Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Part 3: Judaism Before 70 (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 1592447414, 9781592447411

Citation preview

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS PART THREE

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME TWELVE

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS PART THREE

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS STUDIES FOR MORTON SMITH AT SIXTY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART THREE

JUDAISM BEFORE 70

Wip_f & Stock P U B f-1 S H E R S Eugene, Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 West 8th Avenue, Suite 3 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Part 3 Judaism Before 70 By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1975 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN: 1-59244-741-4 Publication date 7/9/2004 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1975

TABLE OF CONTENTS Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . YocHANAN MUFFS, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America

1

On the Origins of the Aramaic Legal Formulary at Elephantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BARUCHA. LEVINE, New York University

37

Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29 .... ALBERTI. BAUMGARTEN, McMaster University

55

The Jewish Historian Demetrios . . . . E. J. BICKERMAN,Columbia University

72

The Tales of the Tobiads . . . . . . . . JONATHANA. GOLDSTEIN,University of Iowa The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: A Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography HORST R. MOEHRING,Brown University

124

The Archangel Sariel. A Targumic Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GEzA VERMES,University of Oxford

159

Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies RICHARDN. FRYE, Harvard University

167

The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity ROBERTA. KRAFT, University of Pennsylvania

175

A Note on Purification and Proselyte Baptism . . . . . R. J. Zw1 WERBLOWSKY, Hebrew University Jerusalem

zoo

Sadducces versus Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources JACK LIGHTSTONE,Brown University

206

Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship LOUIS H. FELDMAN,Yeshiva University

218

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART ONE NEW TESTAMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreword New Testament Introduction. A Critique of a Discipline HELMUT KOESTER, Harvard University Good News Is No News: Aretalogy and Gospel JONATHANZ. SMITH, University of Chicago A Fresh Approach to Q . . . . . . . . . ViTrLLIAMR. FARMER, Southern Methodist University Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History T. A. BuRKILL, University of Rhodesia From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4 . . . . . . . . . . . JAMES A. SANDERS,Union Theological Seminary . . . Luke r2, 13-14, Tradition and Interpretation TJITZE BAARDA,Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam "Am I a Jew ?" - J ohannme Christianity and Judaism WAYNE A. MEEKS, Yale University The Kmship of John and Acts . . . . . . . . . . PIERSON PARKER, The General Theological Seminary A Foreword to the Study of the Speeches m Acts . . . . MAX WILCOX,Umversity College of North Wales, Bangor L'hymne christologique de Coli, 15-20. Jugement critique sur l'etat des recherches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PIERRE BENOIT, o.p., Ecole bibhque et archeologique fram;:aise Jerusalem . . . . . Paul and his Opponents: Trends in Research E. EARLE ELLIS, New Brunswick Theological Seminary The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews . . . . . . . GEORGE WESLEY BUCHANAN,Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington

x

r 21 39 51 75

107 163 187 206 226 264 299

PART Two EARLY CHRISTIANITY The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement ROBIN SCROGGS,Chicago Theological Semmary Power through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestine . SHELDONR. ISENBERGUniversity of Florida . . . Reflexions sur le J udeo-Christianisme MARCELSIMON, Universite de Strasbourg Asia Mmor and Early Christianity . . . . . SHERMANE. JOHNSON,Church Divmity School of the Pacific Peter m Rome. A Review and Position D. W. O'CONNOR,St. Lawrence Umversity Une allus10n de l'Asclepms au livre d'Henoch MARCPHILONENKO,Universite de Strasbourg Chnst in Verbal and Depicted Imagery: A Problem of Early Chrbtian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iconography s. G. F. BRANDON Das Thema "Vertreibung aus dern Paradies" in der Katakombe der Via . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Latina und sein jtidischer Hintergrund KuRT and URSULASCHUBERT,Umversitat Wien

r 24 53 77 146 161 164 173

VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Vox Populi Voluntas Dei and the Election of the Byzantme Emperor. MILTON V. ANASTOS,University of California, Los Angeles . . . . . . Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images STEPHEN GERO, Brown University Ecclesiastical Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: Contemporary Orthodoxy and Pseudorthodoxy ERNEST S. FRERICHS, Brown University

181 208

217

PART FOUR JUDAISM AFTER

70

Redactional Techniques in the Legal Traditions of Joshua ben I:Iananiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WILLIAM SCOTT GREEN, Umversity of Rochester The Artificial Dispute: Ishmael and 'Aqiva . . . . . GARY G. PoRTON, University of Illinois Form-Criticism and Exegesis: The Case of Mishnah Ohalot 2 :1 JACOB NEUSNER, Brown University Two Tradit10ns of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative Versions BARUCHM. BoKSER, University of California, Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Abbahu of Caesarea LEE I. LEVINE, Hebrew Umversity, Jerusalem "Conjecture" and Interpolation in Translatmg Rabbimc Texts, Illu. . . . . . . . . . strated by a Chapter from Tanna debe Ehyyahu WILLIAM G. BRAUDE, Providence, Rhode Island OTHER

GRECO-ROMAN

1 18

30 46 56

77

CULTS

. . . . . . . . . Iconoclasm among the Zoroastrians MARY BOYCE, University of London Quellenprobleme zum Ursprung und Alter der Manda.er Leipzig KURT RUDOLPH, Karl-Marx-Universitat, The Religion of Maximin Daia . . . . . . ROBERT M. GRANT, Umversity of Chicago Dositheus, Jesus, and a Moses Aretalogy STANLEYIssER, State Umversity of New York, Bmghamton

93 II2 143 167

BIBLIOGRAPHY A Bibliography of the Writings of Morton Smith, to December 31, 1973. A. THOMASKRAABEL,Umversity of Mmnesota

191

Index of Biblical and Talmudic References General Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

201 220

JOY AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS OF WILLINGNESS AND SPONTANEITY IN CUNEIFORM. ANCIENT HEBREW, AND RELATED LITERATURES Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants

YOCHANANMUFFS The Jewish Theological Seminary

It has been clear for a long time, that rabbinic literature can be properly understood only against the background of contemporary Greek and Roman civilization. 1 Less commonly appreciated is the importance of ancient Near Eastern traditions and patterns of thought for the illumination of many of difficult passage in postbiblical Hebrew literature, especially the Talmud. 2 1 Pmeles m his p10neering Darkah Shel Torah (Vienna, 1861), p 133 and passim, not only m1tiated a source-critical approach to Talmudic literature, but was already one of the f1rst to recogmze the value of the comparative approach. For more contemporary research, see the works of Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950), "How Much Greek m Jewish Palestme," Biblical and other Studies, ed A. Altmann (Cambridge, 1963), pp 123-141; "Roman Legal Institutions m Early Rabbimcs and m the Acta Martyrum," ]QR, NS 35 (1944), pp 1-57, to name but a few More recently, see H A. Fischel, "Studies rn Cy111c1smand the Ancient Near East the Transformation of a Chria," Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of ... Goodenough, ed J Neusner, (Leiden, 1968), pp. 372-4II; idem, "Story and History Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism," offprint of American Oriental Society, Middle West Branch, Semi-Centennial Volume Asian Studies Research I nsl'ttute, Oriental Senes # 3, pp 59-88. For Greek literary motifs rn the m1drash, cf A A HaLevi, The World of the Aggadah: The Aggadah in the Light of Greek Sources, (Tel-Aviv, 1972) (m Hebrew) For suggestive parallels between Greek and rabbimc exegetical methods, cf. I Hememann, The lVIethods of the Aggadah (Jerusalem, 1949) (m Hebrew) R. Yaron, Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish and Roman Law (Oxforcl, 1960); B Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study, 2 vols., (New York, 1966) E J B1ckerman, "The Altars of Gentiles. A Note on the Jewish 'ius sacrum'," Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquite, 3e serie, 5 (1958), pp n-164; "The Civic Prayer for Jerusalem," Harvard Theological Review, 55 (1962), pp 163-185 2 Sigmflcant begmnings m this d1rect10n were already made by M Schorr m his Urkunden des Altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts (Leipzig, 1913),

2

YOCHAN AN MUFFS

In my Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri From Elephantine, I attempted to demonstrate the continuity of legal terminology and legal metaphor in ancient Near Eastern legal documents beginning with those written in Sumerian and Akkadian (of the late third and p. 185 (on zibburit), p. 291 (on son barzel), p 293 (on nedunya); cf. by the same author, ZDMG, 1914, p. 629. Also see Hermann Pick, Assyrisches u Talmudisches, p 33 (quoted by D. B. Weisberg, "Some Observations on Late Babyloman Texts and Rabbmic Literature", HUCA, 39 [1968], p. 75). Cf. also J. Augapfel, Babytonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Regierungszeit Artaxerxes I. und Darius II. (Vienna, 1917) pp 2, 20, 23, 28, 34, 48, 51, 88 and passim. The past generat10n has witnessed a slow, but ever growmg preoccupat10n with the Near Eastern background of rabbm1c law and lore Cf the various works of J J. Rabmowitz, Jewish Law: Its Influence on the Development of Legal Institutions (New York, 1956) and especially "Jewish Elements m Babyloman Formulae of the Persian Penod", 111 Sejer Asaf, eel U Cassuto, et al (Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 433-443 (m Hebrew) If one chscounts the panJudaic bias of these works, Rabmow1tz has correctly pomted out many an important rabbmic-cune1form parallel Kutscher's work on the Near Eastern background of Talmudic and Elephantme legal terms was a most important breakthrough m this area (for bibliography, cf my Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri From Elephantine [ = Studia et Documenta ad Iura Onentis Antiqui Pertmentia], Vol VIII [Leiden, 1969, KTAV reprint, 1973], hereafter cited as Studies) The same can be said for Yaron's various books and monographs on Elephantme law (cf the b1bl10graphy m my Studies), cf also A L Oppenheim, "A Note on ;,6nBarzel," Israel Exploration Journal, 5 (1955), pp 89-92. Also D. B Weisberg, "Some Observat10ns on Late Babyloman Texts and Rabbimc Literature," HUCA, 39 (1968), pp. 71-80, B. A Levme, "Mulugu/ JAOS, 88 (1968), JVIelug: The Ongms of a Talmudic Legal Institut10n," pp 271-285; cf also the doctoral thesis of S A Kaufmann, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic and the Development of the Aramaic Dialects (Yale, 1970), which has much valuable material that relates to lex1cograph1cal 111ter-relat10nsh1ps between Akkad1an and the Talmud. Even more germane 1s the same author's article, "Akkad1an and Babyloman Aramaic New Examples of Mutual Elucidat10n" m Lesonenu, 36 (1971), pp. 28-33 (m Hebrew) Although S Greengus' master's thesis on the Akkad1an background of Elephantme marnage law unfortunately was never published (it is, however, cited extensively by B Porten 111 his Archives From Elephantine: The Life of a Jewish Military Colony [Berkeley, 1968], pp vm, 206, 212, 253 note 39, 254 note 40, 256 and passzm, nevertheless, Greengus' article "The Old Babyloman Marnage Contract," JAOS, 89 (1969) contams many an 1llummatmg remark on Akkad1an-rabb1mc mterconnections m the realm of marriage law cf p 517 and notes (conccrnmg positively formulated marriage declarat10ns), p 518 (concernmg formulae of divorce at Elephantme), p 522 (concernmg the parbc1pahon of the w1£e 111 the marriage cleclarat1011). Also see J. J. Fmkelstem "AnaBitEmim Sasu," RA, 61 (1967), p 134, where the light that Assynology and cnt1cal studies of rabbimc literature can potentially shed on each other is most convmcmgly demonstrated If one cannot as yet speak of a formal school of Assynolog1cally oriented Talmudic studies, 1t would not be rash to say that such a school is clearly begmnmg to

JOY

AND

LOVE

AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

3

second millennium B.C.), continuing with the crucial transformation of late Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian cuneiform documents into an Aramaic formulary which reworked these ancient materials according to its own spirit. 3 This Aramaic formulary, in turn, approach for both d1sc1plmes emerge The benefits of such a comparative Cf the last pages of my Studies can hardly be exaggerated Many of the studies of S E Loewenstamm contam valuable obscrvat10ns This 1s true not on the relationship between the two bodies of literature to the Biblical Encyclopedia (Hebrew) on merely of his vanous contnbutions biblical law, but also his important article on the possible Mesopotamian background of a certam aspect of rabbm1c mysticism, m the Yehezkel Kaufrnann Jubilee Volume, ed. M. Haran (Jerusalem, 1960), pp *112-121 (Hebrew sect10n) Cf. my Studies, p 193-4 and notes. In passmg, 1t should be noted that although most of Lieberman's comparative matenal 1s denved from the Greco-Roman world, he often stresses of this material (see Hellenism zn Jewish Palestine, the "hoary antiqrnty" pp 75-76), zbzd, p 83 n 3 where he denves the word halakhah from the Aramaic hdlak "tax", and ultimately from the Akkad1an ilku with the same meanmg See also his use of cuneiform literature, 111 "After Life 111 Early Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, Vol II, Rabbm1c Literature," Jerusalem (1965), pp 495-532 passim 3 Some of the reviewers of my Studies have pomted out that suff1c1ent attention was not paid to the possible mfluence of Aramaic language, Aramaic and Neo-Assynan legal ternunology and scnbal praxis on Neo-Babyloman (e g Yaron, RB, 77 [1970], pp 415££ , Kutscher m his legal documents nnportant review "Aramaic" m Current Trends in Linguistics, 6 Linguistics Carlton T. in South West Asza and North Africa, eel Charles A Ferguson, Hodge, Herbert H Paper [Mouton, 1971], pp 385-386) This emphasis on the Akkad1an mfluence on Aramaic rather than the Arama.1c mfluence on "This 1s not, Akkad1a11 was more a matter of method than of oversight however, to deny the creative role of the Aramaic scnbes But before we can speak about md1genous Aramaic legal elements, we must carefully determme whether or not such elements are not actually cuneiform 111 ong111" (Studies, p 9). A s1m1lar method underlies the careful study of S Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic and the Development of the Aramaic Dialects (cited above, n 2) "It 1s the belief of the author that the second of these studies, [the 111fluencc of the Aramaic on the Akkad1an after the results of Y JV[] though of great import, can only be undertaken the first are known, though mdeed the f111al synthesis must consider both processes together " (p 2) Moreover, the problem of Aramaic mfluence on the termmology of late documents was discussed 111some detail 111my Studies, Neo-Babyloman (p 18811) 111 connect1011 with the terms yaritu "heir" and murruqu "to clear I suggested (Studies, pp 177-179) that the 111(of a claim) " Furthermore, fluence of Aramaic scnbes was not simply limited to the 111trocluct10n of AramaIC loan words 111toAkkad1an deeds one of the umque characteristics of the Elephantine formulary 1s the freedom with which the Aramaic scribes creatively brmg together Akkad1an terms and phrases from disparate contexts and from vanous periods, fusmg them mto entirely new patterns This 1s clearly seen in the case of the common Elephantrne cluster of sale terminology Jyb lbby, rhqtmn~, 'nt sly! b "my heart 1s satisfied (with the pnce)",

4

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

exercised a profound influence on legal documents in the West (Demotic,4 Greek, 5 Coptic, 6 and probably Arabic 7 as well), in Syria "I (hereby) remove myself from you (1 e, relmqmsh my rights m your favor)"; "you are (now) m control/owner (of the property)." The first term 1s found only mold Babyloman deeds (circa 1800-1700 BC); the second 1s known only from Nuz1 (Circa 1500 BC), the third, 1s Neo-Babyloman (circa 600 B C). In this particular mstance, the fus10n of these disparate elements may not be of the greatest Juridical s1gmficance and may simply reflect the tendency of scnbes to constantly mflate their documents with tautologous terms m an often counter-productive attempt to rnsure the rnv1olab1hty of the transaction. (Cf the Talmudic expression 'rkbyh 'try rksy "he caused 1t [1 e the deed] to ride on two horses [gomg m opposite directions]", cf Jerusalem Talmud, Baba Bathra 8, i 6b (top); Jerusalem Talmud, K1ddushm r, 6oc [bottom]). Yet, one could argue that the Aramaic scribes have, 111this case, creatively articulated the underlymg rnterdependence between the ideas of "payment" (tyb lbby), "rel111qmshment" (r!iqt) and "ownership" (slj),-a legal idea 111herent m cuneiform law, but rarely spelled out so clearly (cf Studies, pp. 177-179). Another such case 1s discussed m my Studies (p 41 n 2) where I rnveshgated the process by which the Elephant111e scnbes fused together a whole senes of disparate and negatively formulated cuneiform elements rnto a positive, and extremely clear, defm1t10n of the concept of ownershipsomethmg the trad1t10n-bound Akkad1an scnbes were seemmgly unable to do. Furthermore, I am now more and more convrnced that the Akkadian formulary used dunng the Seleucid and Arsac1cl penocls-a formulary which differs 111so many ways from the one used 111the Neo-Babyloman and Persian penocls (cf 0. Kruckmann, Babylonische Rechts- und VerwaltungsUrkunden aus der Zeit Alexanders und der Diadochen [Weimar, 1931])-1s probably clue to the mfluence of Aramaic scnbes and scnbal praxis The problem 1s a complicated one-there are suggestive parallels with the later Jewish deeds of the Dead Sea Area-and deserves an independent study. Cf the end of note 14. 4 For parallels with Demotic law, cf Studies, pp 150-172 5 For parallels with Greek law, cf Studies, pp ro, zon, 13811, 15011, 155f, 19111, 192 Cf also R Taubenschlag, "Das babylomsche Recht m den gnech1schen Papyn," The ] ournal of ] uristtc Papyrology, 7 /8 (1953-54), pp 169-185 Cf also M We111felclLesonenu, 36 (1972), pp 85-105 for the rnfluence of cuneiform treaty termrnology on the Greek world 6 For parallels with Coptic law, cf Studies, pp 11, 138n 7 For parallels and a possible 111terrelat10nsh1p between Arabic volition clauses ("This transaction 1s done w1llmgly and without force . ") and s1m1lar clauses 111Akkad1an deeds and J ew1sh documents rn Hebrew and Arabic from the Dead Sea area, cf. my Studies, p. 138 n 3 The possibility that certa111 elements rn early Islamic legal documents were derived from Babyloman sources was raised some time ago by Schacht "Vom babylomschen zum 1slam1schen Recht," OLZ, 1927, pp 663-669 See now the excellent study of J A "\¥akm, The Function of Documents in Islamic Law: The Chapters on Sales from Tahiiwi's Kitiib al-Shuriit al-Kabir (Albany, 1972) where Aramaic and Akkad1an parallels are quoted most rntelhgently and rn abundance The mterdepcndcnce of Arabic and cune1form-Akkad1an law IS a subJect I hope to treat more thoroughly m a future pubhcat10n.

JOY AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

5

(the Aramaic documents from Samaria, the Nabatean, Hebrew and Aramaic deeds from the Dead Sea area). 8 and quite possibly on Persian law in the East. 9 Each new excavation in these areas fills in some missing link in this process of transmission. Thus, the scepticism of a scholar of rabbinic law of the stature of Gulak concerning the dangers of using ancient Near Eastern material for the illumination of rabbinic law, 10 although quite legitimate and understandable forty years ago, is entirely out of place today. In any case, as Lieberman has often pointed out, much that is called Hellenistic, is simply ancient oriental. 11 Speiser's observation that Near Eastern culture is by nature like a palimpsest through which all previous layers of tradition transpire, is also entirely to the point.1 2 Furthermore, the pivotal role of Aramaic in this process of cultural transformation can hardly be underestimated: rooted in cuneiform culture, its offshoots are found in almost all areas of late Antiquity. In one of the chapters of my Studies, I attempted to demonstrate that in Akkadian and Aramaic, seemingly metaphorical expressions such as love (nar>amtitu/remutu) 13 * and joy (ti:ib libbi(~ud libbi), 14 For all of these, cf Studies, pp 192-194 Cf Studies, p 14 n 1 See also Neusner's remarks, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, Vol 4 (Leiden, 1969), p 40 and J Wakin, The Function of Documents in Islarmc Law, p 3 n 3 See especially, San Nicolo, Beitrage zur Rechtsgeschichte im Bereiche der keilschriftlichen Rechtsquellen (Oslo, 1931), P 254 10 A Gulak, Das Urkundenwesen im Talmud, (Jerusalem, 1935), pp. 159160. 11 Orally and 111 his vanous wntmgs, cf especially, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp 75ff where he compares some of the more fanciful norms of Greek dream mterwith those used m contemporary agadd1c mterpretabon pretat10n, stressmg the fact that both Jews and Greeks denved these methods and then 1mmed1ately cites a Babyloman example from "hoary antiqmty," 12 E A Speiser, "Cultural Factors m Social Dynamics m the Near East," Middle East Journal, 7 (1953), pp 134f 13 Smee the actual lmgmstic evidence concerning the use of the Aramaic terms yhb/ntn brfimn "to give m affect10n (1 e freely and w1llmgly)," yhb/ntn brfimt/br"ftmh/rfimt "to give as a gift/freely, willmgly" and their Akkad1an models ina nar'amiUisu iddin .. to give m love (1 e. freely and voluntarily)" (= Aramaic yhb brfimn), remutu remu "to give as a gift, to perform an act of generosity" ( = Aramaic lmntn br"ftmt/h),is most comphcated, the interested reader is directed to my Studies, pp. 40-50, 132-135, where the etymological complexities of the problem are discussed m great detail Suffice it to say that while Akkad1an distmgmshes between I ramu "to love," II remu "to be merciful/to grant a benefaction ( ')," and, accordmg to Von Soden, III rimu "to give as a gift" (cf. Ugarit-Forschung, 2 [1970], pp 269-272), Aramaic expresses the meanmg of all these Akkadian roots simply by the one root r-fi-m, which conveys and fuses the ideas of w1llmgness and voht10n inherent 8

9

6

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

when used in legal contexts, convey the specific legal idea of free and uncoerced willingness: e.g. the will that motivates the giving of a gift or the selling of property, etc. That which was only adumbrated in my Studies in an Akkadian-Aramaic context, will be applied here in ramu "to love"-and its noun form nar'amatu "willmgness"-w1th the idea of "gdt/benefact10n" mherent m remu "to be merciful/grant a benefaction" (and the postulated rimu "to give as a gift"). The Aramaic, r[tmh/r[tmt "a gift" ( = Akkadian remu/remutu) is that which 1s given "m love/willmgly" br[tmn ( = Akkad1an nar'amatu) * For the sake of simplicity, vowel length will not be mdicated m the transcnpt10n of Hebrew or Aramaic words. In the case of Akkadian, where length will be md1cated, no d1stmct10n will be made between vanous types of vowel length. All long vowels will be md1cated simply by a macron Individual Hebrew or Aramaic words will be transcribed mto Lahn letters, longer passages, mto Hebrew. Words or phrases mentally supplied m translat10n will be md1cated by brackets 14 The earliest examples of these legal metaphors are from the Old Babyloman deeds of Susa (circa early 18th Century B.C.), where the clause ina /ubatzsu zna nar'amatisu ht. "m his joy" (Akkad1an tub = Hebrew job), "m his love" (Akkad1an ramu = Hebrew/Aramaic r[im), 1s rendered 1d10matically by almost all mterpreters as "of his own free will and voluntarily" (so Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Vol I/], p 12, Von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch, Vol. 8, p. 745 nar'amatu "Fre1wilhgke1t", Von Soden, Orzentalia, 28 [1959], p 316· /ubu "freiwillige Handlung") This clause introduces most deeds of gift, often many deeds of sale and other transact10ns as well. For a detailed discussion of the problem, cf. my Studies, pp. 128-141. The same metaphor of JOy/vohtion-ina /ubi libbzm-appears slightly later in the deeds of the North-'\V'est Mesopotamian city of Man (circa 18th Century BC., cf. Studies, p 137). The metaphoric use of JOYas an expression of will-appears somewhat later in the North Synan city of Ugant (circa 15th Century B.C , cf. Studies, p 129 and p. 202 of the notes) m the form ina !Jud libbi (ht "m the JOY of heart"; Hebrew = be{iedwat libbo) where it is attested to but once However, after a relative absence of the term for a penod of centuries, exactly the same id10m ina !Jud libb·isu surfaces once more m many Neo-Babylonian sales of mobiha and m most so-called "dialogue documents " In the very latest cuneiform legal formulary-the one used during the Seleucid and Arsacid periods-the me of the joy/voht10n clause was extended to all types of transactions, mcludmg the sale of mobiha The seemmgly strange reactivation of archaic terms of volition after a hiatus of centuries 1s one of the salient charactensbcs of the Seleucid formulary Furthermore, the problem 1s not merely mner-Assyriolog1cal, but cross cultural as well Cf the unnustakable identity of the Elephantme /yb lbby "my heart 1s satisfied" 1 e. "I am qmt" m form, function, complements, context, etc. with the Old Babyloman legal term, libbasu Jab. '\¥hat is even stranger 1s the fact that the Old Babylonian term not only disappears, but is substituted by vanous synonyms m later penods, only to reappear in the Elephantme deeds of the fifth century and in Egyptian documents as well. For some tentative explanations of the problem, cf. the comments of B. Levme, (p 44ff.) of this volume and my attempt at a solution in my Studies, p 201, note to page r27. In acldit10n to the reasons adduced there (conscious or unconc10us ar-

JOY

AND

LOVE

AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

7

to biblical, and especially rabbinic sources, and will constitute the subject of the present monograph. Although the method used here is basically philological, the aim is conceptual and cultural. How did the ancients, living in the ambiance of Near Eastern culture, express (a) the free and gracious will which underpins a divine grant to kings or priests; (b) the spontaneity with which man accepts divine grace or the free resignation with which he accepts divine chastisement; (c) the willing and joyful alacrity with which man reciprocated the divine gifts and blessings with his sacrifices, tithes ~nd offerings? Not only are the volitional metaphors of love and joy found in a wide range of legal situations, but their distribution in seemingly non-legal contexts is much wider than the traditional legalist would ever expect: not only Deuteronomy and Chronicles, but Ben-Sira and Philo, the sermons of Paul, early and late rabbinic midrash and piyyut, Jewish and Christian liturgy, Samaritan marriage documents and early Arabic deals of sale. 15 chaizing), one may suggest, with all due reservation, that the later the literature-be it legal, religious, or literary-the greater the stress on mner states of mmd, and m legal contexts m particular, the greater the constitmtive importance of mtent and volition. The classical example of this process is the radical rabbm1c remterpretation of the biblical cul tic stipulat10n that certam sacnf1ces be offered li-rsonkem from its ongmal meanmg "that (the sacnf1ce) be accepted (by the Lord) on your behalf" to-"(may it be accepted only If) your will 1s present" (Contrast most ancient and modern translations, which follow the older mterpretation, with the S1fra to Leviticus I: 3 which takes ra~on m its later Hebrew meanmg of "will"). Furthermore, the growmg populanty of this voht10n clause durmg the Seleucid period and the ub1qmty of sm11lar clauses m the deeds of Murabba'at -deeds which are certamly as old as the Seleucid penod, wluch 1s to say sometime dunng the Maccabean era-is h1stoncally qmte suggestive However, smce one swallow does not make the sprmg, 1t should be noted that m each case (1 e the Seleucid and the Murabba'at formulanes), the terms of voht10n (Akkadian ina !Jud libbi; Aramaic br'wt nfsy) do not appear m isolation, but in umque and virtually identical clusters or conf1gurat10ns composed of elements found elsewhere m older cuneiform documents-but never m the complex and identical conf1gurat10n found m the two formularies under discussion The elements are "I sell the field (a) 'be 1t more or less' (Aramaic !zsr 'w ytyr = Akkacl1an l'itir lim/i); (b) 'of my own free will' (see above), (c) 'at full price' (Akkad1an ana sim gamir = Aramaic dmyn gmryn; (d) 'for all time' (Akkad1an ana um sati = Aramaic l'lm)" Cf. T J. Mihk, RB, 61 (1954), p 183 and Biblica, 38 (1957), pp. 258-262 The virtual identity of these unique configurations is hardly fortmtous and is a strong mclicator of some histoncal interconnection. The whole subject deserves a special investigat10n. Cf. the encl of note 3. 15 Only cl1vme gifts to man will be covered m this study. The rest of the themes enumerated here and the literature in which they are embodied will be investigated in subsequent installments.

8

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

Nor should this distribution pattern surprise us too much. Students of cuneiform law, such as Benno Landsberger, have been pointing out for years that the famous Mesopotamian "Codes", with their idealizing tendencies, often provide us with a less correct picture of law as it was lived than the less "famous" legal documents, which in many ways, contradict the ideal norms presented by the "Codes". 16 Similarly, Lieberman has said that if one wants to learn how the law was actually practiced during the rabbinic period, one should rely not only on the formal legal corpora (the Mishna, Tosefta, etc.), which were less interested in what people did than in what they should have done, but should go to the Midrash where actual legal practice is often described en passant as part of a natural story or homily. It goes without saying that the common-law reflected in the Greek papyri, 17 in the Aramaic deeds of the Dead Sea area, in the fragments of common-law legal formulae haphazardly preserved in the Talmuds, and more systematically, in Gaonic formularyhandbooks, in many ways more accurately reflect the living law of the times than the idealistic norms of the formal talmudic corpora. In the light of these observations, the wide distribution of the legal use of the Hebrew besiJn{iah ("in joy/willingly") and be'ahabah ("in love/willingly/with a full heart") in seemingly non-legal contexts, would appear to add dramatic support to this significant, but commonly neglected observation. One final comment before discussing the texts themselves. Without a doubt, Aramaic and Akkadian parallels throw much light on many an obscure passage in the Talmud. Although many 16 For the ideal nature of the law found m the vanous cuneiform "Codes," cf. B. Landsberger, "Die babylomschen Term1m fur Gesetz und Recht," in Symbolae Koschaker (Leiden, 1938), pp 219-234, cf. also J. J. Finkelstem, "Amm15aduqa's Edict and the Babyloman 'Law Codes'," JCS, 15 (1961), pp 91-104, Vv. F Leemans, "Kmg Hammurapi as Judge," Symbolae Juridicae et Historicae Jl;Jartino David Dedicatae, II (Leiden, 1968), pp. 107-129. Did the children of the debtor ·who were sold by the1r father to his creditor m payment of debts actually go free after three years as 1s stipulated by the Code of Hammurabi, No. II7? One could make a very good case that the law reflected a utopian v1s10n, rather than a social reality. 17 His strongest and most articulated statements on this subiect have been m oral conversat10ns. However, his Greek in Jewish Palestine is filled with strikmg examples where the actual law as 1t was lived was often literally "buried" m some obscure midrash and brought back to life, so to speak, by an 1llummatmg parallel from contemporary Greek papyri Cf., for example, his Introduction, pp. 1-14.

JOY AND LOVE

AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

9

of these parallel passages may be related historically, in many other cases the similarity may simply indicate a common, but independent, mental and cultural set of mind. In such cases, the parallel is useful heuristically, but has no necessary historical implications. Let it be made clear at the outset that it is not our intention to institute a new form of Pan-Babylonianism. However, while similarity of one or two details does not prove historical dependence, clusters of similarities are something quite different. Such clusters, frequently, are not simply accidental or fortuitous, especially in contiguous civilizations, but, more often than not, suggest the presence of what one may call "Cultures in Contact".

The Linguistic Evidence As we have noted above, the two Akkadian terms for joy used in legal documents with the particular meaning of volition-are b,ud (libbisu), cognate of the Hebrew J:iedwah,and tub (libbisu)ftubati, cognate of the Hebrew tob(ah). The Hebrew tob(ah), like its Akkadian equivalent, is a well attested expression of joy both in biblical and later Hebrew. 18 Just as Akkadian b,ud and tub are used together idiomatically, as in the expression ina tub libbi ina b,ud seri, "in joy of heart/mind (and) gladness of flesh/body", so Hebrew idiom joins sameaJ:iwith fob as, in the expressions semeJ:iimwetobeleb, "happy and of a glad heart" (I Kings r :40) ;19 and "Go, eat your bread in gladness (besim!J,ah)and drink your wine in joy (leb fob)" (Koheleth 9:7). 18 For the express10n job Zeb "a happy person", cf. Proverbs rs. 15, for the verbal expression "when his heart as glad (!ob), cf. Judges 16·25 (the leaders of the Ph1hstmes), I Samuel 25 36 (Nabal); II Samuel 13 28 (Amnon) For the express10n ytb lb (111the imperfect) cf, Judges r8 20, 19. 6, 9 (the Lev1te from Ephraim); I Kmgs 21: 7 (Jezebel to Ahab), Ruth 3 · 7 (Boaz); Koheleth 7 · 3 For the express10n hetib Zeb "to give oneself enioyment/to enioy oneself," cf Judges 19: 22 (the man from Bcniamm); Koheleth II 9 "Let your heart lead you to enioyment", cf, however, Gmsberg ad Zoe. For the term jobah "enioyment" m Koheleth (espcc1ally with the verb ra'ah [ = rawah] to "be sated", cf Gmsberg, Koheleth, passim), cf. 3. 12-13 ("get enioyment"), 4: 8 ("while denymg himself enioyment ... "), 5. 17 ("that one should eat and drrnk and get pleasure from all his gams ... "), 6: 6. The translat10ns and rnterpretat10ns of Koheleth follow those of H. L. Gmsberg. For later Hebrew, cf Ben S1ra 26 3-4 (libbo fob "he 1s happy"), 30 15 (rua[i /obah "a happy spmt"), 30 16 (tub lebab "a happy disposition"). The leb job mentioned rn the Mishnah A both 2 · 9 may simply mean "a good/happy d1spos1tion", cf. E. Z. Melamed, "Comments on the Language of A both," Lesonenu, 20 (1954), pp. ro8f. (rn Hebrew) 19 For the locution, cf. Deuteronomy 28:47, I Kmgs 8:66, Esther y9; Koheleth II· 9.

YOCHANAN

IO

MUFFS

Furthermore, just as fob is used idiomatically as a synonym of sameab,, so its antonym ra1,371inN 1:137 11'"1!1 :iir,::>;,11"1=> "l!U:i71,~1, ;,~,, "!:ii;, ;,~1, 1,!U~mi;,::>;,1,37"137"137i l"ll"IN il3::>n"lp N!l!U'Di, ,i, ;,1,37;,Ni,, cnn Ni,, :in:>Ni,, mr,~:innN ni!U ,i, 1m,r,,:i 1:i ,i, il'il!Uc,, "137"137'i N,:i, l"ll"l"W ,~ 1,::)71,~;, ,i, "l~Nilittm 1,37,ill:> "137"137, inN N!l tl"::)"137!1 M"lpN:l 7=>tl"::)"137:1 71, ;,1,37~'3Ni cn,n '3Ni :in,:> '3Ni Ni:i ili!Uil 1,377,.u::> 1,377,.u::>i37,37,, N:l' ill"l'!U,~ 1,::)c,p~il ,i, "l~N ,,.u::>miil::>il1,37"137"137, iTil!U"IE> il"l~N37::>1,tl"::)"137!1 71, ;,1,37~'3Ni cn,n '3Ni :in,:> '3NiNi:i mil"l::>il •M"lp1, 7,~0

Scripture made a covenant 31 with Aaron [and his sons] concerning the most holy sacrifices, by establishing a definitive charter on their behalf. This was necessary because Korah opposed Aaron by contesting the priesthood. By analogy, the situation can be comhad made a petition before the kmg concemmg ancestral property which had been taken from htm. Once agam, the kmg mvesttgates the case, reimburses the present owner, and "with hts bright countenance" looks at the plamtif and bestows upon him the property for all time. 30 Most modem biblical scholars resolve such problems by assummg the composite nature of the biblical narrative. Thus, although different m method, Source Cnticism and certain types of midrash attempt to answer similar problems. 31 The term b•rit m this context expresses a dtvme gift sealed by a covenant rather than a human obligation sealed by a covenant. The semantic range of this term m rabbimc literature 1s virtually the same as that found in the

JOY

AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

19

pared to a human king who had a steward, 32 to whom he granted a field as an [outright] gift, without, however, having [the gift] written down, sealed, and recorded in the archive. [Then] someone appeared who raised claims concernmg the field again [the steward]. The king said to the steward: "Since anyone who wants can come and raise claims against you concerning the field, for your benefit, I hereby deed it [to you] in writing; I hereby seal it and register it in the achive!" Similarly, after Korah opposed Aaron by contesting the priesthood, God said to him: "Since anyone who wants can raise claims against you concerning the priesthood, I hereby deed it [to you] in writing; I hereby seal it and record it in the archive!" It is for this reason that this section (dealmg with the donation of the priestly revenues) immediately follows that of Korah. 33

Notice the structural and substantive identity of the Akkadian and rabbinic traditions: both contain exactly the same story of a royal grant, insufficiently protected against contestation, that was reconfirmed by the king to his courtier. Both sources know the structural analogy between the donation of priestly offerings by the gods and the donation of land by kings. It is only in respect to the specific use of joy as the volition that establishes the fact that the two traditions seem to part company. In the Akkadian tradition, the king gives the gift in the joy of his heart, while in the Jewish tradition, the Lord simply says: wa-'ani hinne natatti. As we shall Bible A rather felicitous express10n used for the first meanmg of beritone which is qmte appropnate for our passage m the Sifre-is the "Covenant of Grant," a term employed by M. Viemfeld m his study "The Covenant of Grant m the Old Testament and m the Ancient Near East," JAOS, 90 (1970), pp 184ff. This work creatively applies to the Bible some of my work on the termmology of kudduru and Neo-Assynan royal grants and their Aramaic analogues. Both my study and his article-later expanded m his excellent book, Deuteronomy and the Deuterono1nic School (Oxford, 1972) owe much to Poebel's Das appositionell bestimmte Pronomen der I. Pers Sing in den westsemitischen I nschriften und im Alten Testament (Assynological Studies 3; Umversity of Chicago, 1932), pp 53-70. 32 Although ben bayit with the meanmg of ma1or domo is typically rabbmic, H. L. Gmsberg has pomted out that the express10n with its later meanmg is already found m Genesis 15 3 (cf. BA SOR, 200 [1970], p. 31 33 The text is quoted accordmg to the edition of H S Horowitz (Leipzig, 1917), pp 134f where the relevant parallels are duly noted. Although this parable follows the discussion of RabtH Ishmael and Rabbi Nathan concernmg the rncamng of hinne m Numbers 18.8 "I hereby [hinne] give you charge of My gifts, all the sacred dona hons of the Israelites ... " on p. r 34 of the Sifre (eel Horowitz) it is not specifically attnbuted to either authonty. However, on page 143, the parable, with a slightly different mtrocluct10n, is clearly attnbutecl to R. Ishmael The s1g111Iicance of this attnbut10n will become clear m the course of the discuss10n.

20

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

see, this last difference between the two traditions is more apparent than real. Let us re-examine the actual clause of donation as it is recorded in the Bible. The verse reads as follows: 1,Nirrr 'l:1 '!l],p 1,::,1,,z,~i,ri

n,~!l]~ ?1N ,,

'?11'llillil 'lNi tiilN 1,N 'il

,:i,,,

(Numbers 18 :18) .c1,i:s, pn1, 7'l:J1,, ilM!l]~1, C'lil'll 71, "The Lord spoke further to Aaron: I hereby give you charge or My gifts, all the sacred donations of the Israelites; I grant them to you and your sons as a perquisite, a due for all times" (NJPS).

As Rashi (to Genesis 14:22) and the Rashbam (to Genesis 23:u) clearly recognized, in certain solemn contexts-especially in formal declarations such as donations and oaths-first person-forms such as natatti are to be translated not as simple perfects ("I gave") but as present forms or present-perfects ("I give" or "I have given") and often contain the nuance "I, myself, the donor, hereby have given." Notice for example, how the Rashbam renders has-sade natatti Zakin Genesis 23 :u-noten 'ani 'oto 'aksaw teka. Furthermore, when the verb form is actually preceeded by 'am hinne, this volitional nuance is brought explicitly. >A ni hinne thus stresses the person of the donor, his awareness of what he is doing, and the heightened solem.nity of the act that follows. 34 Now Rabbi Ishmael, who held the 'en miqra yo 0e' mide pesuto "Scripture must always be interpreted (philologically) according to its simple meaning", 35 was not unaware of the volitional implications 34 The various modes of expressmg the nuance "I hereby" m Saadya's Arabic translat10n of the Bible, the Septuagmt, Hebrew deeds from the Dead Sea area and Arabic legal documents will be d1,,cussed rn greater detail m a future study. For the time bemg cf my Studies, p 32, note 2. '" Cf Babyloman Talmud, Shabbath, 63a Modern scholarship has begun to realize that talmudic scnptural mterpretat10n was not completely nudrash1c (1 e fanciful) m nature, and that the rabbis displayed an excellent sense for the simple meanmg of words and texts (cf the important study o± this subiect m Lieberman's Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp 41-62) They often correctly mterpretecl, even to the satisfact10n of our own modern cntena, biblical words and phrases by rendenng them mto contemporary M1shnaic Hebrew (cf Abba Bendavid's monumental study, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, two volumes, [Tel-Aviv, 1971] [m Hebrew]) Nevertheless, one should not equate the rabbm1c uc;e of the term p•slzaf with it:c. medieval and modern dehmbon e g the simple meanmg of the text based on lmgmshc context and cultural and historical reaha As some scholars have pomted out, many a scnptural mterpretat10n described by the rabbis as p•shat is hardly different from what we would consider derash (cf Vi'. Bacher, 'Erclze 1\/lidrash, translated by A. Z. Rabrnowitz [Tel-Aviv, 1923],

JOY AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

ZI

of the words wa->ani hinne in the biblical clause of donation-since he paraphrases them in the following manner: wa->ani-bera!jon; (full) volition"; "hereby"-"with hinne-besim[tah // "I"-"with joy"_as p 269 note 3; Hememann, Met hods of the Aggadah, note ro to chapter one, as Professor Lieberman has pomted rorb). Furthermore, citmg Ketubboth of the Song of Songs out to me, for the rabbis, the allegoncal mterpretation as a dialogue of love between God and Israel, was for them the only peshaf. The use of the Song m the local bars of the time, which most moderns might consider much closer to the ongmal mtent of the wnter, was not p•shat for Now, 1f the rabbis conthe rabbis at all, it was simply so much blasphemy s1clered the sunple meanmg of the Song of Songs to be the dialogue of love between Goel and Israel, what then was their m1drashic mterpretat10n ) In all probability it was the esotenc one, which was more concerned with the of the cl1vme soma, than with dialogue of love mystical contemplat10n between God and His people. For the mystical midrash on the Song of Songs, cf. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Jvlysticism, and Talmudic Tradition 2 (New York, 1965), see especially Lieberman's appendix Mishnath Shir ha-Slnrim, pp. rrSff. 36 Exactly to Rabbi Ishmael m the same type of paraphrase 1s attnbuted hinne laqaJ:tti'et halwiyyim ... his commentary to Numbers 3 · r 1-12-wa-'ani "(The Lord spoke to Moses, saying) 'I hereby take the Levites (from among the Israelites ... the Levites shall be mme).'" In Bam1dbar Rabba (ad loc., Parasha 3, 4) Rabbi Ishmael spells out the volitional overtones mherent m the dedicating the Levites to Himself by the paraphrase· d1vme pronouncement "w1llmgly"). wa->ani-b 6 simhah, hinne-berason ("I" = "joyfully", "behold"= words used m the Sifre, the mterprebve ~obce that m the paraphrase simJ:tah and rason are reversed· there, berason mterpret5 'ani, while simJ:tah mtcrprets hinne This may be due either to faulty textual transm1ss10n, or more probably to the fact that Rabbi Ishmael 51mply wanted to convey the volitional solemmty of the phrase as a whole, usmg two mterchangeable terms sim'[,,ah and rason for that purpose. This particular method of paraphrase is also found m the Sifre to Deuteronomy 26· ro where the declaration of the p1lgnm offenng his first frmts "And now see (w•'attah hinne) I have brought the first of the produce of the s01l, which Thou, 0 Lord, hast given me" is paraphrased ma snmlar, but not identical manner· w•'attah - miyyad ("And now" - "immediately"); hinne - b•sim'[,,ah ("Behold" - "Joyfully"); hebe'ti - misseli ("I hereby have brought" - "of my own [goods]"); (ed. Frnkelstem, p 319). Once agam, the term simJ:tah when used in paraphrases of declarat10ns of donation, seems to have clear voht10nal overtones However, in this context, as 1t b•sim'{,,ah 1s not used as the complement of rason "w1llmgness/mtent" ,vas in the passages studied above, but with the term miyyad "immediately". This would seem to mdicate that the term has an even wider range of meanmg than simple volit10n. In some contexts, sim'[,,ah, used as the synonym of rason mchcates the mner state of mmd that motivates the donation In other or bi-zrizut contexts, b".sirnhah, used as a synonym of miyyad "immediately" "with alacnty", seems to indicate the outward manner in which the intention is translated into deed. The extended use of joy as an expression of inner, uncoerced willmgness as its outer and concrete expression was already and of alacrity/immediacy

22

YOCHAN AN MUFFS

"joyfully/gladly" is used with the In this legal context, b6 sim'JJ.,ah specific legal meaning of "willingly" and is the synonym of bera$On "with volition," exactly as the expression betobato"joyfully/ of his own free will" is the complement of bi-r$ono in more common contexts. Furthermore, this equation cuts across linguistic boundaries: as the the Akkadian ina !Jud libbisu is to the Hebrew besim'JJ.,ah Akkadian ina tubatisu is to the Hebrew betobato. Furthermore, I have the feeling that when Rabbi Ishmael paraphrased the biblical verse of donation wa-'ani hinne by bera$on u-bsim/:tahwhat he actually was doing was to render the sense of the biblical verse in terms of contemporary legal language, which was itself but a reflex of older cuneiform usage. Many Murabbacat conveyances of property begin with the Hebrew clause 'ani mi-r$oni "I, of my own free will ... " or with the Aramaic ana m 6r'uti. 37 In some of the Hebrew documents from the Geniza edited by Asaf we read the following declarations of volition: ana min da'ati u-min re'uti u-min fibuti "I, of my own volition/knowledge, of my own free will and gladly .... " 38 The last two terms are the Aramaic equivalents of the Hebrew mi-r$oni u-bsiml:tati. These positive terms of volition are explicated by their opposites: "I have given of my own free will, without having been forced, without having been coerced." After the usual terms of coercion-la 'anis wezamukra/:t-one deed continues with a series of terms which in this context can only be construed as the expression of inner psychological reservation: w6 la ka'is w'la ra'i$ wela ca$ib"[Nor did I well known to Pluto· cf "The Special Laws I," 141-144 m the Loeb Classical Edition, Vol. 7, translated by F. H. Colson, p. 181: "From all this it is clear that the the law inve5ts the pnests with the digmty and honours of royalty. Thus he (the lawgiver) commands that tribute should be given from every part of a man's property as to a ruler, and the way m which the tnbute is paid is a complete contrast to the sp1nt in which the cities make their payments to their potentates. The cities pay under compulsion and reluctantly and groan under the burden . ... and when they discharge the appointed dues and asssesments they do so without regard to the time limits allowed. But our people pay gladly and cheerfully (chairontes) They anticipate the demand, abridge the time limits . .. And so at each of the yearly seasons they make their contnbutions ... with a zeal and a readiness which needs no prompting." (Italics added by the wnter.) 37 Cf. P. Benoit, T J M1hk and R. De Vaux, Discoveries in The judean Desert JI: Les Grottes de Murabba'at (Oxford, 1961), pp 105 and 132. 38 S. Asa£, "Ancient Deeds From the Gemzah From Israel, Egypt, and North Afnca," Tarbiz, 9 (1938), p. 24. The deed is a T1benan marriage contract from the 1035 C E.

JOY AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

23

give the property] when I was angry, depressed or sad". 39 These three terms in this context, when juxtaposed to befibuti "gladly/ willingly," do not convey sadness in general, but more specifically 39 For a more comprehensive mvestrgatron of these clauses based on a wide range of unpublished genizah manuscripts, cf. M. Friedman, Jewish Marriage Contracts In The Palestinian Tradition: Documents From The Cairo Genizah (Dissertation, Umvers1ty of Pennsylvama, 1969), pp. 61-64. Friedman has shown that these terms were common m marriage contracts of the Palestmian scribal tradit10n. The terms, however, are difficult and open to a variety of interpretations. Contextually, it 1s clear that la 'a~ib can only inean "not coerced" or "without mental reservat10n." Friedman connects this use of the root '~b with that seemmgly found in I Kmgs 1: 6 i:i:s:s, N1:ii i•:iN where the context demands somethmg like "his fatherneverconstramed him." Instead of emendmg i:i:s:s,to ii:Sl7 on the basis of the Greek, Friedman posits the existence of a Hebrew root *'sb, cognate of the Arabic gha~aba "to constrain", separate from normal Hebrew 'sb, cognate of the Arabic gharj,iba "to be angry, vexed." (A similar mterpretat10n of the passage m Kmgs was already suggested by G. R. Driver m his study, "Supposed Arab1sms m the OT," ]BL, 55 [1936], 1orff. and accepted by Montgomery, Rings [ICC], p 83) At first glance, this suggested mterpretatron 1s compelling. However, further mvestrgahon raises several obiections. First of all, while the denvatron of the term 'asib from a cognate of the Arabic for "constrain", rather from the normal Hebrew term for "sadness", may seemingly solve the problem of 'asib, it does nothmg to solve that of the closely related ra'i~, rasis and ka'is Furthermore, 1t seems artificial to separate 'asib from these other expressions of sadness, especially smce the use of the metaphor of sadness as an express10n of mner reservation or of lack of full mental agreement is well established. Secondly, while 'a~ib could theoretically be mterpreted as a passive form of a transitive root *'sb "to constrain", the closely related phrase [lo'] ['osebet w•lo' 'agumat nefes found m the volition clause of a widow's qmtclaim (Tarbiz 9 [1938), p. ZII, lme 40) can only be mterpreted as "[not] sad or doleful of spirit", i e. without mental reservation/not m full control of mental functions. The active form 'osebet iust cannot mean "constraming". Therefore, it seems wiser to assume that 'a~ib is nothing more than a passive form of the regular verb for sadness, exactly as its synonyms ka'is, ra'is, ra~is and conveys the idea of inner reservation and inner constraint. Furthermore, virtually the same juxtaposit10n between express10ns of joy/willmgness based on the common Semitic root f-y-b, with expressions of sadness and especially anger, is found both in the Hebrew/Aramaic legal tradit10n reflected in the Geniza formulary and in the Arabic legal tradition preserved in the famous Arabic lexicon the Taj al-'Arus (cf. above note 22), where the legal idiom fiibat nafsuhu "his soul was joyful/he was willing" (= Aramaic b•tibute) is defmed negatively as ghayr kariiha wa-la 'a¢ab "without disgust and without anger" (= Aramaic la ka'is "without anger"). The use of disgust/sadness, and of anger as express10ns of mental reservation, in similar legal contexts, could hardly be closer. The histoncal implications of this remarkable correspondence between the Aramaic-Hebrew idiom and its exact Arabic counterpart have yet to be investigated.

24

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

mner reservation, reluctance and absence of any real desire to part with the property." To sum up: just as the Babylonian king reconfirms the contested donation by his declaration of joy/willingness, so the divine King reconfirms the priestly portions bera$on u-bsim/:iah. The legal situations recorded in the kudurru and the Sifre, as well as the specific volitional terminology used in them, are so close that some historical relationship must have existed between the two traditions. The Gift of the M a'asrot

40

The terumot of the priests were given bera$on u-bsim/:iah and thus became the final and incontestable property of the sons of Aaron. The legal status of the levitical ma'aser, however, was not as clear. According to Rabbi Jonathan (Sifre to Numbers, ed. Horowitz, p. 145) : "Just as God made a covenant with priests [concerning the grant of the perquisites], so did He do with the Levites." The Sifre Zutta (ed. Horowitz, p. 297) paraphrases the donation formula "And to the Levites I hereby give all the tithes in Israel as their share in return for the service they perform ... " (Numbers r8 :21) in almost the same was as Rabbi Ishmael paraphrased the priestly donation formula discussed above. The Sifre Zutta reads:

c,v~:i

;,•:,w7,,:,

cr,i,i, ni,w:11~ jl"ll!V 'ltii, ;,n•:,;,n~w:,n~wNi,N ill:i l'N -c•il;,1;,ni,iv:11~ jl"ll!V!, i•ltil;, :,n~w:in•;, 7:, 7;,:,i,niln~ 7mw:, i•ltil;, ;,n~iv

"Rinne means [lit. there was perquisites to ma'asrot to the

nothing other than joy: Just as the Lord rejoiced joy before HaMaqom] when he granted the 'gifts'/ the priest(s), so he rejoiced when he granted the Levites." 41

See L. Fmkelstem,

"On the Phraseology

of the Tannaim,"

Tarbiz, 20 parallel traditions m rabbmic hteraturc, a wide range of trachtional mterpretat10ns and emendat10ns, and a suggestive solut10n wluch was of mest1mable heuristic value for our own mvestrgat10n, not only of tlns passage, but of the whole sub1ect of sim{zah = raJon. 41 The Sifre Zutta'5 use of the more common method of mtroducmg a rabb1111cp•shat: the biblical word "is none other than" 'eno 'ella the mishnaic word (cf Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, p 49), is funct10nally identical with the paraphrase method: wa-'ani-b"rason; hinne-b•simhah used 111 the Sifre to Numbers and the Sifre to Deuteronomy 26 10 (to be discussed above 111note 35). (Cf S Lieberman, Siphre Zutta [New York, 1968] for a discuss10n of the historical ongms of the book, and especially its often unique termmology ) •0

(1950), p roif. for the basic discuss10n of this sect10n, its difficulties,

JOY

AND LOVE

AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

25

The opinion of the Sifre Zutta and of Rabbi Jonathan in the Sifre is opposed by another tradition which reflects a less positive attitude to the legal status of the ma 'asrot to the priests. According to this tradition, it was God's original intent to give the ma'asrot to the priests. However, after the latter sinned during the incident of the Golden Calf, the Lord was forced into giving the ma'asrot to the loyal Levites, not as an outright perquisite-an expression of His love and affection-but as a wage for services performed. To the biblical verse "And to the Levites I hereby give all tithes in Israel as their share in return for the services that they perform .... " (Numbers 18:21), Rabbi Joshiah (Sifre, ed. Horowitz, p. 145) comments

cni,~l.7ri';,nm ;m;,:,';,pm, cw;,lNlpmi;,:, m:s~';,:, "The Lord gave as an absolute grant to the priests [meaning the clergy in general] all priestly perqmsites. But this one [namely, the ma 'asrot, was givenJ in return for their services". with the contrasting view of Rabbi Jonathan, Rabbi Joshiah restates his case in a slightly different, but parallel, formulation: ;,i~Nl ;,';,nn:1m 'l'C ,;,~ ;,n~te:l ;,i~Nl i1l1i1:in,:s~ ';,:,

"All priestly perqmsites 42 were proclaimed with joy from Mount Sinai, but this one [concerning the ma 'asrot] was proclaimed bt{ilh." It is quite clear the qanah wenatan "to give as final property" is parallel to natan besim~iah"to give joyfully". 43 Joy in this donation 42 The meanmg of miswah as a "gift commanded by God to be given to the clergy" was already seen by Ben Yehuda (s v miswah, p 3240) who cites ::--Jehern1ah 14 5 " ... where formerly they had put the cereal-offenngs, the mcense, the vessels, and the tithes of gram, the wrne and the 01!, which were given by command to the Levites (niiswat halwiyyim) ... "The passage, however, m the Sifre was overlooked For an mterestmg semantic parallel, cf. the double meanmg of ftoq "command/commanded share." However, caut10n 1s still m order smce H L. Grnsberg has pomted out to me the poss1b1hty that m Nehemiah, the word miswah may simply be a scnbal error for manah "portion" (cf Nehemiah 8 ro, 12). \Vhatever the case may be, the meanmg "gift" seems clear m the Sifre and its presence there certamly lends support to the correctness of the received readmg m >fehermah The word miswah with the meanrng "donat1011 commanded by God" also seems to appear rn the Sifre Zutta (eel Horowitz, p 293) To the verse m )Jumbers 18 8 "The Lord spoke further to Aaron I hereby give you charge ... ," we frnd the followmg comment l•'Aharon ne'emrah ha-iniswah "It was to Aaron [and not to Korah ?] that this miswah was said." The word miswah here 1s not an obligation, but a grant based on clivme command 43 Taking the express10n qanah w•natan as a hend1adys with the meamng "to grant as fmal property" seems to be the most plausible mterpretation of

26

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

context is the feeling of kindness and willingness that motivates a donor to part with his property: God gave the priests their portions in joy, therefore they are final and eternal property. God did not give the Levites their portions in joy-at least according to some -therefore, these portions are liable to cancellation. The word t}J,lhseems to be used in this context as the antonym of sim}J,ah.Louis Finkelstein has suggested that the word means something like "sadness, inner reservation". 44 In other words, God gave the ma'asrot with inner reservation, not with complete willingness. If this interpretation is correct, {l;ilhwould be functionally equivalent to ka'is and 'a~ib of the Geniza deeds and to ba'al kor}J,o-if the latter term means "at his discomfort: as some have explained. Could the word somehow be related to the common term }J,il"pain" used here with the specific nuance of "begrudgingly, with mental reservation" ? 45

The Torah as God's Gift to Israel The terumot were the gift given in joy-namely, with full volitionto the priests. In a similar manner, the Torah itself is the gift given in joy to the People of Israel:

,:i,~

,:i,~

il'N il"!lpil l;,;:iN n~wnp,, :Ill' ,,.:in, f!:m CiN Cii jlt).:J m~ i::iTYn l;,N,zi,,n c:,1;,•nm::iit,npl;, ,:, 'NlWn~w, 1;,x,w•l;,iliin c;,, J1'll 7::,

It is the way of human beings that when a man sells a valuable object to his fellow, the seller grieves and the buyer is happy. The this rare term. Cf. E. Z. Melamed, "Hendiadys m the Bible," Tarbiz, 16 (1945), pp. 173-189. There is every reason to believe that this syntactical construct10n was no less frequent m rabb1mc literature. The subiect deserves a comprehensive study. 44 Cf. L. Fmkelstem, "On The Phraseology of the Tanna1m," Tarbiz, 20 (1950), p. 10If. Fmkelstem correctly sensed the opposition between b•simftah and btftlh and fully realized the 11nposs1b1hty of mterpretmg btftlh as "m the begmnmg" Simply on the basis of context he sensed that the term must mean somethmg like "out of sorrow or anger," 1.e. not wholeheartedly. In the hght of the comparative evidence marshalled below concernmg the eqmvvalence of joy with willmgness, and sadness with mental reservation, Fmkelstein's emendation toholah (cf. Job 4: 18) although mgemous, is not necessary. However, heuristically, 1t was this most important observation that stimulated our further research on the subiect. 45 Although, etymology is hardly more important than meanmg derived from context, nevertheless, 1£ an etymology has to be provided, Speiser's oral suggest10n that btftlh may mean something hke "m pam" (from h-y-l), should be given some considerat10n. It 1s supported somewhat by the Oxford manuscript of the Sifre which reads btftylh, which, one could argue, is denved from the root ft-y-l "to feel pam "

JOY AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

27

Holy One, blessed be He, however, is different. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced: "For I give you My Torah; forsake not my teaching." 46 (Berakhot 5a) The sadness with which the seller parts with his property is, in this legal context, the indication of a certain mental reservation against the transaction: in all probability, the seller was coerced into the transaction by economic necessity and even though his acceptance of the price indicates his formal outer agreement to the transaction, his inner being is hardly in accord with it. 47 Thus, even though

[And when Moses said to God: "Please send whomever you will send" (Exodus 4: 13),] you might thmk that Moses really did not want to go. The real cause of his delay was his concern for his brother's honor. Said Moses: "Before I was appointed, Aaron served them [the Israelites] as prophet for 80 years ... Shall I now come to them as prophet, encroaching on my brother's terntory to his distress?" For this reason, Moses did not want to go. The Lord said: "Your brother Aaron is not at all distressed concerning this matter [i.e. your appomtment as prophet and his secondary status]. In fact, he is actually happy [i.e. he is m full agreement with the new division of authority and accepts it gladly and willingly]. Know that even now he is coming forth to give you an official welcome. [The Greek word apante "towards"-the midrash's paraphrase of liqrateka in Exodus 4: 14-is sometimes used in Greek papyri with the special meaning "to give a formal welcome to a visiting or newly appointed official." Cf. J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek 3, Vol. I, Prolegomena, p. 14, note 4.] As Scripture says: "Behold even now he is commg out to meet you" (Exodus 4: 14) ... As soon as this was told to Moses, he agreed to depart on his mission. Immediately, the Lord revealed himself to Aaron and said to him: "Go out to meet Moses, your brother, (Exodus 4: 27) in order to let him know that you are happy concerning this matter [i e that you are in agreement with it]." That is why Scripture [which does not waste words on the

32

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

obvious] includes the verse: "Go to meet Moses m the wilderness." [Or to talk in Ph1lo's language: "His brother's soul, in fact, had already, through the watchful working of God, been predisposed to obedience."] The text of the Tanhuma Yashan follows Kasher's condensation; Torah Shelemah, vol. 8, p. 205 in the notes. What is of vital importance is that in the passage just cited, the verse: "Behold hinne even now he is coming out to meet you" is used in a clearly volitional context and that the concluding words wesama'IJ,belibbo expresses willingness, acceptance and agreement, rather than simple jubilation. The verse "hinne ... wesama'IJ,belibbo" thus becomes a perfect proof-text for the identity of sim'IJ,ahwith ra~on, and an old one at that-if one is willing to accept the ancients' unarticulated definition of what the simple meaning of Scripture is. Paradoxically, what originally seemed to be a weak asmakhta, now appears as a perfectly legitimate prooftext for a rabbinic peshat. This is not the place to discuss the much-debated problem concerning the relationship between Philo and the rabbis. (Cf. the works of Wolfson, Heinemann, Belkin, E. Stein [for the latter, cf. Philo itnd der Midrasch, 1931] and before them Azaria de Rossi.) However, the close relationship between the Philonic and midrashic passages discussed above, and the light that they shed on each other is not an isolated phenomenon. It is obvious that the last word on the subject is yet to be said. In the meanwhile, cf. Wolfson, Philo II (Cambridge, 1958), p. 224 f. Our second problem is a question raised by Rabbi Ishmael's students: "[If 'ani hinne in first person declarations often indicates joy,] are we to infer that when the Bible says: 'Behold [hineni] I on my part am about to bring the flood,' does God really rejoice?" On the surface, once again, the question seems to assume that the students seemingly misunderstood the point made by Rabbi Ishmael, namely that sim!J,ah in some contexts does not mean simple joy or Jubilation, but has clear overtones of agreement and willingness. Rabbi Ishmael's answer that indeed God rejoices when the wicked are destroyed would seem to heighten our problem. One would have expected the following question: "If wa-'ani hinne expresses simhah and ra~on, namely, willingness and lack of inner reservation, is the same psychological situation implicit in the syntactically similar divine declaration wa-'ani hineni mebi'

JOY AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

33

'Behold I on my part am about to bring the flood' ?" In other words, does the Lord bring the deluge without inner reservations, sadness or regret, but with full inner agreement and willingness? Such an induction from the previous lexical remarks of Rabbi Ishmael would have seemed more "logical" to our modern tastes. But the ways of the midrash-at least according to the give and take between the master and his students-don't seem to be our ways, at least on the surface. One could, of course, dismiss this question in a number of ways. One could argue that one of the characteristic traits of the midrash is that the same verse may be interpreted in entirely different, and sometimes contradictory ways, even by the same interpreter. Thus, while in his own interpretation, Rabbi Ishmael brought out the did volitional aspect of sim"f:,,ah,he was quite aware that sim"f:,,ah not lose its normal meaning of joy. Therefore, he seemed quite willing to answer his students' question in a most conventional way. Both interpretations-his own and his answer to his students' question-were considered true and legitimate, even if from our point of view, they may seem to exclude each other. This is part of what Kadushin calls "the indeterminate" aspect of the rabbinic mind. On the other hand, the question that we might have expected the students to ask is not simply a product of our own inductive logic, but a very actual one in rabbinic thought. Professor Lieberman in his lectures had often depicted the Lord as a tragic figure, torn between His feelings of love prompting Him to pardon the wicked, and His feelings of righteous indignation prompting Him to punish them. The inner battle raging in the divine mind is between middat "the quality hadin "the quality of justice" and middat hara"f:,,amim of love and forgiveness." The most dramatic expression of this divine tension and God's basic reluctance to punish is found in the well known passage in Sanhedrin 6 :5: qeloni merosi qeloni m,izroci, explained by Professor Saul Lieberman [Personal Letter, Feb. 20, r974] as follows: "lVIydisgrace from my head, my disgrace from my arm. Maimonides (according to editions Gottlieb and Kappal)) explains the entire Mishnah, 'When a man (i.e., a sinner) is in sorrow, because he is about to be punished, what does the Shekhinah say? 'My disgrace from my head, my disgrace from my arm,' i.e., I will be ashamed if I do not use my head and punish the man, and I will be ashamed if I do not use my arm and pardon the man." 3

34

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

This idea is concretized most dramatically in the various midrashim and targumim to the flood story. See Rashi on Genesis 6 :3 who, reflecting an older tradition, interprets the verse [o>yadun rul}i as "My Being cannot continually be at war with itself whether to destroy or pardon mankind." See especially Rashi to Genesis 6:6 "And the Lord regretted [biblical wayyina'f:,,em = rabbinic = tahut] that He had ever made man on earth, and He was grieved to His heart [wayyit'a,seb belibbo]." Rashi, summarising ancient material, reads wayyit'a$eb betibbo as reflecting the terrible battle that waged in His heart between His justice and His mercy. Note also the ample material cited by Kasher. The various targumim are particularly sharp and anthropomorphic on this subject. Cf. the so called Targum Yerushalmi w'dyyn 'm lbyh "He struggled with his heart" and especially the Targum Neofiti which reads 'tdyn w'pyys 'm lbh "He struggled with His heart and came to an agreement with it." [The printed text has w'dyq which in the light of the other targumim, can only be read 'tdyn.] According to these traditions, God did not destroy joyfully. At most, one can say that He finally agreed and willed to bring the flood only after the resolution of a deep inner conflict. It was a distasteful act of will, not a capricious outburst of enthusiasm. In his commentary to Genesis 6 :17 wa-'ani hineni mebi' Rashi, once again summarizing ancient tradition (cf. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, Vol. II, p. 407, note 196), has the Lord say the following: hinn•i mukan l•haskim 'im 'otam she-zerzuni we-am•ru l•f anai k•bar "mah 'enos ki tizk•rennu" "I am ready to agree with those [angels] who [when God was about to create the world] urged Me [not to create man] by citing the verse in Psalm 8: 'What is man that you consider him!' "

Above we argued that on the basis of Rabbi Ishmael's volitional interpretation of >ani hinne his students, in their attempt to apply this principle to Genesis 6 :17 should not have asked whether God brought the flood joyfully, but should have asked whether He brought the flood willingly, i.e. in agreement with Himself, after the resolution of inner conflicts. As we have just seen, the material for such an answer to our hypothetical question, was certainly available in abundance, and would have been in complete harmony with Rabbi Ishmael's initial observation that in some contexts, sim'f:,,ah simply means willingness and agreement. In this case, we have an

JOY

AND LOVE AS METAPHORICAL

EXPRESSIONS

35

answer to a question that was not asked. Why it was not asked still remains a problem. EXCURSUS

II:

QUESTIONS

OF TRANSMISSION

One final question remains: is the parallelism between Babylonian royal grants and the divine grants recorded in the Sifre simply a coincidence or is it an indication of historical dependence? If we accept the dependence thesis, what was the immediate channel of transmission? In dealing with such problems, one or two common features are insufficent in establishing historical relationships. Ideally, the two cases being compared should be exact in almost all ways: the greater the number of unique elements that go into the making of two somewhat strange configurations, the greater the probability that this overlap is not simply a matter of chance or parallel development. One of the strongest arguments in favor of some sort of dependence is the strange situation which both the kudurrus and the grants in the Sifre share in common: the validity of royal grants lacking the royal seal and formal registration in the royal archive, and the addition of the seal and registration only after a litigation. Nevertheless, before definitively arguing that one is actually derived from the other, one would have to investigate the contemporary Greek material to see whether or nor a similar situation obtained in that cultural area. If. it did not, then the chances of dependence on Mesopotamia are very high. If the same situation did obtain in Greece, the problem is still not definitively solved, since as we are now becoming more aware, much that is Greek is rooted in oriental soil. Conceivably, a Mesopotamian institution could have penetrated the Greek world and from there made its way into the rabbinic one. In fact, any one of these models may be true. A few ,vords about another model. If Weinfeld's thesis concerning the dependence of the Israelite institution of covenant grant on Mesopotamian models is correct-and I agree that it is, in spite of a few reservations-could one further postulate the influence of the biblical covenant grant on the rabbinic? Both the rabbinic and the biblical covenant grants are so radically different from each other, and the particular Babylonian elements borrowed-if borrowed they were-so entirely different, that this thesis can be rejected out of hand. If the material was borrowed, it was a) from an Aramaic reworking of Akkadian material, b) from an

YOCHANAN

MUFFS

independent Greek source, or c) from a Greek source which derived the institution from an Akkadian source found in some Aramaic form-but not directly from the Bible. Furthermore, even the specific use of the term sim"f:tah with volitional overtones may or may not be derived from the Akkadian. There are some indications, which will be discussed in future installments of this study, that the usage is biblical (mostly, but not entirely late), and is attested to in the Greek word charis which means both pleasure/joy and boon/gift. (cf. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, p. 44). Whether or not the parallel donations or the specific use of joy as a term of volition are derived from the Near East, there can be little doubt concerning the valuable light each source throws on the other. However, in light of the large number of parallelisms, the possibility of interdependence, although not "mathematically" proven, is more than likely. Final judgement will have to wait until all the evidence is brought in. In the meanwhile, it should be noted that the volitional use of sim"f:tahand >ahabah and its specific application to the passage in the Sifre, has been accepted by Lieberman in his Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, Part III, (Jewish Theological Seminary, N.Y.C., 1973), Order Nashim, p. 722. My thanks to Professor Lieberman for his aid and encouragement when I first presented the idea at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Jewish Research, New York, 1954.

ON THE ORIGINS OF THE ARAMAIC LEGAL FORMULARY AT ELEPHANTINE BARUCH A. LEVINE New York University

The late E. Y. Kutscher, writing in 1954 soon after the publication of the Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri lamented the neglect of the Egyptian Aramaic materials by scholars, and pointed to several areas of inquiry, among them the legal traditions of the Ancient Near East, with respect to which these texts might prove to be pivotal.1 Since that time there have appeared several comprehensive treatments of the Aramaic papyri, as though in response to Kutscher's call. The most notable of these are the contributions of Reuven Yaron, Bezalel Porten, and Y ochanan Muffs. 2 These three works differ sharply in their approaches to the Aramaic material. Yaron's study is strictly legal, providing a descriptively systematic analysis of the relevant documents through a breakdown of their schemas, and by their classification into the accepted legal and divorce, courts and procedure, law of categories-marriage property, etc. Relatively little attention is paid to historical and comparative considerations. 3 Porten's study, on the other hand, is historical and social, and treatment of the legal system is only incidental to its overall purpose, which was to characterize the Elephantine community. 4 Muffs has done most for a proper assessment of the Elephantine legal system within the perspective 1 E. Y. Kutscher, JAOS 74, 1954 (Publications of the American Oriental Society, Offprint Series, no. 27), 233£., especially 243-48. 2 R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, (= LAP), Oxford, 1961, B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, U. of California, 1968, Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, Leiden, 1969 (= SALPE). Less directly relevant, but important, 1s the contribution of S. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic and the Development of the Aramaic Dialects, Yale U. dissertation, 1971 Also note M. Silverman, Jewish Personal Names in the Elephantine Documents. A Study in Onomastic Development, Brandeis U. dissertation, 1967, and cf. idem, JAOS 89, 1969, 691-709. 3 Yaron m LAP, ch. 9 (99-u3) discusses "Some Problems of Companson," and in ch. 10 (114-18) "Sources and Contacts." As will become evident, Yaron dealt only sketchily with the comparative d1mens10n. 4 Porten's work 1s d1v1ded into several sections: "Political and Economic Life," "Religion," "Family and Communal Life," etc.

BARUCH A. LEVINE

of comparative Near Eastern law, pursuing a philological-exegetical method. In the first instance, he sought cuneiform models with which Aramaic formularies and terms could be associated. He also attempted an historical reconstruction of the origins of Aramaiclaw. 5 All of this ferment, which goes beyond Aramaic to include Demotic studies, has had only limited value for the question of the proximate origins of the legal system operative at Elephantine. 6 To identify these origins would require additional source materials in the Aramaic language from the period preceding the Elephantine corpus, and such materials are presently scarce. Our purpose here is to focus attention on the problem of proximate origins, necessarily in a limited way. Certain paradigmatic examples of this problem will be discussed in the hope of clarifying the methodological apparatus available for historical analysis.

I. An Apparent Old Babylonian Survival: The Tyb Lbby Complex The major part of Muff's study is devoted to a clause quite frequent in the Aramaic legal documents: tyb lbyy "My heart is satisfied," and variants of this formula. To understand the problem to which Muffs addresses himself, we cite an example of this clause in context: w>nt ydnyh wmhsyh bny >sb,wrhwtbtn lbbn b>lk nksy> wtyb lbbn bgw mn ywm> znh 'd 'lm >nk mnb,m w'nnyh rb,yqn >nb,nhmnk mn ywm> znh 'd 'lm.

And you, Yedoniah and Mehasiah, sons of Ashor, have satisfied our heart with these goods, and our heart is satisfied therewith from 6 In SALPE, ch. 7, Muffs presents lus thoughts on the development of Aramaic law, mcludmg some ms1ghts on NA factors relevant to Elephantme law. The relatively brief treatment actually opens up a new hne of mqmry for Muffs, and is not entirely consistent with his central fmdmgs on the /yb lbby complex, and its OB counterpart, libbasu /ab. Muffs 1s actually operating on two levels, which he never fully co-ordmates · a) A study of the ph1lolog1cal afflruties of an Aramaic and an OB formula, and b) The proximate origms of Elephantme law m later cuneiform traditions For the latter also see his Addenda and Corrigenda, 195-208, and n. 38, further 8 In SALPE, ch. 6, Muffs summarizes the Demotic evidence His mam authority is E Seidl. See ibid. 222, bibliography s.v. Seidl, E. (3 entries) Porten op cit. 334-43, presents a breakdown of the comparative schemas of the Aramaic and Demotic texts which, although useful, involves some Juxtaposition of the actual order of Demotic clauses (ibid. 340, n. 19). Kutscher, op. cit 247 comments on the limited influence of Demotic on Aramaic law.

THE ARAMAIC

LEGAL

FORMULARY

AT ELEPHANTINE

39

this day and forever. We, Menal).em and Ananiah, are removed from you from this day and forever. 7 The document in question concerns the disposition of contested goods, i.e. litigation. The defendants 'satisfy" the plaintiffs concerning the contested goods, and it is this statement of "satisfaction" which is the core of the matter discussed by Muffs. This clause occurs in eleven legal texts. 8 Significantly, it does not occur in documents of gift or grant, but only in contexts where final, binding legal activities are recorded, and not voluntary acts. 9 Muffs demonstrates through separate, independent analysis of the Aramaic and Old Babylonian evidence that Aramaic tyb lbby and Old Babylonian libbasu tab "His heart is satisfied" are functionally and semantically equivalent. Although the third person formulation predominates in Old Babylonian, Muffs was able to find a rare, first person occurrence, as well.1° As a third factor, Muffs discusses the Demotic counterpart dj. k-mtj 'J.,,3tj(.i')"You have caused my heart to be satisfied," and related forms. 11 The correspondence of these three clauses had been noticed before Muffs, but it is he who has analyzed them in a new way, and has shown them to be more significant then was previously thought. 12 San Nicolo, and other students of Old Babylonian law had taken libbasu tab to be volitional, i.e. a statement which merely expresses agreement or satisfaction with respect to actions already performed. 13 7 AP 20. 8-10. See Muffs' chscuss10n m SALPE 30-31, and see our n. 8. On the not10n of removal (r!iq), see further, n. 36 8 Cf., in add1t10n to AP 20, the following: AP 6:u-12, 14 5-6, text 67, BMAP 1·4, 3:6-7, 12.6. In contexts other than conveyance, cf. AP 2:9, 14:5-6, 15.5-6, 15, BMAP 7.5. For convenience, we refer to this clause as /yb lbby, in the 1st smg. passive construct1011, although rt also occurs m the active + passive construct10n, and m the 2nd smg., passive construction. All forms are surveyed in SALPE 30-5, 51-62 9 This is the burden of Muffs' contrast of Jyb lbby with the voht10nal formula yhbt ... br!imn "I have given m affection", i e voluntanly. (SALPE, 36-50) Cf. our discussion, further 111nos. 27-28. Even m those contexts which Muffs considers atypical, as for example AP 2, and 14 and 15, where the delivery of goods and dowry htigat10ns are mvolved, the use of /yb lbby conveys obligations, and there is nothmg voluntary about the legal arrangements projected. Also cf. SALPE 56-8. 10 See SALPE 176, and note OB deed from S1ppar where we read· li-li]b-bi tabab "My heart is satisfied" (CT IV: 7a = M. Schorr, Urhunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts, 1913, no 310. 11 See n. 6, above. 12 Accordmg to Muffs, E. Pntsch was the flfst to note this correspondence. See SALPE 150, nos. 1-4 for literature. 13 See Muffs' summary of previous work on libbasu Jab in SALPE 63-5.

40

BARUCH

A. LEVINE

Essentially, this was Seidl's understanding of the Demotic counterpart.14 Yaron, writing some years before Muffs' study, considered Elephantine tyb lbby as merely an expression, devoid of particular legal significance, although he did show some interest in its curious history. 1" Subsequently, when Yaron was faced with Muffs' comprehensive study of this formula, he was forced, as it were, to take it more seriously. Even then, in a critical review of Muffs' book, he persisted in arguing against its legal importance. 16 The first important step in Muffs' treatment is, therefore, his demonstration that tyb lbby, along with its Old Babylonian and Demotic counterparts, is a quittance formula, and not merely a statement of satisfaction, in a volitional sense. According to Muffs, tyb lbby reflects two aspects: 1) Adequate compensation has been received or legal performance accomplished. 2) No further claims will be entertained(= quittance).17 Muffs arrives at this definition of the provenance of tyb lbby in several steps. He summarizes its distribution in documents representing the categories of sale and litigation, and in those recording reactions to the receipt of goods and funds. 18He then proceeds to show the importance of the operative section in the Aramaic texts. In Old Babylonian sale documents, the Schlussklausel is more important than the operative section because these documents were formulated objectively, and little information was provided in the operative section. The Aramaic documents, on the other hand, are formulated subjectively, and the operative section is, therefore, of greater consequence. The failure to take this distinction into account may have impeded a proper appreciation of the function of tyb lbby as a quittance formula. 19 14 See SALPE 154-7 on views of Seidl and Griffith as to the volitional connotation of the Demotic counterpart of /yb lbby. 15 LAP 105-6, 108, 122, and especially 123-4. 16 Yaron's important review ism RB 77, 1970, 408-16, and see his shorter discuss10n m Israel Law Review 4, 1969, 588-91. Also see the comments of E. Y. Kutscher on the lmguisttc imphcat10ns of Muffs' analysis of /yb lbby m "Aramaic," Linguistics in South-West Asia and North Africa (Current Trends in Linguistics 6), Mouton, 1969, 363-4, and the review of Muffs by K. R. Veenhof, Journal for the Study of Judaism, V, 1974, 87-90. 17 SALPE 28-9, and particularly 43-50. 18 SALPE 25-6, and survey of usage in other than conveyance documents, 51-62 19 See SALPE 17-25 where Muffs clanfies the contrast between OB and non-OB traditions m Akkadian documents from Susa, Kultepe, Assyria, Nuz1, Ugant, etc. The Aramaic documents are to be identified with the non-OB traditions regarding the character of their operative sections.

THE

ARAMAIC

LEGAL

FORMULARY

AT ELEPHANTINE

4I

In his critical review, Yaron attacks Muffs' interpretation of tyb lbby as a quittance formula. 20 All of Muffs' analysis would be of considerably less importance if tyb lbby and its Old Babylonian antecedent turned out to be nothing more than expressions of agreement with no orientation toward the future legal relationship of the parties. Adopting a strictly legal definition of quittance, Yaron sees it as encompassing three factors: r) Renunciation of rights, z) Transfer of rights, and 3) Creation of binding obligations between the parties, i.e. the future orientation of quittance. Yaron maintains that in two of the texts cited by Muffs as evidence for taking tyb lbby as a quittance formula, AP 6 and r4, all we actually have is the renunciation of a previous claim, subsequent to the performance of an oath, but not the future-oriented obligations requisite to the concept of quittance. How, asks, Yaron, can the provenance of tyb lbby as a quittance formula be maintained if such is not provided for in all of the texts cited in evidence ? 21 As a matter of method, Muffs' argument could stand on the rest of his considerable evidence, even if he missed the mark in two texts. The fact is, however, that tyb lbby does function as a quittance formula in AP 6 and r4, if one understands these texts properly. AP 6 deals with litigation over a piece of property. Party A, currently in possession of the property, swears toB, pursuant to a complaint by B, that the land is his, and does not belong to B. Then B states that this oath "satisfies" him on the matter, and he renounces any claim to the land, agreeing not to bring suit against A at any future time. As Muffs explains, based on a positional analysis, the oath of purgation in litigations, such as AP 6 and r4, has a function parallel to that of compensation in cases of sale. Thus, yhbt ly dmwhy wtyb lbby bgw "You have paid me its price, and my heart is satisfied therewith" is parallel to: ym>t ly wtyb lbby "You have taken an oath on my behalf, and my heart is satisfied". 22 In the case of AP 6 there is particular indication of binding obligations undertaken for the future, a point earlier noted by Cowley, who cited the provisions AP 8: 23 f. in this connection. 23 From AP 8 we learn that when the same property is later transferred by party A, the claimant upheld See Yaron, RB 77, 1970, 409f Yaron, ibid. 409. 22 Note Muffs' comment m AP 6 m SALPE 32, and cf. ibid., 46. The oath of purgation, so-called, also figures m AP 14, and see our d1scuss10n of AP 14, further, and n. 25. 23 See AP 15, introduction to text no. 6, and 21, introduction to text no. 8. 20

21

42

BARUCH

A. LEVINE

in AP 6, to his daughter as a gift, reference is made to the oath taken by A, which satisfied B, as well as to a spr mrl;,q "a bill of removal/ dissociation" provided by B to A in the earlier litigation. This is all mentioned in substantiation of A's right to grant said property to his daughter. What emerges is that the oath and the resultant spr mrh,q (not explicitly mentioned in AP 6, but implied therein in lines 1516) served as title, and as the basis for the future transfer of rights. 24 AP 14 concerns the division of property, or more precisely, the settlement of a property dispute following upon a divorce. The oath of purgation is taken by the wife to the effect that the property in question was hers by right, and the husband is "satisfied" by this oath. In practical terms this meant that he agreed to restore the dowry to his estranged wife. So, here as well, the statement of satisfaction goes beyond the renunciation of previous claims to embrace obligations for the future. 26 In studying legal documents one must always perceive the implicit background involved. In AP 6 we observe a situation once removed from an initial transfer, hence oath instead of compensation. In AP 14 there is also a background which generates a settlement, and one must ask what the force of a statement of satisfaction is in such a context. The effect of the oath was to compel further action on the part of the husband. 26 Y aron also failed to see the point of Muffs' contrast between the volitional clause par excellence, yhbt . .. brh,mn "I have given in affection ( = willingly)" common to the documents of gift, and tyb lbby, which never occurs in such contexts. 27 The clause yhbt ... br'l;mn projects the concept of voluntariness. Initial willingness to part with something of value could be cited subsequently as a basis for voiding that act, by stating that it was accomplished without obligation. A-change of heart could be a basis for retrieval, and as a consequence deeds of gift normally contain additional statements protecting the recipient from this loophole, and guaranteeing the grant against efforts by the donor or by others to retrieve it. In contrast, the tyb lbby formula conveys the finality of the 24 AP 6: 15-16 reads: w'nt rhyq mn kl dyn' zy yqblwn 'lyk e le:peeuv -r:ouc; l>w:creu0ev-r:ixc;, "the priests who escaped", is highly significant. Where is the flood survivor, the Phoenician equivalent of Utnapishtim, Atrahasis, Xisouthros, and Noah? Why doesn't he take the sacred objects himself, why must the priests do it? I suggest that the Phoemcian flood survivor is absent because he too has joined the gods, like the Mesopotamian flood survivors. 38 FGrH 680 F 4, 15 & 17. 'Evu,x).[ou ~to6yµocn1tocp'ijcrocv II. a) 1te:pt G)V'At-.e~ocvl>pos;. . . 13te:AEX01JO-OCV b) treaty of goodwill and present of golden shield xoct x&pti;ocs;1tpo~ ocu,:ous; c) e:l>o~e:cruv0fo0octrptt-.locv

+ + + + 52 + / + +

actually checked the ongmal copies of the decrees in the archives m Rome. On this point, see more below. 60 Marcus in the Loeb edit10n of Josephus, VII, Appendix D, p. 746, wants to limit the value of formcritical methods for the study of the documents m Josephus: "At this pomt it may suffice to point out that the methods of Formgeschichte and Gattungsgeschichte cannot altogether replace the study of histoncal context and common sense." Exclusive reliance upon Formgeschichte would, of course, be an mdefensible method. But one of the foremost reqmrements m the study of Josephus is a careful formcritical study of his wntmgs. "Histoncal context" is a highly imprecise category when our mainis such an unabashed apologist as Josephus. And comor even sole-source one could find a common denommator mon sense would be of great help-if for thls elusive mtellectual quality which always seems to be found only in the author who invokes it and conspicuously absent m any wnter who happens to disagree In the case of an unscrupulous and openly apologetic if wnter like Josephus we need as much precis10n as we can muster-even of the lack of precision m Jothe only result should be the demonstration sephus himself. 61 + = in full agreement with standard form; / = different m detail, but basically m agreement with form; o = missmg. 62 The agreement m form should not be allowed to cover up the fact that there are questions concernmg the availability of this temple for meetings of the Senate at the time involved.

HORST

1 44

R. MOEHRING

to form a relation of goodwill . . . and to provide them with all thmgs which they have requested

III.

N. Ant. 14:219-222 Confirmation of grants made by Caesar bemg Cornelms and Qumtus Rutilms I. a) Qumtus quaestors of the city

II

III. IV.

b) c) d) e) a) b) c)

+o + 0

three days before the Ides of Apnl m the Temple of Concord eleven named witnesses ypO(cpoµevep1mp-yj(mv 1tept i;',v MyµO(TL,X't"A 61twrn, Myou~ E7tO,~(JO(V't"O d~ TO 't"O(µ,efovoux ~cp0w:,evcivevex0'ijv0(, omho,~ ll>o~ev 't"Oi:~ d~ l>ehou~ civevyxdv 't"O(UTO(

+ +62 + + + + + 0

This survey illustrates one important point: all three senatus consulta, as they are reproduced in Josephus, omit the "mark of approval." According to Mommsen, 63 the second censuere is of great importance: it distinguishes between the senatus auctoritas and the senatus consultum. The former term applies also to decrees of the Senate which are not valid and merely reflections of debates in the Senate which did not acquire any legal force. It is true, as Mommsen states, that literary authors, when they copied the text of senatus consulta may have introduced certain abridgments. But would Josephus who is so concerned about the authenticity of the documents quoted by him omit the very mark of their validity, if he could have included it? We also have in Josephus the text of what purports to be another senatus consultum involving a treaty of friendship between Rome and the Jews. For Ant. 12:417-418 we even possess a control in I Mace. 8 :23-32. This treaty was discussed in great detail by Taubler, 64 who came to the conclusion that it was authentic. He examined the treaty in the form found in I Mace. and explained divergences from the norm in language by the problems inherent in the multiple translation process: Latin-Greek-Hebrew-Greek. This may well be true. Of greater interest to us, however, is the manner in which Josephus decided to incorporate this treaty into his narrative. The first point to be noted is the fact that Josephus brings a decree within a narrative of which we know the source: I Mace. 63

64

Mommsen: Staatsrecht III.2, p. 1009. Taubler: Imperium Romanum, I, 24+ff.

THE

ACTA

PRO

JUDAEIS

IN

THE

ANTIQUITIES

145

In book XIV, on the other hand, the decrees and letters quoted have been added to a narrative source, the Bellum, and the source for the documents themselves, as we know, has been a matter of almost endless speculation. 65 It is further worth noting that the text in Ant. 12:417£. agrees neither with that in I Mace. 8:23-32 nor with the standard form for such a treaty. It is true, of course, that Josephus at some points uses technically correct terminology where I Mace. uses informal language: o6yµoc cruyx.A~""t"ou m:pt cruµµocxlcxc; x.d euvolcxc;'t"7Jc; 1tpoc;'t"OE0voc;'t"WV'Iouooclwvis better than X.OCAWc; yevovrn 'PwµocloLc;xoct ""t" e:0ve:L'louocxlwv. But the fact that the version of Josephus does not at any point agree with the standard form makes it exceedingly unlikely that it is based upon any copy of the official text itself. This observation is of interest also in connection with the claim frequently made, from Josephus on, 66 that the decrees and letters quoted by him simply had to be authentic because any one could go and check the trustfulness of his contention simply by examining the official copies on the Capitol. Copies of I Mace. would have been more easily accessible to any interested person than bronze tablets erected in Rome or at Alexandria. The invitation 65 Niese: "Bemerkungen uber die Urkunden be1 Josephus," Hermes rr (1876), p. 470. "Man wird nun bemerken,