, p. 329ff. 155 Especially in JT Avodah Zarah ii, 40d; the story of ben Dama who was bitten by a snake and an attempt was made to cure him in the name of Jesus; also in BT Avodah Zarah 16b-17a, on Rabbi Eliezer who was brought to court because he was caught for minut in the name of Jesus (ben Pantiri) and parallels in Ecclesiastes Rabbah i, 8. There are also further sources. 156 Mahzor Vitry, loc. cit. § 26: “Birkat haMinim was constructed in Yavneh after ben Pandira, because of the minim”; Rashi on BT Sotah 49b: “Those who were enticed by the mistake of Jesus and his disciples are called minim. This is found in Hesronot haShas (a collection of passages which were omitted or censored from the Talmudic literature), (Krakow, 1894), p. 13. 157 J. Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, (Basle, 1712), pp. 209-213. 158 This definition includes different sorts of divergence. See R. Kimelman, ‘Birkat HaMinim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’, in: E.P. Sanders et. al. (eds), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, II, (London, 1981), p. 232. 159 M. Friedländer, Der vorchristliche jüdische Gnostizismus, (Wien, 1898). His basic assumption is expressed in the title of his book. For a detailed discussion of the gnostic question see below, the whole of chapter 5; I. haLevi, Dorot haRishonim, I, 5 (Berlin-Wien, 1913), p. 171. 160 H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, IV, 4rd edn., (Breslau, 1908), p. 433; H. Strack, Jesu, (above, n. 121), p. 47; R.T. Herford, Christianity, (above, n. 112), pp. 365 ff; G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, I. (Cambridge Mass. 1923), p. 85 f; J. Jocz, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, (London, 1949), p. 57 etc. 161 A. Sachs, Orient 2 (1842) p. 825; J.M. Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, I, (Leipzig, 1857), pp. 414-415, n. 4. 162 H. Hirschberg, ‘Allusions to the Apostle Paul in the Talmud’, JBL 62 (1943), pp. 77,87. 163 Rabbi Nachman Krochmal, Guiding the Perplexed, (above, n. 90), p. 259.

170

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

tempted to expand the canvas and include under the definition of minim various divergent groups, both inside and outside Judaism, even with the meaning of all 164 the non-Jews. A good example of the problems of the later sources can be seen in the following passage: Rabbi Abbahu recited to Rabbi Johanan: ‘Idolaters and [Jewish] shepherds of small cattle need not be brought up though they must not be cast in, but minim, informers and apostates may be cast in, and need not be brought up.’ Whereupon Rabbi Johanan remarked: I have been learning that the words “And so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brothers [thou mayest not hide thyself]” (Deuteronomy 22:3), are also applicable to an apostate, and you say he may be thrown down; leave out apostates! Could he not be answered that the one might apply to a kind of apostate who eats carrion meat to satisfy his appetite? – In his opinion, eating carrion meat to provoke is the same as a min. It has been stated: [In regard to the term] apostate there is a divergence of opinion between Rav Aha and Rabina: one says that [he who eats forbidden food] to satisfy his appetite, is an apostate, but [who does it] to provoke is merely an apostate. – And who is a min? – One who actually worships 165 idols. 166

The discussion is based on a baraita in the name of Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea, a Palestinian amora of the third generation, who was famous for his disputes with minim. In the baraita before us there is partial use of the well-known pattern of 167 lists of the sinners similar to the list we have found in other sources, and whose source is unclear. It is possible that the wording of this formula is later than the source of the baraita. In this case we see an example of the widening of the canvas, which is a late characteristic, in the inclusion of all the sinners together, headed by the minim – which distinguishes them a little from all the rest – among all the transgressors of Israel. Following this, there is a discussion of the different definitions included in the formula on the basis of the tradition of the baraita. Rav Aha and Rabina disagree on the central question of the difference between an apostate and a min, and at the end a late opinion is brought of who is a min. Rav Aha, like Rabbi Abbahu, is also a Palestinian amora of the third generation, while Rabina is the name of two Babylonian amoraim who lived around the time of the closing of the Talmud. All the discussion looks like a patchwork. In itself,

164 S. Katz, ‘Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity After 70 CE: A Reconstruction’, JBL 103 (1984), p.73 and n. 120. 165 BT Avodah Zarah 26b; see similarly BT Horayot 13b: “If he eats forbidden fat [helev] out of appetite, he is an apostate for his own convenience, if out of spite, he is a min.” 166 Cf. Tosefta, Bava Metziah ii, 33, which is apparently the source of the baraita. What is meant here are the lists of sinners brought in different contexts, including minim, apostates, heretics, flatterers etc. (see above, p. 62ff), or the dispute between Rabba bar Hanna and Rav Hisda and between Amemar and Rav Ashi on the wish to renew the public reading of the Ten Commandments, which had been cancelled because of the minim. This dispute reflects the problems noted above. 167 BT Rosh HaShanah 17a; Avot de Rabbi Natan A, 16 (ed. Schechter, p. 64); Derekh Eretz i, 7 etc.

The Minim: Sources, Etymology and Time-Frame

171

this is no different from the legitimate method of Talmudic discussions. But for our subject, this patchwork reflects the inferiority of the later sources on the question of the identity of the minim. The names of the discussants, the inclusion of the different sources in this passage and its conclusion – all these underline the act of editing. The conclusion itself seems to be the work of an editor who does not seem to have been aware of the other dispute between the rabbis on the 168 matter of the existence of minim among pagan idol-worshippers. This confusion, together with the other problems described above, characterises the Talmudim, where we find most of the sources dealing with minim. The Babylonian Talmud was edited in a political and social atmosphere which was very different from the situation in the Land of Israel in the second century. The problem of the minim did not disappear in Babylonia, but it took on different proportions, very different from the earlier polemical atmosphere of Yavneh. It is noticeable that many Babylonian discussions dealing with minut relate to the object of the discussion with a certain embarrassment, for their attitude is influenced by two polarities. The first is the tendency to accept the tradition of the early rabbis as it was, where the principle is the definition of minut as a serious danger, with the necessity to remove this from the boundaries of Judaism, with halakhot, bans and warnings. The second polarity is the Babylonian situation where the immediate danger of minut is not so acute, so that there is no real need for decisions or particular actions. Thus, between these two poles, it is possible to explain the debates of the Babylonian rabbis over questions of halakhah and 169 custom. The tendency to use different fixed literary patterns and structures in order to describe meetings with minim (‘That min said to him’) is also understandable. It should also be noted that most of the meetings described in the Babylonian Talmud using formulae like the last example are actually describing the Palestinian arena of events, and this does not add anything to their reliability. Furthermore, descriptions of disputes with the minim in the Babylonian arena 170 are quite rare, and also dubious. Therefore sketching an identity for the minim in the Babylonian Talmud based on these patterns, must have quite a low level of reliability, taking into account all that has been said above. The exception to this rule, as mentioned above, are those baraitot or source passages where there is a reasonable possibility of attributing them to their source or explaining their higher quality. 168

BT Hullin 13b. For example, the question of the correct custom for responding Blessed be the name etc after the public reading of the Shem‘a, given that in Neharde‘a there are no minim. 170 For example, the legend about the conversation of a min with the blind Rav Sheshet: BT Berakhot 58a. In another place it is told in the name of Rav Sheshet that he does not pray in the east of Babylonia claiming ‘because the minim prescribe turning to the east.’ BT Bava Batra 25a. It is not clear what minim are spoken of here but from the contents it seems to be Christians. 169

172

At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed?

The status of the Jerusalem Talmud is essentially different for everything 171 connected to the historical situation in the Land of Israel. However, when it comes to the question of the quality and reliability of its descriptions of the minim, the Talmud of the Land of Israel is not so far from the problems which characterise the Babylonian Talmud, if only because of the fact that the problem of the minim was far less acute by the time of editing of the Jerusalem Talmud. In general, the contribution of the Jerusalem Talmud to this subject is rather peripheral. The number of source passages which deal with minim is surprisingly small, little more than twenty passages. A quarter of these deal with different aspects of 172 Birkat haMinim. This adds to our understanding of questions connected with the blessing itself but it scarcely contributes anything useful to the study of the identity of the minim. The solution to these many problems, for which we have given only a small number of illustrative examples from the many passages, is to be found in the use of a rational method of research. As noted above, this entails rational classification of sources on the basis of time, situation and content, and, in particular, restricting our examination to the period and situation in which Birkat haMinim was constructed: from the Yavneh period up to the presumed time of the final redaction of the Mishnah. This is the minimal possible time restriction. In a situation of ideal availability of sources, it would have been preferable to restrict the research to the Yavneh period only. But our Mishnah, which is the earliest source for research into the identity of the minim and the closest to the time of construction of Birkat haMinim is outside this time boundaries. Thus we can only accept that all those who are called minim during the second century were included in the first definitions of the earliest textual versions of Birkat haMinim. The definition of the period of the tannaim is not totally complete. It is generally accepted that it began at the end of the First Revolt against Rome, when the city of Yavneh received a central status under the leadership of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in controversial circumstances, after the conquest of Jerusalem 173 and the destruction of the Temple. The authority of the leadership of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (who did not belong to the dynasty of the leadership which existed in the time of the Temple) is not clear, especially if we take into account the atmosphere of the relations with the Roman authorities in the period after the revolt and its aftermath, although we can understand on this background the rationale of the temporary break in the leading dynasty of Rabban Shim‘on ben Gamaliel I. The number of sources dealing with this period is also restricted and

171

J. Efron, ‘Simeon Ben Shatah and Alexander Jannaeus’, id., Studies in the Hasmonean Period, (Leiden, 1987), pp. 143-145. 172 See chapter 1, especially p. 0. 173 G. Alon, ‘Rabban Johanan B. Zakkai’s Removal to Jabneh’, id., Jews, (above, n. 41), pp. 269-131.

The Minim: Sources, Etymology and Time-Frame

173

fragmented. We do not know whether Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai dealt with the question of the minim because this is not mentioned in the sources. It is clear that in his days, solutions were needed to problems which were obviously far more urgent and vital than internal polemics. Such internal problems could only be dealt with after the rehabilitation of the spiritual and political crisis and the stabilisation of alternative systems of life after the shock of the destruction. All this had to be done by organising these systems and adapting them to the watchful eye of the Roman authorities, which was the way ben Zakkai seems to have taken, and certainly his successors. Anyway, Birkat haMinim did not exist in his days, nor did the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, not even in an early form into which changes and adaptations were introduced, as some sources are liable to mislead 174 us. All these were changes from the time of Rabban Gamaliel II. We do not know exactly when and how the leadership of the successor of 175 Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai began. Neither the nature and the extent of the leadership of Rabban Gamaliel, and the centrality of Yavneh in the life of the people in the period between the two revolts are entirely clear. But even if the status of the leader and his place of residence received their value which was so central post factum, perhaps during later decades of the patriarchal dynasty, this does not affect our central hypothesis one way or another. It was the leadership of Yavneh which ruled, fixed and organised the patterns of life, including liturgical rites and prayers, and even if at the beginning of their formation they were obliged to cut their way through stubbornly, for the generations after them they became the facts of life. Gedaliah Allon says that minut already existed in the time of the Second 176 Temple, and he brings the example of Zadokitism. The first part of the hypothesis seems to be obvious. The construction of Birkat haMinim is a response which is both an attack and a defence at the same time. The blessing was constructed only once minut changed from a marginal problem to an actual nuisance. Thus minut must have existed, or so it would seem, at the time of the Second Temple. If Zadokitism is also defined as minut during the course of the first century CE, then this is already a supposition which it is impossible to confirm from the sources, and it seems clear that it must be abandoned entirely. The least which can be said is, that in certain small instances, the sources relate to Zadokitism as minut, and even then only post factum, from the distance of many generations, and possibly even because of confusion of terms. For there is no confirmation

174

See above, chapter 2, p. 0f. S. Safrai, ‘The Recovery of Jewish Settlement in the Yavneh Period,’ Z. Baras et. al. Eretz Yisrael, (above, n. 30), p. 30 (in Hebrew). 176 G. Alon, The Jews in Their Land, (above, n. 41), pp. 290; H. Gevaryahu, ‘Birkat haMinim’, Sinai 44 (1959), p. 372 (In Hebrew). 175



At Whom was Birkat haMinim Aimed? 

LQRXUVRXUFHVRIWKHGH¿QLWLRQRI=DGRNLWHVDVEHLQJGH¿QLWHO\minim, and LQDQ\FDVHQRWLQWKHWLPHRIWKH7HPSOH$SDUWIURPWKLVLWLVNQRZQWKDWWKH idea of the revival of the dead was one of the foci of polemic with the minim. 2QWKLVLWVD\VFDWHJRULFDOO\LQWKH-HUXVDOHP7DOPXG³$OORIWKHPVD\WKDWWKH\ GR QRW PDNH KLP JR EDFN H[FHSW IRU VRPH RQH ZKR GLG QRW VD\ µUHYLYHV WKH  GHDG¶µKXPEOHVWKHDUURJDQW¶DQGµUHEXLOGV-HUXVDOHP¶,VD\KHLVDmin”. The -HUXVDOHP7DOPXGXVHVDWDQQDLWLFVRXUFHLQRUGHUWRGH¿QHDmin. Even if doubts DERXW WKH UHYLYDO RI WKH GHDG GLYLGHG WKH =DGRNLWHV IURP WKH 3KDULVHHV LQ WKH 6HFRQG7HPSOHSHULRGWKLVVWLOOGRHVQRWWHOOXVWKDWWKLVFRQWURYHUV\RUHYHQWKLV VSHFL¿FVHFWDULDQLVPZDVDOUHDG\SDUWRIWKHKLVWRU\RIWKH/DQGRI,VUDHOLQWKH  GD\V RI 5DEEDQ *DPDOLHO and afterwards. The Mishnah declares as follows: ³$QGWKHVHDUHWKH\ZKRKDYHQRSRUWLRQLQWKH:RUOGWR&RPH6RPHRQHZKR VD\VWKHUHLVQRUHYLYDORIWKHGHDGDQGWKHTorah did not come from heaven,  and an apostate.” 7KLVVRXUFHLVQRWRQO\HDUOLHUEXWDOVRPXFKPRUHDFFXUDWH WKDQWKH-HUXVDOHP7DOPXGLQSDUWLFXODUIRUWKHVLWXDWLRQRILWVRZQGD\)RURXU VWXG\WKH0LVKQDKLVXVHIXOLQUHPRYLQJWKHWDLQWRIminut from the Sadduceism  ,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWWKH-HUXVDOHP7DOPXGGRHVQRWGH¿QHWKH=DGRNLWHVDVminim DQGGRHVQRWKLQWDWWKLV7KH=DGRNLWHVZHUHWKHUXOLQJVRFLDOFODVVLQWKHWLPHRIWKH6HFRQG 7HPSOH$OOUHODWLRQWR=DGRNLWLVPLQRWKHUVRXUFHVLVRQO\ODWHUDQGUHWURVSHFWLYH  -7%HUDNKRWYF  *LQ]EHUJLGHQWL¿HVWKHminimZKRDSSHDUWRDVN5DEEDQ*DPDOLHO³:KHUHGRHVLWVD\ WKDWWKH+RO\2QHEOHVVHGEHKHUHYLYHVWKHGHDG"´%76DQKHGULQE DV=DGRNLWHVDVLI6DGducesim in general and Sadduceism as minut in particular was still extant in the Yavneh period. 6HH/*LQ]EHUJAn Unknown Jewish Sect, 1HZ«@DQGWKRVHZKRGRQRWKDYHDSRUWLRQ>«@VRPHRQHZKRVD\V there is no revival of the dead and the Torah did not come from heaven and an apostate.” In WKHVDPHGLVFXVVLRQTXHVWLRQVRQWKHVXEMHFWRIWKHUHYLYDORIWKHGHDGDUHDSSDUHQWO\SXWWR 5DEEL-RVKXDE\5RPDQVWR5DEEL0HLUE\&OHRSDWUDDQG5DEEDQ*DPDOLHOE\&DHVDUWRR$OO WKHGLVFXVVLRQKDVWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIOHJHQGDU\PDWHULDODQGWKHVWDWHPHQWRI5DEEL(OLH]HU EHQ5DEELרוך< א>תה< יי מכניע זידים‬ ‫‪Oxford. S, 20a-21a (A. Marmorstein).‬‬

‫לכו בנים שמעו לי‪ ,‬ואכניע נוצרים ומינים מגבולי‬ ‫בא"י מכניע זדים‬ ‫‪Oxford 2737/B (M. Zulai).‬‬

‫בראש שנה לאילן לאבד נצרים ומינים אשר בו בגדו‬ ‫כי רשעים יאבדו )תהילים לג כ(‬ ‫ברוך שובר וגו'‬

Bibliography Acre, A., Itinerario De La Virgen Egeria (381-384), Edicion Critica del Texto Latino, (Madrid, 1980). Adler, E., (et al.), J. Schirmann’s Bibliography of Studies in Hebrew Medieval Poetry 19451978, Cumulative Index, (Beer Sheva, 1989), (in Hebrew). Albeck, C., Untersuchungen über die halachischen Midraschim, (Berlin, 1922). _____, Introduction to Mishnah, Berakhot, The Six Orders of the Mishnah, I, (Order Zeraim), (Jerusalem, 1957). _____, Mehkarim be-Bariata ve-Tosefta ve-Yahsan la-Talmud, (Jerusalem, 1969), id. Introduction to the Talmuds, I, (Tel Aviv, 19873). Alexander, P.S., ‘The Parting of the Ways’, J.D.G. Dunn, (ed.) Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, (Tübingen, 1992), pp. 1-25. Alon, G., Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, (trans. I.Abrahams, Jerusalem, 1987). _____, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, (Translated and edited by G. Levi), I-II, (Cambridge, Mass. 1988). Altman, A., ‘The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends’, JQR 35 (1944-5), pp. 371-391. Amidon, P.R., The Panarion of St. Epiphanius: Selected Passages, (Oxford 1990). Aptowitzer, A., ‘‫ ’בשכמל“ו‬MGWJ 73 (1929), pp. 93-118. _____, ‘Bemerkungen zur Liturgie und Geschichte der Liturgie’, MGWJ 74 (1930), pp. 104126. Armstrong, G.T., Die Genesis in den alten Kirche, (Tübingen, 1962). Assaf, S., ‘Mi-Seder ha-Tefilla be-Eretz Yisrael’, Y. Beer (et. al. eds.), Festschrift in Honor of B. Dinaburg, (Jerusalem, 1949), pp. 116-131. _____, Tequfat ha-Ge’onim ve-Sifrutah, (Jerusalem, 1955). Avi-Yonah, M., The Jews of Palestine, (Oxford, 1976). _____, Historical Geography of Eretz-Yisrael, (Jerusalem, 19512), (in Hebrew). Bacher, W., ‘Le Mot “Minim“’, REJ 38 (1899), pp. 38-46. _____, Die Agada der Tannaiten, I-II, (Strassburg, 1903). _____, Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer, I, (Hildesheim, 1965). Baer, S., Avodat Yisrael, (Rödelheim, 1868). Baer, Y.F. Israel Among the Nations, (Jerusalem, 1955), (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Some Aspects of Judaism as Presented in the Synoptic Gospels’, Zion 31 (1966), pp. 117-152. (in Hebrew). Bagatti, B., The Church from the Circumcision, (Trans.E. Hoade, Jerusalem, 1984). Baneth, E., ‘Maimuni’s Commentar zum Tractat Abot’, in: Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstag des Israel Hildsheimer, (Berlin, 1890), pp. 57-76. Bar Ilan, M., ‘Magic Seals on the Body among Jews in the First Centuries CE’, Tarbiz 58 (1987), pp. 37-50. (in Hebrew). Baras, Z., ‘The Persian Conquest and the End of Byzantine Rule’ in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir, M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 300-349 (in Hebrew). Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to John, (London 1955). _____, The Gospel of John and Judaism, (Trans. D.M. Smith), London 1975.

378

Birkat haMinim

Ben-Shalom, I., ‘Rabbi Judah b. Ilai’s Attitude towards Rome’ Zion 49 (1984), pp. 9-24 (in Hebrew). _____, The School of Shammai and the Zealots’ Struggle against Rome, (Jerusalem, 1993), (in Hebrew). Ben-Shalom, M., Selected Historical Issues in Avot deRabbi Natan, (MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1987). (in Hebrew). _____, Hasids and Hasidim in the Period of the Second Temple and Mishnah, (Ph.D thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1998), (in Hebrew). Berliner. A., ‘Beiträgen,’ in: S. Hurwitz, Einleitung und Register zum Machsor Vitry, (Berlin, 1896-1897), pp. 171-197. _____, Randbemerkungen zum täglichen Gebetbuche (Siddur), (Berlin 1909). Berger, K., ‘Jesus als Nasoräer / Nasiräer’, NT 38 (1996), pp. 323-335. , W.J. van, ‘Anti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (Piyyut) of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries’, Early Christian Poetry, Eds. J. den Boeft and A. Hilhorst, (Leiden-New York-Köln, 1993), pp. 297-308. Bickerman, E.J., ‘The Name of Christians’, HTR 42 (1945), pp. 109-124. _____, ‘The Civic Prayer for Jerusalem’, M. Hengel et al, (eds.) Studies in Jewish and Christian History , II, (Leiden 1980), pp. 290-312. Binyamin, B., ‘Birkat Ha-Minim and the Ein Gedi Inscription’, Immanuel 21 (1987), pp. 68-79. Blidstein, G. J., ‘The Karaites’ Tehumim 8 (1987), pp. 501-510 (in Hebrew) de Boer, M.C., ‘The Nazoreans: Living at the Boundry of Judaism and Christianity’, G.N. Stanton & G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, (Cambridge 1998), pp. 239-262. Bowman, J., The Fourth Gospel and the Jews, (Pittsburgh Penn. 1975). Brill, J., Introduction to the Mishna, (Frankfurt, 1876). Brody, H., und. Albrecht, K., Die neuhebräische Dichterschule, (Leipzig 1905). Brody, R., ‘The Enigma of Seder Rav Amram’, S. Elizur et al. (eds), Knesset Ezra: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, (Jerusalem, 1994). _____, Teshuvot Rav Naronai Bar Hilai Ga‘on, I, (Jerusalem-Cleveland 1994), (in Hebrew). Brown, R.E., ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity’, CBQ 45 (1953), pp. 74-79. _____, The Gospel According to John, (Garden City 1966). Büchler, A., Das Synedrion in Jerusalem, (Wien, 1902). _____, ‘The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Second and Third’, id., Studies in Jewish History, (London 1956), pp. 246-274. Buxtorf, J., Synagoga Judaica, (Basle 1712). _____, Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbinicum, (Leipzig 1875). Carroll, K., ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Exclusion of Christians from the Synagogues’, BJRL 40 (1957-1958), pp. 19-32. Charles, R.H., The Book of Jubilees, (London 1902). _____, Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2, (Oxford 1913). Chavel, D., (ed.), Kitvei ha-Ramban, (Jerusalem, 1963). Chwolson, D., Das Letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes, (St. Petersburgh 1892). Cohen, N., ‘The Nature of Shimeon ha-Pekuli’s Act’, Tarbiz 52 (1983), pp. 548-550 (in Hebrew). Cohen, J., Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jews in Medieval Christianity, (Berkeley, CA 1999). Cooke, S.A., A Pre-Masoretic Biblical Papyrus, PSBA 25 (1903), pp. 34-56.

Bibliography

379

Dalman, G., ‘Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue’, L. Jacob et al. (eds.), The Jewish People: History, Religion, Literature, (New York 1973), pp. 64-65. Daniélou, J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity, (Trans. J.A. Baker, London, 1964). _____, Primitive Christian Symbols, (London, 1964). Davidson, I.., Assaf, S., Joël, B.I., (eds.) Siddur Rav Sa‘adiah Gaon, (Jerusalem, 1941). Davies, W.D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, (Cambridge 1964). Derenburg, J., Essai sur L’histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine, (Paris 1867). Dreifus, M., ‘Sinn und Bedeutung des Wortes Min’, Orient 4 (1844), p. 204-206 (1846), p. 620-621. Dölger, F.J., Sol Salutis, (Münster, 1925). Dubnov, S., History of the Jews: From the Roman Empire to the Early Medieval Period, II, (trans. M. Spiegel), (New York-London, 1968). Dünner, J.H., ‘Halacha-kritische Forschungen’, MGWJ 19 (1870), pp. 298-308. _____, Die Thorien über Wesen und Ursprung der Tosephta, (Amsterdam 1874). Edersheim,A., Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, (London 1883). Efron, J., ‘Bar-Kokhba in the Light of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmudic traditions,’A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappoport (eds.), The Bar Kokhba Revolt: a New Approach, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 47-105 (in Hebrew) _____, Studies in the Hasmonean Period, (Leiden, 1987). Eidelberg, S., ‘On Menahem Ben Aaron Ibn Zerah and his Book Zeida la-Derekh’, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, III, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 15-30 (in Hebrew) Eisenstein, J.D., Otzar Midrashim, (New York, 1915). _____, Ozar Wikuhim, (New York, 1928). Elbaum, J., ‘Models of Storytelling and Speech in Stories about the Sages’, Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, II, (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 71-77 (in Hebrew). Elbogen, I., ‘Die Tefilla für die Festtage’, MGWJ 55 (1911), pp. 426-446, 586-599. _____, ‘The Poetical Version of the Shemoneh Esreh’, haGoren 10 (1923), pp. 87-94 (in Hebrew). _____, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, (Hildesheim, 19624). id., Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, (trans. R.P. Schneidlin), (New YorkJerusalem 1993). Elitsur, S., ‘The Emergence of the Weekday Qerobot’, Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature, 5 (1984), p. 165-173 (In Hebrew). Elm, S., ‘“Pierced by Bronze Needles”: Anti-Montanist Charges of Ritual Stigmatization in their Fourth-Century Context’, JECS 4 (1996), pp. 409-439. Epstein, A., ‘Le livre des Jubilés, Philon et le Midrasch Tadsché’, REJ 22 (1891), pp. 1-25. _____, Seder Rav Amram Ga’on Siduro u-Mesadrav, (Berlin, 1929). _____, Introduction to Tanaitic Literature, (Jerusalem 1957), (in Hebrew). _____, Studies in Talmudic Literature and Semitic Languages, I, (Jerusalem, 1984) (in Hebrew). Erder, Y., The Origins of Early Karaism and Outlines of its Developments in the Light of the Controversies Over the Time of the Paschal Sacrifice, (PhD Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1988), (in Hebrew). Ewald, F.C., Abodah Sara, Nürnberg 1856. Finkelstein. L., ‘The Development of the Amidah’, JQR 16, (1925-1926), pp. 1-43, 127-170.

380

Birkat haMinim

Finney, P.C., ‘Cross’, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, (New York-London, 1990), pp. 244-245. Fleischer, E., ‘Qerovot to the Shemoneh Esreh in the Triennial Order of Prayer’, Sinai 65 (1969), pp. 281-294 (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Inquiries into the Pattern-Formation of the Classical Hebrew Genres of the Piyyut’, Tarbiz 39 (1970), pp. 248-267. _____, Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in the Middle Ages, (Jerusalem 1975) (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Piyyut’, EJ, vol. 13 (1988), cols. 574-576. _____, Eretz Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals in the Genizah Manuscripts, (Jerusalem, 1988), (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Piyyut and Prayer in Mahzor Eretz Israel: The Genizah Codex’, Kiryat sefer 63 (1990), pp. 207-262. (In Hebrew). _____, ‘On the Beginnings of Obligatory Prayer in Israel’, Tarbiz 59 (1990), pp. 397-492 (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Rejoinder to Dr. Reif’s Remarks’, Tarbiz 60 (1991), pp. 683-688. Flusser, D., ‘Some of the Precepts on the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction Against the Heretics’, Tarbiz 61 (1992), pp. 333-374. Fossum, J., ‘Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism and Gnosticism’, JSJ 16 (1985), pp. 202-239. Fraenkel, J. ‘Remarkable Phenomena in the Text-History of the Aggadic Stories’, Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, II, (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 45-69. (in Hebrew). Friedländer, M., Der vorchristliche jüdische Gnostizismus, (Wien, 1898). Funk, F.X., Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, (Torino, 1970). Gevaryahu, H., ‘Birkat haMinim’, Sinai 44 (1959), pp. 367-376 (In Hebrew). Gil, M., ‘The Creed of Abu Amir, Israel Oriental Studies, 12 (1992), pp. 9-57. _____, A History of Palestine (634-1099), (Cambridge, 1992). _____, Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages, (Leiden, 2004). Gilat, Y.D., The Teaching of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos, (Tel Aviv, 1968). _____, R. Eliezer Ben Hyrkanus – A Scholar Outcast, (Ramat Gan, 1984). Ginzberg, L., ‘Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue towards the ApocalypticEschatological Writings’, JBL 41 (1922), pp. 115-136. _____, (ed.), Ginze Schechter: Genizah Studies in Memory of Dr. Solomon Schechter, I-II, (New York, 1928-1929). _____, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, III, (New York, 1941). _____, Geonica, I-II, (New York, 19682). _____, An Unknown Jewish Sect, (New York, 1976. Revised and updated Translation of the Author’s Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte, 1922 edn.). Goldfahn, A., ‘Über den Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Ausdrukes Min im babil. und jer. Talmud’, MGWJ 19 (1870), pp. 163-177. Goldschmidt,.D., ‘Mainonides’ Rite of the Prayer According to an Oxford Manuscript’, (Hunt. 80; Neubauer 577), Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry, 7 (1958), pp. 185-213. _____, Le Texte des Prières du manuscrit Reggio du Mahzor Vitry, REJ 125 (1966), pp. 6375. _____, (ed.), The Passover Haggadah, its Sources and History, (Jerusalem, 1969) (in Hebrew and Arabic). _____, Seder Rav Amram Ga’on, (Jerusalem, 1971), (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Mahzor Vitry’, EJ 11 (1972) pp. 736-737. _____, ‘Prayer Books’, EJ, 13 (1972), pp. 985-994.

Bibliography

381

Goodenough, E., The Theology of Justin Martyr, (Jena, 1923; repr. Amsterdam, 1968). Goodman, M., ‘Sacred Scriptures and Defiling the Hands’, JTS 41 (1990), pp. 99-107. Gould,, P., ICC on St. Mark, (Edinburgh, 1912). Graetz, H., Gnosticismus und Judenthum, (Krotoschin, 1846; repr. Farnborough, 1971). _____, ‘Das Wort’ ‚‫ המירוס‬in der talmudischen Literatur’, MGWJ 19 (1870), pp. 138-139. _____, Geschichte der Juden, IV, (Breslau 19084). Grant, R.M., ‘The New Testament Canon‘, P.R. Ackroyd, (ed.) The Cambridge History of the Bible, I, From the Beginnings to Jerom, (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 284-307. Grayzel, S., The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century, (New York, 1966). Guerrier L., (ed.) Le Testament en Galileé, (Turnhout, 1971). Gundry, R.H., The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, (Leiden, 1967). Habermann, A.M., Short Forms of the Shemoneh Esreh, (Berlin, 1932). _____, ‘The Phylacteries in Antiquity’, Eretz Israel 3 (1954), pp. 174-177. _____, A History of Hebrew Liturgical and Secular Poetry, I, (Ramat Gan, 1972), (in Hebrew). Hahn, H., ‘Sifre Minim‘, Jubilee Volume in Honour of E. Mahler, (J. de Somogyi & S. Lövinger, eds., [Budapest, 1937], pp. 427-435). Havlin, S., ‘Tosefta’ Encyclopaedia Hebraica, XXXII, p. 1052 (in Hebrew); Heinemann, J., Prayer in the Period of the Tannaim and the Amoraim, (Jerusalem, 1984), (in Hebrew). Harnack, A., Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho‘, (TU xxxix, Leipzig 1913). _____, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, (TU xlv, Leipzig, 1921). Heilprin, J., Seder ha-Dorot, (Warsaw, 1876). Helfgott, B.W., The Doctrine of Election in Tannaitic Literature, (New York, 1954). Herford, R.T., Christianity in Talmud and Misrash. (London, 1903). _____, ‘The Problem of the Minim Further Considered’, S.W. Baron & A. Marx (eds.), Jewish Studies in Memory of G.A. Kohut, (New York, 1935), pp. 359-369. Herr, M.D., Rome in Rabbinical Literature, (Ph.d Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1970). _____, ‘Smaller Midrashim’ EJ 16 (1982), pp. 1515-1518. _____, ‘Repressive Legislation and Martyrdom in the Days of Hadrian, Holy War and Martyrdom in Jewish and General History: Collection of Papers given at the Eleventh Conference on Historical Research, (Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 73-92. Heschel, J., ‘On the Minim in Talmud and Midrash’, haHalutz 7 (1865 repr. 1972), pp. 80-84 (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Minim, Mani and his Sect’, HaHalutz 7 (1865), pp. 84-86 (in Hebrew). Higger, M., Minor Tractates: Semahot, (New York, 1931). _____, Ozar ha-Baraitot, ix, (New York, 1946). Hilgenfeld, A., Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentum, (Leipzig, 1884). _____, Judentum und Judenchristentum, (Leipzig, 1886). Hillman, D.Z., ‘Text of the 12th Benediction (Birkat haMinim)’, Zefunot a/2 (1989), pp. 58-65. Hirschberg, H., ‘Allusions to the Apostle Paul in the Talmud’, JBL 62 (1943), pp. 73-87. _____, ‘Once Again – The Minim’, JBL 67 (1948), pp. 305-318. Hirshman, M., Mikra and Midrash: A Comparison of Rabbinics and Patristics, (Tel Aviv, 1992). _____, ‘Shmuel ha-Katan’, I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimerr, M. Stern (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai, (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 165-172.

382

Birkat haMinim

Hoennicke, G., Das Judenchristentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert, (Berlin, 1908). Honeyman, A.M., ‘A Tannaitic Term for the Christians‘, JQR 38 (1947-1948), pp. 151-155. Horbury, W., ‘The Benediction of the Minim’, JTS 33 (1982), pp. 19-61. _____, ‘Early Christians on Synagogue Prayer and Imprecation’, id., Jews and Christians in Contrast and Controversy, (Edinburgh, 1998), pp. 226-243. Hurwitz, S., (ed.), Machsor Vitry, [handschrift im British Museum (Cod. Add. No. 2720027201), (Nürnberg, 1923)]. Hyman, A., Sefer Toldot Tana‘im ve-Amoraim, (London, 1910, repr. Jerusalem, 1964). Irsai, O., ‘Ya’akov of Kefar Niburaia – A Sage Turned Apostate’, Jerusalem Studies of Jewish Thought, 2 (1982-83), pp. 153-168 (in Hebrew). Isaac, B., ‘Roman Attitude towards Jews and Judaism’, Zion 66 (2001), pp. 41-72. (in Hebrew). Ish-Shalom, M., ‘Changes in the Concept of “Unclean Hands” in General and in Touching the Scriptures in Particular’ haGoren 2 (1900), pp. 66-82; (1902), pp. 30-39 (in Hebrew). Williams Jackson, A.V., Researches in Manichaeism, (New York 1932). Jacobs, L., ‘Praying for the Downfall of the Wicked’, Modern Judaism, 2 (1982), pp. 297310. James, M.R., (trans. & ed.) The Apocryphal New Testament, (Oxford, 1924, repr. 1975). Jaubert, A., ‘Le Calendrier des Jubilés et de la Secte de Qumran’, VT 3 (1953), pp. 250-254. Joël, M., Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, I, (Breslau, 1880). Jocz, J., The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, (London, 1949). Jost, J.M., Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, I-II, (Leipzig, 1857). Kaminka, E., Evel Rabbati, called Masekhet Semahot (Tel Aviv, 1949). Karlibach, A., ‘Birkat haMinim’, Shanah beShanah (annual), (1981), pp. 281-290. Katz, J., Between Jews and Gentiles, (Jerusalem, 1999). (in Hebrew). Katz, S., ‘Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity After 70 CE: A Reconstruction’, JBL 103 (1984), pp. 43-76. Kimelman, R., ‘Birkat Ha- Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’, E.P. Sanders et al. (eds.), Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition, II, (London, 1981), pp. 226-245; 391-403. Kister, M., ‘The Horn of David and the Horn of Salvation’, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish thought, 3 (1983-84), pp. 191-207. Klausner, J., Jesus of Nazareth, (trans. H. Danby, New York, 1925). _____, History of the Second Temple, I-V, (Tel Aviv, 19765). (in Hebrew). Klijn A.F.J. & Reinink, G.J., Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects, (Leiden, 1973). Kohler, K., ‘The Origin and Composition of the Eighteen Benedictions’, HUCA 1 (1924), pp. 387-425. Kohut, A.,, ‘Sifre Homeros, Books of Entertainment’, JQR o.s. 3 (1891), pp. 546-548. Krauss, S., ‘The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers’, JQR o.s. 5 (1893), pp. 225-261. _____, ‘Imprecation Against the Minim in the Synagogue’, JQR o.s. 9 (1897), pp. 515-517. _____, ‘Zur Literatur der Siddurim: christliche Polemic’, Festschrift für Aron Freimann, A. Marx & H. Meyer (eds.), (Berlin, 1935), pp. 125-140. _____, (W. Horbury, ed. and rev.) The Jewish Christian Controversy, (Tübingen, 1996). Kuhn, K.G., Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim, (Tübingen, 1950). _____, Phylakterien aus Höhle 4 von Qumran, (Heidelberg, 1957). Labourt J., (ed.), Saint Jérome Lettres, V, (Paris, 1958). de Lange, N.R.M. ‘Jewish Attitudes to the Roman Empire’, P.D.A. Garnsey & C.R. Wittaker, (eds.) Imperialism in the Ancient World, (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 255-282. Lake, K., (ed.) ‘Epistle of Barnabas’, The Apostolic Fathers (LCL) 1, (London, 1965), pp. 337-409.

Bibliography

383

Lauterbach, J., ‘Midrash and Mishna’, JQR 6 (1915-16), pp. 23-95; 303-323. _____, ‘Jesus in the Talmud’, id., Rabbinic Essays, (Cincinnati, 1951), pp. 473-570. Layton, B., ‘Epistle to Rheginus’, id., The Gnostic Scriptures, (London, 1987), pp. 320-324. Lehnardt, A., Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi – Rosh Hashana, (Tübingen, 2000). haLevi, I., Dorot haRishonim, I, 5 (Berlin-Wien, 1913). Lévi, I., ‘Fragments de Rituels de Prières’, REJ 53 (1907), pp. 231-241. Levi, J., Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmud und Midrash, (Leipzig, 1893). Levine, L.I., ‘R. Abbahu of Caesarea’, Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults, Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, (ed. J. Neusner, Leiden 1975), pp. 56-76. _____, ‘Eretz Yisrael in the Third Century’, Z. Baras, et .al. eds., Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 119-143 (in Hebrew). Levita, E., Lexicon Chaldaicum, (Isane, 1541). Lewin, B.M., ‘From the Remains of the Genizah’, Tarbiz 2 (1931), pp. 383-410. Licht, J., The Rule Scroll, (Jerusalem, 1965), (in Hebrew). Libes, Y., ‘Matzmiach Qeren Yeshu’ah’, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 3 Jewish thought, 3 (1983-84), pp. 313-348. (in Hebrew). _____, ‘An Addition to my Article “Mazmiah Qeren Yeshu’a”’ Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Jewish thought, 4 (1984-85), pp. 341-344. (in Hebrew). Lieberman, S., Tosefeth Rishonim, II-IV, (Jerusalem, 1939). _____, ‘Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum’, JQR 35 (1944-1945), pp. 1-57. _____, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, (trans. L.S. Brush, New York, 1950). _____, ‘Light on the Cave Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources’, PAAJR 20 (1951), pp. 395-404. _____, Tosefta KiFshutah, (Newark, 1963). _____, Greek in Jewish Palestine, (New York, 1965). Liber, M., ‘Structure and History of the Eighteen Benedictions’, JQR 40 (1950), pp. 331-357. Linder, L., The Jews in the Roman Empire, (Detroit, 1987). Lindras, B., ‘The Persecution of the Christians in John 15:18 – 16:4a’, W. Horbury & B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, (Cambridge, 1981). Loeb, I., ‘La Controverse de 1240 sur le Talmud sous Saint Louis’, REJ 3 (1881), pp. 39-57. Luger, Y., The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah, (Ph.d Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 1992). Luria, B., ‘The Debate over the Form of the Tefillin’, Beth Mikra 24 (1979), pp. 269-277 (in Hebrew). Maier, J., Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung, (Darmstadt, 1978). _____, ‘The Piyyut ‘ha-Omrim le-Khilai Sho’a’ and Anti-Christian Polemics’, J.J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer (eds.), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 100-110 (in Hebrew). Mann, J., ‘The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History’, JQR 10 (1919-1920), pp. 121-151; 309-365. _____, ‘Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service’, HUCA 2 (1925), pp. 269338. _____, ‘Changes in the Divine Service’, HUCA 4 (1927), pp. 241-310. _____, ‘An Early Theologico-Polemical Work’, HUCA 12 (1937), pp. 411-459. Mantel, H., The Men of the Great Synagogue, (Jerusalem, 1983) (in Hebrew). Margoliouth, M.,(ed.), Sefer ha-Hiluqim, (Jerusalem, 1938). Marmorstein, A., ‘The Attitude of the Jews towards Early Christianity’, The Expositor, (1923), pp. 383-389.

384

Birkat haMinim

_____., ‘The Amidah of the Public Fast Days’, JQR 15 (1924-1925), pp. 409-418. _____, ‘Mitteilungen zur Geschichte und Literatur aus der Genizah’, MGWJ 69 (1925), pp. 30-40. Merchavia, C., The Church Versus Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (500-1248), (Jerusalem, 1970). Mirsky, A., ‘The Origin of the Eighteen Benedictions of the Daily Prayer’, Tarbiz 33 (1964), pp. 28-39 (in Hebrew). _____, ‘Yesod Kerovah,’ Sinai 57 (1965), pp. 127-132 (in Hebrew). _____, Makhtzavtan shel Tzurot ha-Piyyut, (Tel Aviv-Jerusalem, 1969). _____, (ed.), Commentary of Jonathan ben David ha-Kohen of Lunel on the Mishnah (Tractates Megillah and Mo‘ed Qatan) and Alfasi, (Jerusalem, 1955). Mishcon, M., ‘The Origin of ‫ את צמח דוד‬and its Place in the Amidah’ JQR 18 (1927-1928), pp. 38-43. Metzger, B.M., The Canon of the New Testament, (Oxford 1987). Milik, J.T., Ten Years of Discoveries in the Wilderness of Judaea, (Trans. J. Stragnell, London 1959). Moore, G.F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, I, III. (Cambridge Mass. 1923), 1930. _____, ‘The Definition of the Jewish Canon and the Repudiation of Christian Scriptures’, S.Z. Leiman, (ed.) The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, (New York 1974), pp. 115-141. Nemoy, L., ‘Anan ben David: A Reappraisal of the Historical Data’, A. Scheiber (ed.), Semitic Studies in Memory of Immanuel Löw, (Budapest, 1947), pp. 239-248. Nestle, E., (ed.) Novum Testamentum Graece, 20th edn. (Stuttgart 1950). Newman, H.I., Jerome and the Jews, (Ph.d Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1997), (in Hebrew). O’brien, P.T., Colossians, World Biblical Commentary, (Waco TX, 1982). Oppenheimer, A., ‘Synod of Usha’, EJ 16 (1982), pp. 16-17. _____, ‘Revival of the Jewish Community in Galilee’, Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir, M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 75-92 (in Hebrew). _____, ‘The Bar Kokhba Revolt’, Z. Baras et. al. (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 40-74. (in Hebrew). _____, From Rome to Babylon, (Tübingen, 2005). Ort, L. J. R., Mani, (Leiden, 1967). Painter, K., Churches Built in Ancient Times: Recent Studies in Early Christian Archaeology, (London, 1994). Parkes, J., The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, (New York 1961). Parente, F., ‘Ναζωραῖος – Ναζαρηνός: An Unsolved Riddle in the Synoptic Tradition’, SCI 15 (1996), pp. 185-201. Peel, M.L., ‘The Treatise on the Resurrection’, H.M. Attridge, (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex) (Leiden, 1985), pp. 142-143. Peterson, E., ‘Das Kreuz und das Gebet nach Osten’, id., Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis, (Rome-Freiburg-Vienna, 1959), pp. 15-34. Pritz, R.A., Nazarene Jewish Christianity, (Jerusalem-Leiden 1988). Rabin, C., The Zadokite Documents, (Oxford, 1954). Rabinowitz, Z.M., Halakha and Aggada in the Liturgical Poetry of Yannai, (Tel Aviv, 1965), (in Hebrew).

Bibliography

385

Ravidovitch, Nachman Krochmal’s Guiding the Perplexed of the Modern Age, (Berlin, 1924). Regev, E., The Sadducees and their Halakhah, (Jerusalem, 2005), (in Hebrew). Reif, S., ‘On The Earliest Development of Jewish Prayer’, Tarbiz 60 (1991), pp. 677-681 (in Hebrew) Reischl, G.C. & Rupp, J., Cyrilli Hierosolymarum archiepiscopi Opera Supersunt Omnia, I, (München 1848; repr. 1967). Reuchlin, J., Augenspiegel, (Tübingen, 1511 repr. 1961). Rodkinssohn, M.L., Ursprung und Entwickelung des Phylacterien-Ritus bei den Juden, (Pressburg, 1883). Rokeach, D., ‘Ben Stada is Ben Pantera – Towards the Clarification of a PhilologicalHistorical Problem’, Tarbiz 39 (1969), pp. 8-19 (in Hebrew). Rokéah, D., Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Translation from the Greek with Introduction and Commentary, (Jerusalem, 2004), (in Hebrew). Rosenthal, J., ‘The Talmud on Trial’, JQR 47 (1956), pp. 58-76; 145-169. Rubenstein, J.L., Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture, (BaltimoreLondon, 1999). Rudolph, K., Gnosis, (Edinburgh 1987). Safrai, S., ‘Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature’, JJS 16 (1965), pp. 15-33. _____, ‘The Synagogue’, S. Safrai et. al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, II, (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 908-944. _____, ‘The Recovery of Jewish Settlement in the Yavneh Period,’ Z. Baras et. al. (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, I, (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 18-74 (in Hebrew). Santa, S., ‘Ma’amar haMar’ot’, Bikkurim 1 (1864, repr. Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 174-188. Schäfer, P., ‘Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne’ Judaica 31 (1975), pp. 54-64, 116-124 = id., Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, (Leiden, 1978), pp. 45-64. Schechter, S., ‘Genizah Specimens’, JQR 10 (1898), pp. 655-659. _____, Studies in Jewish Liturgy, (Philadelphia, 1930). Schiffman, L.H., The Halakhah at Qumran, (Leiden, 1975). Schmidtke, A., Neue Fragmente und Untersuchungen zu den judenchristlichen Evangelien (TU xxxvii, Leipzig 1911). Schoeps, H.J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, (Tübingen, 1949). Schürer, E., Review of Friedlander‘s Der vorchristliche jüdische Gnosticismus TL 6 (1899), pp. 168-170. _____, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4th ed. (Leipzig 19011909). _____, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, A New English Version, revised and edited by G. Vermes & F. Millar & M. Black, (Edinburgh, 1973-1979). Schwaab, E., Historische Einführung in das Achtzehngebet, (Gütersloh, 1913). Schwartz, D., ‘What did He Have to Say? He Shall Live by Them!’, I.M. Gafni & A. Rabitzki, (eds.) Sanctity of Life and Martyrdom, Studies in Memory of Amir Yekutiel, (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 69-83 (in Hebrew). Sokoloff, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, (Ramat Gan-Baltimore- London, 2002) Segal, A.F., Two Powers in Heaven, (Leiden, 1977). _____, ‘Justice, Mercy and the Bird’s nest’, JJS 42 (1991), pp. 176-195. Shinan, A., Jesus through Jewish Eyes, (Tel Aviv, 1999), (in Hebrew). Simon, M., Verus Israel, (Trans. H. McKeating, Oxford, 1986).

386

Birkat haMinim

Simonsohn, S., The Apostolic See and the Jews, (Toronto, 1988-1991). Stein, M., ‘Yabneh and her Scholars’, Zion 3 (1938), pp. 118-122. (in Hebrew). Stemberger, G., ‘Die Beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen Literatur’ ed. W. Haase, ANRW II 19.2, (Berlin - New York, 1979), pp. 338-396. _____, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, (trans. and ed. M. Bockmuehl, Edinburgh, 19962). Strack, L., Jesus die Häretiker und die Christen, ( Leipzig, 1910). Sukenik, E., Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece, (London, 1934). Sussmann, Y., ‘The History of the Halakhah and the Dead Sea Scrolls – Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah (4QMMT),’ Tarbiz 59 (1989-1990), p. 11-76 (in Hebrew). Ta-Shma, I. M., ‘Review of Y. Liebes’, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 4 (1984-1985), pp. 181-189 (in Hebrew). Tal, S., ‘The Definition of Min and Epiqorus According to the Rambam’, miSafra leSaifa 33 (1988), pp. 77-88 (in Hebrew). Talmon, S., ‘Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen in Judaism of the Second Temple Period’, H. Wansbrough, (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, (Sheffield, 1991), pp. 121-158. Tänkle, H., Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeus, (Wiesbaden, 1964). Tcherikover, V., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, I-II, (New York, 1979). Teppler, Y., The Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls, (MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1990), (in Hebrew). Thakeray, H. St. J., The Letter of pseudo-Aristeas, H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, (Cambridge, 1902), Appendix, pp. 501-574. Thornton, T.C.G., ‘The Crucifixion of Haman and the Scandal of the Cross’, JTS 37 (1986), pp. 419-426. _____, ‘Christian Understanding of the Birkath-Ha-minim in the Eastern Roman Empire’, JTS 38 (1987), pp. 420-431. Townsend, J.T., ‘The Gospel of John and the Jews’, A. Davies, (ed.), Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, (New York, 1979), pp. 72-97. Tsafrir, Y. et al., Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea Palaestina, (Jerusalem, 1994). Urbach, E.E., ‘Homilies of the Rabbis on the Prophets of the Nations and the Balaam Stories’ Tarbiz 25 (1956), pp. 272-289. (in Hebrew). _____, The Sages – Their Concepts and Beliefs, (Jerusalem, 1982). _____, ‘The Place of the Ten Commandments in Ritual and Prayer’, B.Z. Segal (ed.), The Ten Commandments, (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 127-145. (in Hebrew). Vermes, G., ‘Pre-Mishnaic Jewish Worship and the Phylacteries from the Dead Sea’, VT 6 (1959), pp. 65-72. _____, ‘The Decalogue and the Minim’, In Memoriam Paul Kahle, (M. Black & G. Fohrer, eds., Berlin, 1968), pp. 232-240. Visotzky, B.L., ‘Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish-Christianities in Rabbinic Literature’, AJS Review, 14 (1989), pp. 47-70. _____, Fathers of the World, (Leiden, 1995). de Vries, B., ‘The Problem of the Relationship of the Two Talmuds to the Tosefta’, Tarbiz 28 (1958-1959), pp. 158-170 (in Hebrew). Weingarten, S., The Saint’s Saints: Hagiography and Geography in Jerome, (Leiden, 2005). Weiss, I.H., Dor Dor ve-Dorshav, I-V, (Berlin, 1924). (in Hebrew). Weiss, I.Y., ‘Comments on Text of the 12th Benediction’, Zefunot 1 (1989), pp. 107-109. Werner, E., ‘The Doxology in Synagogue and Church’, HUCA 19 (1945-6), pp. 275-351. Wiesner, J., Scholien zum babylonischen Talmud, I, (Prag, 1859).

Bibliography

387

Wilde, R., The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers, (Washington DC, 1949). Wilkinson, J., (ed.), Egeria’s travels to the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 19993, revised ed.). Williams, F., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, I, (Leiden, 1987). Williamson, R., Philo and New Testament Christology, (Sheffield, 1980). Wilson, S.G., Related Strangers, (Minneapolis, 1995). Wülfer, J., Theraica Iudaica, (Nürnberg, 1681). Yadin, Y., ‘Tefillin (Phylacteries) from Qumran (XQ Phyl1-4)’, Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), pp. 60-83. Yahalom, J., Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity, (Tel Aviv, 1999). Yarnold, E., Cyril of Jerusalem, (London, 2000). Yitschaki, D.‚ ‘The Abudarham’s commentary on Birkat haMinim’, Tzefunot 1 (1989), pp. 17-20. Zacut A., Sefer Yuhasin ha-Shalem, (ed. H. Filipowski, London-Edinburgh, 1857). Zakeri, M., & Tubach J., ‘Mani’s Name’, J. Van Oort et al. (eds.), Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, (Leiden, 2001), pp. 272-286. Zeitlin, S., ‘The Tosefta’, JQR 47 (1956-57), pp. 382-399. Zlotnick, D., The Tractate ‘Mourning’ (New Haven, 1966). Zulay, M., Piyyute Yannai (Liturgical Poems of Yannai), (Berlin, 1938). _____, Eretz Israel and its Poetry, (Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 40-81 (in Hebrew). Zunz, L., Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, [Frankfurt a.m. 18922, repr. Hildesheim, 1966). _____, Die Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, (Frankfurt a.M. 1920, repr. Hildesheim, 1967).

Index of Sources

Old Testament

Genesis 1:11 1:26 1:28 2:7 3:5 3:9 3:22 4:23 5:3 5:24 17:14 19:24 24:7 26:25 26:28 28:13 48:16 49:1

176 304, 308, 309, 341 222 305 307 233 310 326 303 314 302 326 301, 302 215 264 107 107 115

Exodus 3:5 6:9 13:9 15 15:3 15:26 16:3 17:4 18:16 19:1 19:10 20:14 23:7

193 238 196 220 318 244, 247 319 177 215 213 197 197 237

23:21 24:1 24:10 25:40 28:4 32:19 34:22

325 325 318 226 191 197 207

Leviticus 4:14 18:3 18:5 18:21 18:30 20:22-3 23:11

227 215 248 330 215 215 207

Numbers 5:23 6:2 14:11 15:36 15:39 24:17 25:3 35:33

264 53 176 233 41, 178, 231, 234, 238, 344 159 239 180

Deuteronomy 4:7-8 5:4 6:8 29:11 31:16

183 343 196 264 123

390 32:39 22:3

Indices 318, 338 170

Joshua 5:15 13:22 24:19

193 275 342

Judges 8:33 13:5

41, 233 53

Jeremiah 2:1 2:9 2:20 3:1 3:6 4:4 7:11 10:1 13:10 17:13 23:11 23:16 30:18

222 180 279 180 279 232 224 317 177 235 180 180 80

I Samuel 2:1-10

115

I Kings 8:30-49 15-16 19:17 22:19

301 142 304 317

II Kings 21:11-16

142

Isaiah 1:18 1:28 5:18 9:16 10:6 11:1 14:5 19:16 24:5 32:6 33:14 41:4 44:6 46:4 46:6 54:1 56:6-7 57:8 58:11 66:24

192 9, 66, 102 56 180 180 53 162 10 180 180 180 338 317 318 338 284 224 251 235 10

Ezekiel 9:4-6 16:63 18:26 20:30 29:21

199 337 73 279 337

Hosea 4:12 5:6 6:7 7:5 12:1

41, 178 286 302 181 222

Amos 1:11 4:13

56 327

Zechariah 3:8 13:8

119 342

Malachi 3:19-21

9, 67

Psalms 2:1 2:3 5:8 9:17

106 289 287, 289 181

391

Ancient Sources 14:1 20:2 21:14 26:2 29:3 35:10 37:20 63:11 63:12 69:29 101:7 106:28 106:38 122:5 139:5 139:21 147:4

233 106 158 109 73, 100, 107, 108, 109 106 38 231 332 91 181 239 180 317, 320 303 251, 252 327

342 231, 294 240 234

Daniel 7:9 7:10 14:17

192, 241, 316, 318, 343, 346 318, 346 316

Nehemiah 10

16:36 278 278, 344 234 278 278 278 91 342 33

78

158

II Chronicles 16:14

177

Septuaginta (LXX) Ezekiel 9:4-6

Lamentations 4:7

4:8 7:26 10:8 11:9

I Chronicles

Proverbs 2:19 5:8 5:15 7:23 7:26 9:2 24:17 24:21 30:16

Ecclesiastes

199

53

Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha 69:26

Tobit 2:1

208

12:32

208

269 323

322

Jubilees 6:17

I Enoch 1:9 62:1-2

Testaments of Levi 1:21-25

II Maccabees

323

211

Psalms of Solomon 15:8-10

198

392

Indices

Dead Sea Scrolls The Rule Scroll (ed. Licht)

The Thanksgiving Scroll

I, ii

(ed. Licht) XI, iii 161

66-67

4QMMT 4Q266 fr.11 ii XQ Phyl1-4

211

331

100 211 194

New Testament Matthew 1 2:23 4:17 4:23-25 5:3 5:17 5:18-20 8:2-4 8:5-7 8:11 8:29 9:2 9:19-23 9:22 9:27-31 10:1 10:6-8 10:10 10:16-17 12:7 12:28 12:39 13:10 13:11 13:40-41 15:30-31 16:18-19 16:28 17:2 19:28 20:29-31

152 48, 53 151 243 154 127, 154, 245 154 243 245 150 244 243 243 245 243 245 245 193 352 225 151 245 151 154 150 243 152, 246 151 192 320 154

23:5 23:13 22:23 24:30 25:34 26:61 26:71

199 155 175 153 151 225 51

Mark 1:15 1:24 9:1 9:38-40 10:17-18 10:47 11:17 13:2 13:9 14:67

151 51 151 247 333 51 224 224 353 51

Luke 1:68-69 7:12-16 7:37 9:27 17:21 18:37 21:12 23:6 24:19

114 243 290 151 151 51 352 51 51

393

Ancient Sources

John 1:1 2:19 4:13-14 4:21 9:22 12:42 16:2 18:5-7 19:19

213 225 235 225 353 354 353 51 51

Acts of the Apostles 2:1-4 2:22 3:6 3:7-8 4:7 4:10-20 5:27-40 6:14 7:2-53 7:38 7:54-60 8:9-25 9:2-24 11:26 12:19 15:1 16:18-19 18:7 20:7 20:16 21:21 22:8 23:8 24:5 24:14 26:9 26:11 26:28 29:9

213 304 285 152

I Corinthians 4:20 8:5 15:47 16:2 16:47

152 322 304 213 303

II Corinthians

208 51 51, 246 246 246 246 353 51 245 312, 326 352 307 353 51 353 232 246 353 213 208 233 51 175 51, 55 51 51 356 51 353

11:24

232 232 303

I Peter

Romans 2:13-15 2:25f 2:29

3:21 5:14 9:6-13 14:17-18

353

Galatians 2:3 2:24 3:19 4:21-28

232 233 312 285

Ephesians 1:19-22 3:21

323 157

Colossians 1.12-13 1:13 1:16 1:17 1:19-20

321 152 321 304 321

Hebrews 1:4 2:2 8:1 8:2 9:8 9:9-10 9:11-14 11:5

4:16

312 312 226 226 226 226 226 315

51

394

Indices 3:4 7:2-3 7:9 9:4 13:16 14:1 14:4 20:4 20:11 20:14

Jude 1:14 1:25

269 157

Revelations 1 1:6 1:10 1:13-14

321 152 213 320

193 200 191 198 198 198 202 320 320 198

Apocryphal New Testament Apostolic Constitutions

Epistle of the Apostles

v, 20

xvii,

210

(Pseudo) Clement Recognitiones i, 47 ii, 39 ii, 57 ii, 60

210

Epistle of Barnabas 5:5 7:3-8 8:1-4

304 307 307 307

304 227 227

Nag Hammadi Library Hypostasis of the Archons Lxxxvi,

Treatise on the Resurrection

308 xlvii,

175

395

Ancient Sources

Talmudic Literature Mishnah

Megillah

Berakhot Ii, 2 Ii, 5 V, 3 vi, 8 ix, 5 184

149 149 188, 190, 297, 300, 329 85 50, 158, 166, 168, 175,

i, 8 iv, 5 iv, 8 iv, 9

260 190 86, 188, 354 158, 188, 330

Yevamot iv, 13 xvi, 7

340 93

Shevi’it Iv, 1

204

Ketubot iv, 5

300

Shabbat Vi, 1 Vi, 2 Vii, 2 Viii, 3

300 196 300 197

Sotah i, 4 ii, 3 ix, 15 xv

264 264 162 165

Pesahim Iv, 8

156

iv, 6 viii, 1

Yoma iii, 6 iii, 8 iii, 9 iv, 1 iv, 8 vii, 5

Gittin

191 158 220 220 158 191

273 149

Sanhedrin i, 2 iv, 5 x, 1 257, 276 x, 5

92 169, 188, 297, 299 175, 191, 244, 247, 267

Rosh Hashanah i, 8 ii, 1 ii, 2 ii, 5 ii, 6 ii, 8 ii, 9 iv, 4 iv, 5

205 188, 204 204 93 204 204 204 204 80

Ta’anit ii, 4

11

Avodah Zarah i, 7 iii, 7

287 215

Avot i, 3 ii, 2 ii, 8 iii, 2

43, 44 261 291 149

396

Birkat haMinim

Menahot x, 3

Yoma 208

Hullin ii, 8 ii, 9 viii, 3

214 166, 184, 189, 214, 45

159

Kelim vi, 7

199

292 292 218 184, 217, 218, 223

Yadayim Iii, 4 Iv, 6 Vi, 9 Iv, 8 26:5 67:3

253 254, 258 189 145, 167 271 271

Tosefta (ed. Zukermandel; ed. Lieberman)

11, 100 130 158, 175, 184

Shabbat xii, 2 xiii, 5 xv, 17 xvi, 17

iv, 28

68

i, 16 ii, 17

207 98

i, 9 i, 10 i, 12 i, 13

67 10 158 242

Sotah xi, 1 xiii, 3 xiii, 4

149 93 94

Bava Metzia Ii, 33

170

Sanhedrin viii, 7 xiii, 4 xiii, 5

300 33, 63, 129, 319 33, 50, 63, 129, 166

Hullin

Berakhot iii, 25 iv, 15 vi, 21

Sukkah

Ta’anit

Parah ii, 1 ii, 3 iii, 2 iii, 3

219 180

Rosh Hashanah

Tamid v, 1

ii, 10 iv, 12

20 216 68 248

i, 1 i, 4 ii, 18 ii, 19 ii, 20 ii, 21 ii, 22 ii, 23 ii, 24

69 49 215 216 166, 239, 275 262 240 240 49, 125, 167, 235, 241

Menahot xiii, 22

142

397

Ancient Sources

Parah iii, 3

Sifre Deuteronomy (ed, Finkelstein) 223

Yadayim iii, 13

251, 261, 274

Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin) Bo, v, 16 Bo, xvii 67 vaYissa, i, 159 Yitro v, 219-220 baHodesh, v 221 Yitro vi 226 Shallah iv, 129-130 Neziqin, xii, 264 Neziqin, xviii, 313 Khaspa, xx, 327

238 199 209 318 185 314 236, 318 248 94 189, 235, 294

Mekhilta deRabbi Shimeon (ed. Epsteim-Melamed) xiv xvi

149 177

Sifra (ed. Weiss, ed. Finkelstein) Dibura deNedavah ii,

177, 221, 224, 337

Aharei Mot vi, Ix,

40 249

Sifre Numbers (ed. Horovitz) xvi (p. 21) xlii, (p. 47) lxxxv (p. 84) cxv (pp. 126-127) cxxxi (p. 170) cxliii (p. 191)

189, 256, 274 256 177 41, 178, 189, 231, 294, 302 149 223, 336

xxxiv (pp. 60-61) xliii, (p. 94) xlviii, (p. 110) cxxvi, (p. 185) cccxxix, (p. 379)

201 95 189, 234 185 338

Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot i, 3c ii, 4a ii, 4d ii, 5a 106, 117 ii, 5d iv, 7a iv, 8a iv, 8c v 9c vi, 11c ix, 12d ix, 13a

189, 201, 231 149 65, 105, 117, 149 9, 10, 11, 89, 100, 105, 149 9 9, 10, 50, 66, 74, 85, 100 107 9, 11, 64, 174, 331, 335 79 167, 310 342

Pe‘ah i, 16b

247, 269

Shabbat vi, 8a xiv, 14d xiv, 19d

68 49, 240 249

Yoma i, 38c viii, 45b

142 269

Rosh Hashanah ii, 57d iv, 59c

206 117

Sukkah v, 55d

68

398

Birkat haMinim

Ta’anit i, 64d ii, 65b ii, 65c iv, 65d iv, 68d

98 126, 324 10 11 142

Megillah iv, 4c iv, 55c

190 332

29a

Hagigah iii, 78d

92, 236

Sotah ix, 24b ix, 24c ix, 27b

90 94 90

Bava Qamma iii, 4d iv, 4d

144 142

Sanhedrin x, 27c

269

Avodah Zarah ii, 40d

49

iii, 4d iv, 4d ii, 40d

144 142 49

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 6a 7a 9b 10a 284 12a

12b 13a-b 14b 15a 16a 20b 21a 26b 27b 28a 28b

183 269, 283 284 150, 125, 269, 282, 283, 124, 160

30a 32b 33a 48b 49a 56b 58a 61b 63b

42, 234, 303, 345 149 149 149 149 149 149 140, 197 84 121 2, 9, 50, 73, 76, 79, 96, 107, 109, 111, 117, 189, 190 2, 9, 10, 41, 66, 73, 96, 122, 157, 166, 189, 190, 192, 216, 354 10 99 78, 331 77, 122 149 125 125, 161, 171 149 236

Shabbat 28b 33b 46a 49a 86b 88a 88b 103b 116a 116b 117b 130a 152a 147b 152a 152b

194 143 283 142, 149, 194 209 179 312 191 127, 291, 314 127, 291 351 194 127 207 279 125

Eruvin 18b 19a 101a

303 33 125, 126, 286

399

Ancient Sources

Pesahim 10b 24a 36a 53a 56a 57a 62b 68b 111b

Hagigah 130 248 84 146 124, 126, 155 167 284, 310 209 117

Rosh Hashanah 17a 18b 22b 31b

223 219 125, 292 248 248

125 67

Beitzah 26a

102b

125, 126

Ketubot 125

Nedarim 20b

231

Sotah

Sukkah 48b 56b

127, 167 303 325 265

Yevamot

112a 63, 170 68 129, 206 236

Yoma 40a 40b 66b 82a 84b

5b 12b 15a 15b

42a 48b 49b

63 94 169, 241, 291

Gittin 11a 45b 55b 56b 57a 67a

179 189, 273, 278 168, 256 276 49, 242, 276 125

235

Bava Qamma Ta’anit 16b 17a 24a 27b

11 11 98 11

Megillah 17b 18a 23a 24b 25a

9, 10, 57, 66, 76, 102, 103, 104 76, 104 125, 242 190, 192, 194 335

16b 38a 117a

178 144 351

Bava Meziah 59a 59b

291 292

Bava Batra 15a 25a

79 171, 179

Sanhedrin 11a

92, 93, 94, 97, 130

400 31b 37a 38a 38b 39a 43a 43b 44a 46a 56b 61b 67a 82a 88b 90b 91a 97a 100b 106b

Birkat haMinim 125 167 188, 301 125, 126, 179, 233, 242, 315 125 275 179 302 146 275 68 279 325 194 122, 123, 128, 174 125, 129, 156 162 258 125

Makkot 24a

17b 18a 26a 26b 27b 28a 44a 47a

281 283 49 169, 241, 286 49, 125, 169, 241, 286, 287, 300 127 143 63 168, 170 49, 190, 236, 241 125, 189, 2423, 249 196 214

13a 13b 41a 84a 87a 141a 141b

189, 275 167, 171, 216, 239 214 242 167, 327 75 75

Keritot 5b

199

Tamid 31b

17b

215

83

Version A i, 2 ii, 13, 14 v, 26 xvi, 64 xxvii, 84

78 127, 278, 344 129, 175 64 238

Version B iii, 13 xli, 114 xliii, 118 x, 26

127, 279 94 149 43

Semahot (ed. Higger) iii, 5 viii, 8

199 170

Menahot 42b

Hullin

Avot deRabbi Natan (ed. Schechter)

Horayot 12a 13b

207 241 221, 336, 337

Niddah 95

Avodah Zarah 4a 4b 6a 16b 17a

65a 99b 110a

190

63 94, 97

Derech Eretz (ed. Higger) Pereq haMinim i, vii,

63, 180 63, 181

Kutim (ed. Higger) Ii, 5

174

401

Ancient Sources Ii, 8

123

(ed. Lieberman) vaEthannan, 68

156

Seder Olam Rabbah (ed. Ratner)

Ecclesiastes Rabbah (ed. Hirshman)

iii, 16-17 v, 50-51

i, 4 i, 8

63 209

Genesis Rabbah (ed. Theodor-Albeck) i, 4 v, 34 viii, 55, 61-63 xi, 94-95 xiv, 131 xvii, 158 xix, 172-173 xxi, 200 xxv, 238-239 lxiii, 393 lxviii, 778 lxxiv, 914 lxxxii, 984-985 lxxxvii, 1065 xcvii, 1220

300 325 128, 203, 305, 310, 315 128, 313 337 327 167 310 126, 167, 314 148 79 68 68 177 236

vii xii

294 127, 156, 160, 167, 169, 240, 241, 275, 286, 290, 344 293 258

Canticles Rabbah ii, 4 ii, 5

162 236

Tanhuma (ed. Buber) Vayera, i 109 Vayiqra, iii 11, 123, 174 Qedoshim, iv 310, 342 Shelah xxxi 41 (L. Ginzberg, Ginze Schechter) Deuteronomy, 156

Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Friedmann) Exodus Rabbah xix xxix

269, 306 340

(ed. Shinan) ii, 118 iv, 148-149

193 310

Leviticus Rabbah xiii (ed. Margulies) xxx,1 690

167 30

Numbers Rabbah xii, 3 xiv, 1 xviii, 21

197 276 109

Deuteronomy Rabbah ii, 33

342

xiii, xvi, 75 xxi, 100, 101

313 162 177, 279, 343

Midrash Samuel (ed. Buber) v, 7 60 xxvi, 3 126

341 117

Midrash Psalms (ed. Buber) ix, 84 xvii, 134 xx, 173 xxii, 188 xxix, 231-233 lxxvi, 338-339 cxxxix, 528-529

314 142 109 345 107 150 305

402

Birkat haMinim

Midrash Panim Aherim (ed. Buber)

Iggeret Rav Shrira Gaon (ed. Lewin)

B, iii,

pp. 39-41

11, 356

Yalqut Shim’oni Numbers 781

75

Rav Natronai bar Hilai Gaon (ed. Brody) 337

p. 258

(ed. Hyman-Shiloni) 708

74

Canticles 986

162

40

Teshuvot haGe’onim Sha‘arei Teshuvah, (ed. Leiter)

256

xxxiv,

41

Seder Eliyyahu Zuta (ed. Friedman)

Sha‘arei Tzedeq (ed. Nissim ben Hayim

ii, 171

Moda‘i)

46

42

Geonica Miscellaneous Yehudah haLevi

Book of Seasons, Erub

Kitab al-Khazari (the Kuzari) (ed.

2:16

Hirschfeld) Iii, 212

70

Book of Holiness, Shehitah 4:16

Rambam (Maimonides) Mishneh Torah Book of Knowledge, Repentance, 3:7

43

Book of Love, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 4:3

43

44

43

Book of Torts, Murder and the Preservation of Life, 4:5,

44

Book of Acquisition, Slaves 6:10

43

Book of Judges, Rebels 3:3,

43, 45

Prayer and Priestly Blessing, 2:1

42

Commentary on the Mishnah Avot i, 3 Sanhedrin, xi, 3

43 43

403

Ancient Sources 8H 11/16 8H24.5 10 H9/9 (NS) 150.35 (NS) 198.96.

Responsa (ed. Blau) cclxiii,

43

35 22, 23 34 37 37

10K6 (Damascus Document) Rambnan (Nahmanides) Commentary on Leviticus xvi

2:11-12

54

220

Other Collections Yaaqov ben Asher Tur, Orah Hayyim cxvii, cxxvi,

British Museum

18 124

Cairo Genizah (Tailor-Schechter Collection) K27.33 H10/1 H18.3 K27.18 8H9.12

22, 24, 116 35 22, 23 22, 116 22

Add. 27200-1 Hunt. 80 Hunt. 448

16 15 14

Or. 1067

14, 18

Neubauer Catalogue 577 1059 1096 1906

15 14 14 37

Oxford Heb. F29 2738/B

37 38

Greek and Latin Authors Letter of Aristaeus 176

191

Cassius Dio Historia Romana xxxvii,17,1

146

Josephus Bellum Judaicum ii, 8, 1-14 (117-186) 52 ii, 8, 3-7 (122-142) 191

ii, 8, 14 (164-165) vii, 10, 2 (420-421) ii, 10, 4 (433-436) ii, 13, 5 (261-263)

175 144, 146 144 54

Antiquitates Judaicae xiv 10,12-21 xviii, 63-64 xix 5,3 xx, 167-172 xx, 261

144 54, 244 144 54 267

404

Birkat haMinim

Vita li, (265)

Legum Allegoriae, 242

III, xii, 31

305

Philo 'H2SL¿FLR0XQGL, xlvi, 134

305

Christian Authors Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses

Irenaeus Adversus Haereses

iv, 14

iii, 11:8 i, 23.2 i, 24.1 i, 26

200

Egeria Itinerarium Egeriae xliii,

v, 18 viii, 14 viii, 20-21 ix, 1-4 xxix, 20-21 xxxi, 6-9 xlix, 7 lii, 4-5

198 55 56 350 349 175 243

i, 11

Historia Ecclessiastica

56

Justin Martyr Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo

271 350 289

Hippolytus Refutatio Omnium Haeresium vii. 34. 1-2

56

Epistolae (to Augustin)

52

cxii, 13

iv, 26 iii, 27 iii, 32

56 60 60 60 60 60 56 56

Commentaria in Amos

Eusebius Commentaria in Isaiam xviii, 1

307 307 270

Jerome Commentaria in Isaiam

210

Epiphanius Panarion adversus haereses xv xxix.1.6 xxix.9.2 xxx.13 xxx.18.1 xl.2.5 lxxvii.7.1

271

350

10 16 22 38 40

268 53, 163, 355 232 127, 280, 356 355

405

Ancient Sources 46 47 62 104 108 120 137

198 356 304, 311 357 52 355 163, 356

Tertullian Apologeticus pro Christiani xxi, 1

de Baptismo xix,

I Apologia 26:5 67:3

271 271

210

de Corona Militis iii,

200

Adversus Praxeam

Origen In Ezec. ix

144

xii, 200

Contra Celsum i, 33 v, 61 viii, 22

243 350 209

xxvii ff

279

311

Adversus Marcionem iv. 8, iii, 23

53 200

Adversus Judaeos ii, 27

314

General Index Abbahu, R. 124–126, 155, 156, 160, 167, 170, 242, 249, 252, 253, 281, 282, 284, 285, 1 313–315, 324, 341–344, 346 Abbaye 73, 88 Abercius, Epitaph of 199 Abraham 79, 107, 150, 155, 212, 232, 284, 285, 342 Abu ‘Isa 47 Adam 233, 301–316, Aetheria see Egeria Aggripa, King Agobard, Bishop 138 Aha, Rav 88, 121, 170 Alessandro of Bologna 140 Alexandria (-ns) 144, 147, 191, 192, 304, 346, 347 Amemar 123, 159, 170, 328, Amidah see Shemone Esreh Ammi, R. 122, 129, 155, 156, 239 Amram Ga’on 13 Amulet 196–198, 202, 228, 229 Anan ben David 39, 40 Ancient of Days 192, 318, 319, 323, 343 Androgynos 305 Angels 150, 156, 301, 303, 305, 307, 308, 310312, 317, 322, 323 Antigonus of Socho 78 Antioch (-enes) 50, 51, 53, 167, 232, 233, 307, 310, 313 Antiochos Epiphanes 68, 81, 136 Antoninus Pious 145 Apollinaius of Laodicaea 57 Aposynagogus 353 Apostates 2, 14, 15, 17, 18 ,23–28, 33 ,36, 38, 50, 61–63, 67–72, 129, 161, 166, 170, 180, 181, 231, 329 – see also, Meshumadim Apostolic Fathers 192, 268, 269

1

R. = Rabbi

1

Aqiva, R. 95, 106, 142, 191, 218–220, 236, 241, 247, 250, 256–264, 266–268, 270, 271, 274–276, 285, 287, 289, 310, 313, 316–318, 324, 337, 366, 367 Archons 308, 309, 311 Arrogant 2, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23–26, 28, 33–37, 44, 61, 64–67, 69, 71, 86–89, 100105, 107, 111–113, 118, 121, 182, 192, 136, 138, 139, 174, 195, 356, 363 – see also, Zedim Ashkenaz(i) 19, 63. Assyria 139 Atzeret 206, 207, 209, 212, 213, 236 Augustine 55, 56, 58–61, 179, 304, 348, 351, 358 Avidan, House of 127, 252, 254, 274, 351 Azazel 220 Babylonia 2, 14, 19, 20, 27, 29, 46, 47, 67, 74, 103, 109, 115, 120, 123–126, 129, 139, 147–149, 160–163, 171, 179, 182, 195, 239, 260, 298, 306, 309, 349 Babylonian rite of Prayer 19, 20, 22–24, 26, 36, 103, 105, 109, 110, 115–118, 120, 137, 148 Balaam ben Beor 275, 276 Balkans 19 Bans – Christian 20, 137, 138, 210 – Jewish 3, 127, 146, 188–192, 214- 217, 230, 233, 240, 241, 246, 247, 248, 250, 258, 260, 262, 265, 274, 279- 281, 283, 288, 291, 295, 334, 335, 354, 356, 359, 366–368 – Roman 68, 145 Baptism 70, 210 Bar Kokhba Revolt 3, 43, 67–69, 92–94, 98 137, 142, 160, 194, 236, 237, 267, 268, 279, 281, 295, 355 Barcelona, Dispute 18, 231 Basilides 345 Beitar 77

General Index Ben Azzai 221–223, 336, 337, 339, 340 Beruriah 125, 284–286 Birkat haMishpat Blood 199, 214, 216, 226, 228, 230, 240, 242, 321 Boethus 43, 174 Boethusians 43–45, 129, 205–208, 212 Books of Magic 239, 275, 276 Books of minim 189, 250–268, 270–276, 283, 285, 286, 295, 296, 366–368. Byzantine: – Empire 59, 135, 137, 138, 163 – Period 28 – Rulers 59, 137, 138 Cairo Genizah (see Genizah) Canon 270, 271, 274, 275, 304 – Marcion’s 270, 272 Ceasarea 126, 160, 170, 281, 289, 293, 305, 313, 324, 341, 346 Censorship 5, 18, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 48, 56, 57, 123, 144, 167, 176, 337 Chrinthus 350 Christianity: – Beginning 5, 159, 202, 340 – Bible 272, 274, 277, 280, 368 – Early 142, 153, 179, 191, 197, 200, 202, 210, 229, 230, 277, 287, 301, 303, 307, 314, 321, 323, 333, 334, 363, 365, 366 – Theology 150, 202, 210, 245, 271, 302, 306 Christology 271, 305 Church: – beginning 209, 210, 212 Church Fathers 5, 48, 52, 53, 57, 187, 243, 279, 306, 311, 312, 347, 349–352, 356–358 Circumcision 128, 145, 232, 233, 302, 303, 306, 313, 314, 339, 340, 366 – of the Heart 232, 303, 366 Claudius, Emperor 144 Constantine, Emperor 185, 281, 337 Conversio 306 Converts 4, 45, 80, 237 Creation 49, 151, 176, 211, 212, 300, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308–312, 316, 322, 323,328, 346, 347 – of Man (Adam) 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 369 Cross 198–200, 202, 203, 209, 225, 227, 229, 321 Crusaders 20

407

Daniel, Grandson of Anan 39 David, King: – House of 19, 116, 119, 149, 152, 269, 317, 320, 321 Day of Atonement 38, 156, 158, 191, 220, 224, 226 Decius, Emperor 281, 341 Defilement of the Hands (‘render the hands unclean’) 253, 254, 257, 258, 261, 262, 274 Demiurge 221, 307, 308, 326, 329, 333 Demons 245, 247, 303 Deuterosis 138 Diaspora 3, 22, 72, 135, 146, 147, 204, 208, 355, 356 Diocletian, Emperor 281 Dominicans 141 Domitian, Emperor 146, 289 Donin, Nicholas 16, 17, 19, 25, 34, 36, 62, 139, 140, 362 Dualism 324 – Christian 222, 230, 325, 333, 345 – Gnostic 221, 280, 306, 318, 327, 333, 339, 347, 350 – Persian 329, 345, 347, 348 Ebionites 62, 349–351, 358, 359 Egeria 210, 213 Egypt 4, 13, 15, 17, 20, 27, 29, 37, 42, 44, 46, 139, 144, 146, 233, 307, 318, 345 Egyptians 9, 49, 242, 244, 247 Elazar ben Azariah, R. 95 Elazar ben Pedat 177, 303 Elazar ben Parta 127 Elazar beRabbi Yose 100, 107 Elazar beRabbi Shimeon 30 Elazar ben Shamo’a 209 Elchasites 306, 359, 369 Eliezer ben Dama 126, 169, 235, 240–242, 247–249, 260, 262, 293, 294, 296, 366 Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, R. 48, 94, 95, 122, 123, 125–127, 162, 167, 169, 174, 178, 235, 275, 278, 286–293, 296, 313, 315, 337, 344, 368 Eliezer ben Rabbi Yose, R. 123 Elisha ben Abuyah 266, 280 End of Days 148, 150, 151, 155, 159, 161, 202, 320, 343, 344 Epiphanius 5, 47, 54–62, 115, 198, 243, 349, 350, 357–359

408

Birkat haMinim

Essenes 191, 192 Eve 313 Evil Eye 197 Excommunication 292, 293, 354, 356 Ezra, the Scribe 91, 140 Fast 10, 11, 49, 98, 106, 210, 303 Felix, Praefect 51–53, 55 Flavia Neapolis 5, 355 Food – Bread 189, 239, 275 – Fruit 162, 176, 189, 206, 239 – Meat 170, 239, 240 – Mustard 313 – Vetches 313 – Wine 162, 239, 275, 278 Foreskin 232, 269, 302 France 17, 18, 19, 139 Fustat 22 Galilean 145, 167, 184, 282 Galilee 93, 167, 236, 242, 243 Gamaliel I, Rabban (The Elder) 78, 93, 96, 265 Gamaliel II, Rabban (of Yavneh) 2, 6, 9, 10, 28, 42, 73, 75, 76, 78, 81–85, 89, 92–98, 106, 108, 110, 114, 115, 121–123, 126–128, 130, 131, 140, 143, 145–149, 161, 173, 174, 176, 181, 187, 204, 205, 237, 268, 286, 290, 291, 292, 314, 327, 328, 330, 335, 354, 362, 364 Gehinnom 33–35, 62, 129 Genizah 1, 2, 5, 6, 12–14, 16–27, 31–35, 37–39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 57, 58, 61–64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 87, 101–103, 108, 115, 116, 118–120, 122, 134, 136, 156, 164, 191, 207, 251, 252, 360–362 Gentile (-s) 232, 233, 237, 292, 359 Ge’onim 20, 29, 39, 171 Gilyonim 127, 128, 251–257, 265, 266, 275 Give Your Fear, prayer 140, 141 Goat (-s) 146, 219, 220, 223, 226, 227, 230 Gnosis 2, 221, 230, 234, 266, 306, 322, 346, 347, 348 Grace after Meals 77, 116, 122, 167 Gradum 286, 287, 288 Great Assembly 77–82, 101, 110, 131, 140 Gregory IX, Pope 17, 139 Hadrian 68, 145, 146 Haeresis 51, 348

Halakhah (-ot) Haman 10, 11, 138, 139, 356, 357 Hanina ben Teradyon, R. 143, 242, 284 Hannah, Prayer of 80, 81, 115 Hasmonaean Revolt 80 Havinenu, prayer 10, 66 Healing 11, 98, 240–249, 257, 261, 262, 296, 366 Heavenly Court 316, 317 Hebraists 141, 166, 169, 179 Hellenism 4, 191, 208, 216, 217, 260, 261, 278, 301, 305, 308, 313, 321, 341, 343, 345, 346, 347, 353–355, 358, 359, 363, 366, 367, 369, 370 Heraclius 21, 138 High Priest 53, 73, 191, 287, 289 Hillel ben Shemuel 73 Hillel the Elder 91 Hippolytus 350, 351, 359 Hisda, Rav 159, 170, 181 Hiyya bar Abba, R. 75, 105, 343, 344 Holy Spirit 53, 91, 208, 209, 245, 308 Holy Trinity 311, 341–343 Homer 252, 258–260 Honi haMe’agel 98 Honi haQatan 98 Huna, Rav 100, 106–108, 110, 111 Huna bar Yehudah, Rav 351 Idi(th), Rav 126, 179, 318, 324–326 Idol Worship 40, 44, 142, 167, 171 Illnesses and Disabilities: – Blindness 243 – Dumbness 243 – Hemorrhage 243 – Leprosy 243 – Paralysis 243 Ima Shalom 127, 291, 314 Impurity 7, 223, 365, 367 – see also Defilement of the Hands Informers 14, 18, 63, 170 Intercalation of the Year 92–95, 97, 130, 236 Iran, Iranian 4, 309 Irenaeus 5, 271, 307, 308, 349–351, 359 Isaac 107, 150, 155, 285, 342 Ishmael ben Elisha, R. 57, 94, 96, 126, 218, 240, 241, 249–252, 256, 260, 263, 266, 324, 337 Ishmael beRabbi Yose, R. 326 Ishmael Hanina Valmontone, 140

General Index Israelites 43, 144, 342 Jacob 107, 150, 155, 342 James the Just 242 Jerome 5, 47, 54–61, 138, 163, 164, 195, 203, 271, 348–351, 357–359, 361 Jerusalem 3, 208, 210, 213, 224, 225, 227, 228, 230, 285, 320, 340, 362 Jerusalem (prayer for) 52, 64, 58, 77, 100, 103, 106, 107, 111, 113, 114, 116–120, 122– 124, 129, 149, 174, 175, Jesus: – Christ 52, 53, 56, 61, 157, 166, 169, 192, 200, 202, 210, 212, 213, 226, 232, 246, 265, 268, 290, 304, 306, 308, 311, 312, 321–323, 334, 341, 346, 355–357, 366 – Crucifixion 150, 152, 208, 209, 211, 212, 225, 226, 244 – Disciples 45, 50, 56, 151, 152, 154, 169, 179, 192, 193, 208–210, 224, 244–246, 287, 294, 320, 347, 352, 353, 366 – haNotzri 45, 126, 242, 288 – King of Israel 163, 336 – Priestly function, 199 – Resurrection 38, 152, 209, 210, 212, 225, 244 – Son of Man 150–153, 308, 318, 319, 320, 323, 324, 346 – Yeshu’a (ben) Pandera/Pantira/Pantiri 48, 126, 169, 235, 240, 242, 287, 288 Jewish-Christians 28, 29, 46, 47, 54, 55, 57, 59, 114, 165, 169, 200, 217, 265, 276, 280, 306, 339, 340, 342, 349–351, 355, 357359, 367, 368, 369, 370 Jewish Christian Polemic 163, 166, 358 Johannes Buxtorf, I, II 141 Johannes Chrysostom 197, 198, 200 Johannes Pfeffercorn 141 Johannes Reuchlin 141 Joshua ben Hananiah 31, 33, 62, 63, 66, 67, 160, 204, 286, 290, 291 Joshua ben Karha 150 Joshua ben Levi 1, 7, 23, 24, 41, 42, 55, 57, 58, 248, 249, 282, 283 Joshua ben Perahyah 48 Judaea 3, 141, 144, 289 Judah bar Simon, R. 342–344 Judah ben Bava 68 Judah ben Naqusa, R. 293, 294 Judah haNasi 6, 75, 95, 135, 148, 162, 167,

409

185, 235, 261, 264, 283, 292, 327 Judaism Justin Martyr 4, 5, 52, 53, 127, 163, 198, 237, 268, 271, 280, 295, 304, 310, 311, 313, 339, 347, 355–357, 359 Justinian 20, 137, 138 Karaites 39–48, 70, 134, 164, 207, 361 Kfar Nahum (Capernaum) 127, 293, 294 Kfar Niburaiah 293, 294 Kfar Sama 241, 242, 293 Kfar Sekhania 49, 126, 167, 241, 242, 287, 288, 290, 294, 296 Kingdom of Arrogance 14, 15, 17, 19, 23–25, 27, 28, 35, 61, 67, 69–71, 133, 135–144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160164, 299, 360, 363, 364 Kingdom of Heaven 148–155, 157, 159–164, 212, 213, 245, 301, 350, 364 Knesset haGedolah see Great Assembly Kutim 43, 123, 162, 174, 204 Land of Israel rite, see Palestinian Levi, R. 73, 105, 106, 109–111, 177, 197 Levites 204, 342 Lod (Lydda) 284, 310, 313 Logos 304–306, 311, 334 Louis the Pious 138 Maimonides (see Rambam) Malkhut Zadon – see also, Kingdom of Arrogance Malshinim (see, Informers) 14, 18, 63 Mani 178–182, 298, 309, 345 Manichaeans 178, 179, 181, 182, 309, 364 Marcion of Synope 200, 270, 271, 274 Mark of the Beast (Satan) 198, 199, 202 Martyrs 94, 198, 202, 352 Me’ir R. 92, 155, 174, 207, 209, 236, 250, 252, 254, 284, 303 Melito 271 Menander 271, 307 Meshumadim 2, 25, 27, 28, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70–72 166, 360 – see also, Apostates Messianic 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 150, 224, 243, 347, 348, 353, 354, 362–363 Messianism 142, 150, 227, 285 Metatron 325, 326, 329 Mezuzah 194, 196, 273

410

Birkat haMinim

Middle East 19, 29, 61, 182 Milah see Circumcision Minut – as Prostitution 177, 178, 279, 344 Monotheism 327, 328, 333, 347 Month: – Adar 205–208 – Nissan 206–208, 212, 228 Moses 40, 77, 79, 128, 145, 155, 156, 159, 178, 192, 194, 200, 201, 226, 232, 234, 238, 290, 304, 307, 310, 312, 314, 325, 326, 341 Mt. Gerizim 123 Mt. Sinai 197, 211, 226, 232, 284, 312, 326, 343 Mt. Zion 198 Muslim Period 20, 27 Naasenes 308 Nahman, Rav 77, 126, 168, 179, 197, 239, 273, 274, 302 Natan, R. 235, 236, 279, 293, 294, 319, 337, 339 Nations of the World 33, 62, 220, 318, 319, 337, 338 Natronai bar Hilai 5, 34, 39–42, 46, 47, 101, 120, 139 ,178 Nazarenes, see Notzrim Nazarites 52, 53 Neharde’a 123, 124, 155, 160, 171 Nehemiah, R. 92, 162, 207, 236 Nehorai, R. 207, 209, 236 Nerva, Emperor 146 Netzrafi, House of 274, 351 New Moon 30, 166, 188, 203–208, 212, 213, 228, 236 New Testament 3, 47, 51, 150, 187, 198, 199, 208, 210, 224, 227, 232, 244, 245, 267, 269, 271, 284, 285, 305, 307, 320, 321, 333, 339, 347, 351–354, 357, 358, 366 New Year, see Rosh haShanah Nisi, R. 293, 294 North Africa 19, 27, 29, 47, 60, 309, 361 Notzrim/Nazarenes 14, 18, 11, 23–29, 36–39, 45–62, 66, 67, 70–72, 127, 139, 163, 164, 276, 357–359, 360–362, 369 Old Testament 150, 152, 209, 213, 225, 226, 227, 232, 244, 245, 267, 271, 272, 284, 285, 304

Omer 156, 207, 208 Ophites 308 Oral Law 3, 43, 44, 80, 201 Origen 5, 200, 202, 209, 243, 279, 314, 349, 350, 351 Oshaia, R. 75 Outside Books 252, 257, 258, 260–264, 267, 276, 367 Pagan: – Christians 217, 265, 348, 357 – Customs 179, 216, 230, 257 – Hellenism 4, 217, 363, 341, 366, 367, 369 – Worship 68, 215, 231, 233, 234, 238, 239, 248, 279, 344 Palestinian rite of Prayer 16–24, 25, 35, 103, 105, 108, 109, 114–116, 120, 136 Palestine 3, 20, 48, 57, 59, 126, 281, 306, 355, 361 Papayes, R. 310 Parthian Empire 147 Paris, Dispute 9, 17, 18, 57, 139, 140 Passover 48, 145, 146, 206, 208, 209 – Haggadah 39 – Seder 39 Paul 4, 51–55, 208, 231–233, 284, 285, 302, 303, 307, 312, 313, 350, 353, 355, 356 Pentecost 208–213, 228, 246 Peter 152, 233, 244, 245, 246 Pharisees 56, 59, 80, 91, 101, 154, 157, 163, 174, 187, 198, 200–202, 258, 361 Philo of Alexandria 304, 305, 346 Philosophos (Philosoper) 127, 128, 313, 314 Phylacteries see Tefillin Pinhas, R. 79, 107 Piqoi ben Baboi 20, 138 Pompeius Falco 289 Pompeius Longinus 289 Pontius Pilate 352 Poseidon 214 Priest (-s): – Christian 135, 192, – Jewish (Cohanim) 52, 191, 193, 199, 107, 211, 225, 226, 246, 264, 342 – Kingdom of 152 Proselytes 65, 100, 105, 107, 113, 119 Prostitute 177, 278, 279, 292, 344 Protos Anthropos 304, 306, 308 Ptolemaic period 81

General Index Qerovah (-ot) 30–35, 38, 39 Rabba bar Hana 70 Rabba bar bar Hana 159 Rabba bar Shila 117 Rabina 170 Rambam 2, 15, 16, 19, 34–47, 61, 194, 196 Ramban 220, 231 Rashi 2, 57, 155, 169, 192, 194, 196, 197, 216, 303 Rav 73, 87, 88, 122, 233, 252, 302, Rava 73, 88, 125, 194, 219, 242 Red Heifer 217, 218, 223, 226, 227, 230, 291, 292 Revival of the Dead 62, 123, 128–130, 156, 158, 174–176, 185, 247 Roman Empire 3, 6, 69, 72, 135, 136, 137, 141, 143, 146–148, 160–162, 185, 195, 281, 290, 300, 306, 327, 337, 363, 364 – Rule 3, 80, 160 – Legislation 3, 68, 145, 269 – Army 68 Rome 3, 95, 130, 136, 137, 139, 141–149, 161–163, 167, 172, 179, 199, 279, 291, 300, 349, 352, 362, 364 Rosh haShanah 80, 140 Sa’adiah ben Joseph Ga’on Sabbath 28, 40, 51, 43, 44, 46, 49, 55, 117, 127, 146, 196, 207–209, 212, 213, 236, 248, 252, 253, 254, 257, 263, 272, 273, 302 Sacrifice 109, 180, 221, 222, 224, 225–228, 230, 239, 249, 267, 336, 352, 366 Sadducees (see Zadoqites) Sakhnin (see Kfar Sekhania) Salman Zebi of Offenhausen 140 Samaritans see Kutim Samuel, Prophet 90, 98 Samuel Friedrich Brentz 40 Sandal (-s) 190, 192, 193, 354 Sanhedrin 78, 352, 353 Sanctification: – of the Month 203, 205, 208, 213, 228 – of the Name (God) 80, 303, 342 – of Christian Writings 269, 270, 367 – of Jesus’ Disciples 209 – of Water 223 Satan 151, 152, 198, 202, 225, 245, 308 Saturninus of Antioch 307, 308

411

Scroll of the Law 196, 252, 254 Seal of God 198, 199–200, 202 Sefarim Hizonim see Outside Books Sepphoris 143, 275, 287, 288 Serini/ Serenus 47 Sermon on the Mount 127, 153, 245, 350 Shavu’ot see Pentecost Shekhinah 181, 193, 316, 317, 328 Shemone Esreh 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30–36, 38, 39, 41, 56, 58, 65–67, 73, 74, 76–82, 84, 88, 97, 99, 100, 102–108, 110–118, 120–122, 124, 131, 143, 149, 158, 161, 173, 238, 242, 330, 331, 361, 362 – Avot 80, 100, 107, 113 – Gevurot (and ‘Who revives the dead’) 64, 80, 112, 122–124, 128–130, 174 – Kedushat haShem 80 – Honen haDaat 88, 117 – Ge’ulah 11 – Refu’ah 11 – haMishpat 10, 11 – Tzadiqim 100, 105, 107, 113, 117, 119 – Bone Yerushalaim 77, 100, 105 – Tzenah David 103,105, 109, 113, 114, 116–118, 120 – Shome’a Teffilah 117, 118 Shem’a prayer 42, 73, 150, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 171, 189, 195, 197, 201, 229, 233, 330, 331 Shemad 67–69, 71, 95 – see also, Roman repressive legislation Shemuel haQatan 2, 8, 9, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 78, 81, 82, 84–101, 112–114, 121, 124, 132, 363 Sheshet, Rav 171, 179 Shimeon haPaquli 73, 76, 77, 81–84, 89, 93, 97, 101, 104–106, 110, 115, 121 Shlomo Yitzhaqi see Rashi Sifre minim see Books of minim Shimeon bar Abin 79 Shimeon bar Yohai, R. 123, 236 Shimeon ben Gamaliel, rabban 94, 130, 172, 237 Shimeon ben Mansia, R. 234, 235, 236, 337 Simhah ben Shemuel 16, 18 Simlai, R. 128, 167, 281, 310, 311, 313, 315, 316, 341–344 Simon, R. 88, 106, 335 Simon Magus 271, 307

412

Birkat haMinim

Simon the Just 78 Slaughter: – Ritual 44, 45, 68, 189, 214, 227, 228, 277, 292, 365 – By min 68, 189, 239, 240, 288 – By Pagans 68, 214, 215, 216 – Into a hole 184, 213–217, Snake bite 169, 240, 242, 246 Sodom and Gomorrah 326 Somchos 10, 11 Sons of Zebedee 244, 247 Sorcery 89 Spain 13, 18, 27, 361 Stephen 245, 312, 326, 352 Sunday 49, 206–213, 228 Sura 13, 14, 50, 159 Synagogue(s) 5, 48, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 78, 81, 103, 123, 124, 126, 146, 157, 163, 190, 193, 228–230, 237, 243, 277, 290, 336, 349, 352–359, 365 Syria 21, 130, 143, 180, 243, 301 Tabernacle 197, 219, 226, 264, 286 Ta’harah see Purity Tahlifa bar Avdimi 49 Tanhuma, R. 117, 118 Tarfon, R. 127, 250–252, 256, 262–264, 266, 285 Taw 199, 200, 202 Teacher of Righteousness 211 Tefillin 188, 190, 191, 193–203, 228, 229, 238, 273, 354 Temple: – First 77, 142, 193 – Period 168 – Second 4, 109, 119, 131, 137, 142, 143, 144, 149, 153, 158, 168, 172, 175, 185, 217–228, 230, 231, 236, 246, 289, 290, 292, 303, 362, 366, 368 – Period 3, 29, 79, 111, 115, 121, 129, 131, 141, 144, 158, 173- 176, 191, 204, 224, 266, 293 – Mount 21, 217, 246 – Onias’ 77, 79, 81, 91, 93 – Pagan 251, 252 Ten Commandments 42, 123, 158–160, 170, 189, 195, 201–203, 209, 229, 339, 340 Tent of Meeting 220 Tertullian 52, 53, 144, 200, 202, 210, 311, 314, 359

Tertullus 51–53 Testimonium Flavianum 53, 244 Tetragrammaton 198, 221, 224, 247, 336, 337 Thaddeus of Rome 146 Thrones 241, 315–323, 325, 326, 343, 344, 346, 347 Torah: – Giving of the 209, 211, 213, 232, 312, 326 – Sefer, See Scroll of the Law Tortosa, dispute 18 Trajan, Emperor 146, 147, 289 Tum’ah see Impurity Tum’at Yadaim see Defilement of the Hands Two Powers 177, 187, 216, 217, 223, 229, 236, 241, 256, 286, 300–347, 368, 369 Tzemah David see, Offspring of David Ushah 207, 209, 236 – Period 208, 209, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 267, 268, 277, 279, 284, 295, 355, 363 Valentinus 345 Valley of Rimon 92, 93, 95, 236 Verus Israel 4, 272, 369 Virgin Birth 56, 243, 348–350 Water 214–218, 223, 234, 235, 249, 249, 251, 252, 264, 325, 328 – Dirty 214, 215, 234, 235, 249 – Living 234, 249 White Garments 191, 192, 228 World to Come 45, 62, 174, 247–249, 237, 258, 261, 267–269, 276, 292, 318, 366 Ya’aqov the min 241, 242, 249, 262, 287–290, 293, 294, 296, 366 Yaldabaoth 308 Yannai, king 73 Yannai, R. 196, 288 Yannai, the Poet 31, 38 Yavneh period 1, 3, 4, 57, 61, 75, 77, 79, 81, 97–99, 110–112, 114, 115, 119, 121, 128, 129, 131, 134, 143, 149, 160, 161, 164, 172–176, 181, 261, 266, 268, 281, 283, 307, 362, 368 Yehiel of Paris, R. 139, 140 Yehudah ber Haviva 233 Yehudah bar Yehezqel, Rav 125, 242 Yehudah bar Zebuda, Rav 159 Yehudai, Rav 20, 138

General Index Yohanan, R. 40, 49, 76, 79, 92, 106, 123, 142, 168, 178, 248, 252, 254, 291, 310, 315317, 339 Yohanan ben Torta, R. 142 Yohanan ben Zakkai 4, 98, 99, 128, 130, 172, 173, 204, 287, 291 Yom Kippur, see Day of Atonement Yose ben Halafta, R. 92, 100, 107, 143, 184, 217, 221, 222, 236, 252, 263, 313, 316, 317, 324, 327, 335, 337 Yose ben Kisma, R. 143

413

Yosse bar Abin 206, 334, 335 Zadoq 43 Zadoqites 43–45, 158, 168, 174–176, 185, 216, 258, 347 Zealot (-s) 145, 148, 157, 282 Zeira, Rav 331 Zedim 2, 9, 10, 28, 64, 69, 86 – see also, Arrogant Zenut see Prostitution Zoroastrianism 328, 329