Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Part 4: Judaism After 70 Other Greco-Roman Cults Bibliography (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 1592447422, 9781592447428

Citation preview

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS PART FOUR

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME TWELVE

CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS PART FOUR

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

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART FOUR

JUDAISM AFTER 70 OTHER GRECO-ROMAN CULTS BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wipf&Stock PUBiisHERS Eugene,Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 West 8th Avenue, Suite 3 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Part 4 Judaism After 70 Other Greco-Roman Cults Bibliography By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1975 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN: 1-59244-742-2 Publication date 7/9/2004 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1975

TABLE OF CONTENTS JUDAISM AFTER 70 Redactional Techniques in the Legal Traditions of Joshua ben I;Iananiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WILLIAM Scorr GREEN, University 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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

JACOBNEUSNER, Brown University Two Traditions of Samuel: Evaluating Alternative Versions BARUCHM. BoKSER, University of California, Berkeley R. Abbahu of Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LEE I. LEVINE, Hebrew University, Jerusalem "Conjecture" and Interpolation in Translating Rabbinic Texts Illustrated by a Chapter from Tanna debe Eliyyahu . . . . . WILLIAMG. BRAUDE, Providence, Rhode Island

1

18

30

46

56

77

OTHER GRECO-ROMANCULTS Iconoclasm among the Zoroastrians . . . . . . MARYBOYCE,University of London Quellenprobleme zum Ursprung und Alter der Manda.er. KURT RUDOLPH,Karl-Marx-Universitat, Leipzig The Religion of Maximin Daia . . . . . . ROBERTM. GRANT,University of Chicago Dositheus, Jesus, and a Moses Aretalogy . . . . . . . .. STANLEYIssER, State University of New York, Binghamton

93 II2

1 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Bibliography of the Writings of Morton Smith, to December 31, 1973 ...................... . A. THOMASKRAABEL,University of Minnesota

Index of Biblical and Talmudic References General Index

201 220

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VI

PART ONE NEW TEST AMENT Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Testament Introduct10n. A Critique of a Disciplme HELMUT KOESTER, Harvard Umversity Good News Is No News: Aretalogy and Gospel JONATHANZ. SMITH, Umversity of Chlcago A Fresh Approach to Q . . . . . . . . . WILLIAM R. FARMER, Southern Methodist Umvers1ty Blasphemy· St, Mark's Gospel as Damnation History T. A. BuRKILL, Umvers1ty of Rhodesia From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4 . . . . . . . . . . . JAMES A. SANDERS,Union Theological Seminary Luke 12, 13-14, Tradition and Interpretation . . . TJITZE BAARDA,VriJe Umvers1te1t, Amsterdam "Am I a Jew ?"-Johannine Christiamty and Judaism WAYNE A. MEEKS, Yale Umversity The Kinship of John and Acts . . . . . . . . . . PIERSON PARKER, The General Theological Semmary A Foreword to the Study of the Speeches m Acts . . . . MAX·wrLcox, Umvers1ty College of North ·wales, Bangor L'hymne chnstolog1que de Col 1, 15-20 J ugernent cnhque sur l'etat des recherches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PIERRE BENOIT, o.p., Ecole b1bhque et archeolog1que frarn;aise

IX

1 21 39 51 75

107. 163 187 206 226

Jerusalem Paul and ms Opponents: Trends m Research . . . . . E. EARLE ELLIS, New Brunswick Theological Semmary The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews . . . . . . . GEORGE WESLEY BucHANAN, Wesley Theological Semmary, hmgton

264 299 Was-

PART Two EARLY

CHRISTIANITY

The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement ROBIN SCROGGS,Chicago Theological Seminary Power through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestme . SHELDONR. ISENBERG, University of Florida Reflexions sur le Judeo-Christianisme . . . MARCELSIMON, Umvers1te de Strasbourg Asia Minor and Early Christiamty . . . . . SHERMANE. JOHNSON,Church D1vm1ty School of the Pacific Peter m Rome. A Review and Posit10n D. Vv. O'CONNOR, St. Lawrence Umversity Une allus10n de l'Asclepius au livre d'Henoch MARC PHILONENKO,Umvers1te de Strasbourg Chnst in Verbal and Depicted Imagery: A Problem of Early Christian Iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s. G. F. BRANDON

1

24 53 77 146 161 164

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII

Das Thema "Vertreibung aus dem Paradies" m der Katakombe der Via Latma und sein JUdischer Hmtergrund . . . . . . . . . . . . . KURT and URSULASCHUBERT,Umversitat Wien Vox Populi Voluntas Dei and the Election of the Byzantine Emperor. MILTON V. ANASTOS,Umversity of California, Los Angeles Hypatius of Ephesus on the Cult of Images . . . . . . STEPHENGERO, Brown Umversity Contemporary Ecclesiastical Approaches to Biblical Interpretation: Orthodoxy and Pseudorthodoxy ERNEST S. FRERICHS,Brown University

173

208 217

PART THREE JUDAISM BEFORE

70

Joy and Love as Metaphoncal Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity m Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Divine Investitures m the Midrash m the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YocHANAN MUFFS, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America On the Origins of the Aramaic Legal Formulary at Elephantine . BARUCHA. LEVINE, New York University Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29 . . . . . . ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN, McMaster Umversity The Jewish Historian Demetrios E. J. BrcKERMAN,Columbia University The Tales of the Tobiads . . . . . . . . JONATHANA. GOLDSTEIN,Umversity of Iowa The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: A Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Histonography . . . . . . HORST R. MOEHRING,Brown Umversity The Archangel Sariel. A Targunnc Parallel to the Dead Sea Scrolls GEzA VERMES,Umversity of Oxford Qumran and Iran: The State of Studies . . . . . . RICHARDN. FRYE, Harvard University The Multiform Jewish Hentage of Early Christianity ROBERT A. KRAFT, University of Pennsylvama A Note on Purification and Proselyte Baptism . . . R. J. Zwr WERBLOWSKY,Hebrew University Jerusalem Sadducees versus Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources. JACK LIGHTSTONE,Brown University Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship Lours H. FELDMAN,Yeshiva University

r 37 55

72 85 124 159 167 175 200 206 218

REDACTIONAL LEGAL TRADITIONS

TECHNIQUES IN THE OF JOSHUA B. I:IANANIAH

WILLIAM SCOTT GREEN University of Rochester

Morton Smith's observation that "The primary Sitz im Leben of the books of the Old Testament ... is their role in the life of those who wrote, copied and corrected them ... " 1 is true as well for the legal traditions of rabbinic Judaism. Those traditions were neither preserved nor handed on by accident. The meaning and importance of specific legal decisions is determined almost wholly by the context in which they appear. The creation of that context, however, usually is not the work of the sages whose rulings are reported, but that of their students and others who lived after them who shaped and transmitted their opinions. The critical study of rabbinic legal materials, which properly forms the core of research into the foundations of rabbinic Judaism, demands attention not only to the content of individual opinions, but to redactional procedures as well, for, as Professor Smith points out, "in the study of transmitted material a knowledge of the character of the transmission is prerequisite for an evaluation of the data transmitted." 2 Yet, it is only with recent times that sustained, systematic, and selfconscious inquiry has been made into the redactional procedures reflected in discrete legal pericopae. Since such work is just beyond infancy, its results are still more suggestive than probative, and refinement and sharpening of methodological procedures continues to take place. What follows are several examples taken from the legal traditions of Joshua b. f:Iananiah, a major figure in firstcentury Palestinian Judaism, which demonstrate ways in which an appreciation of the motives and techniques of redactors may help elucidate some of the issues at stake in the formative period of rabbinic Judaism. A. [Concerning] the woman [who was of Israelite descent and married to a priest] who was eating of Heavc-offenng-they came 1 Morton Snuth, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York, 1971), pp. 9-ro. 2 Ibid., p. 4.

2

WILLIAM

SCOTT GREEN

and said to her, "Your husband has died," or, "[Your husband has] divorced you"B. And so [concerning] the slave [of a priest] who was eating of Heave-offering, and they came and said to him, "Your master has died," or "[He has] sold you to an Israelite," or "[He has] given you as a gift," or, "[He has]freed you"C. And so [concerning] a priest who was eating of Heave-offering, and it became known (NWD' S) that he is the son of a divorcee or of a halu!jahD.R. Eliezer obligates [them] for the Principle and the Added Fifth. E. And R. Joshua exempts [them]. F He [a priest] was standing and offering sacrifices at the altar, and it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of a fialu$ahG. R. Eliezer says, "All the sacrifices he has offered on the altar are invalid." H. And R. Joshua declares [them] valid. service is I. [If] it became known that he was blemished-his unfit. Mishnah Terumoth 8: 1 3

J. And in all cases (WKWLM S) in which the Heave-offering was in their mouthsK. R. Ehezer says, "They swallow [it]." L. R. Joshua says, "They spit [it] out (YPLTW)." M. [If] they said to him, "You have been made unclean," or "The Heave-offering has been made unclean"N. R. Ehezer says, "He swallows." 0. R. Joshua says, "He spits out." P. [If they said,] "You were unclean [at the outset]," or "The Heave-offering was unclean," or [if] it became known that the Heaveoffering was unclean produce, or First Tithe from which Heaveoffering had not been taken, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce which had not been redeemed, or, if he tasted the taste of a bedbug in his mouth-lo, he should spit [it] out. Mishnah Terumoth 8: 2 4 Q. [If] he was eating of a grapecluster and went from the garden to the courtyardR. R. Eliezer says, "He fmishes." S. And R. Joshua says, "He does not finish." T. [If] it got dark on the Sabbath eveU. R. Eliezer says, "He finishes." V. And R. Joshua says, "He does not finish." Mishnah Terumoth 8: 3 5 3 Also, y. (=Jerusalem Talmud) Terumoth 7 .2;b. (= BabylomanTalmud). Pesal:nm 12b, Yevamot 34a, Makkot 11b, M1drash Tanna1m to Deuteronomy 26:3, ed. Hoffmann, p 171. 4 Also, y. Terumoth 8 :2. 5 Also, y. Terumoth 8·2, Ma'asrot 3:4; b Be~ah 35a.

LEGAL TRADITIONS

OF JOSHUA B. I;IANANIAH

3

The issue which justifies the combination of these three pericopae is not a single legal topic, but a single legal problem. A-E, J-P treat the improper consumption of Heave-offering, F-I deals with the validity of the sacrifices and Temple Service of a disqualified priest, and Q-V concerns the consumption of untithed produce. All three pericopae, however, deal with the same situation: a person has done or was doing a certain act under the assumption that he was permitted to do so when it is discovered that he was not so permitted. Biblical law, Lev. 5: r6 and 22: 14, as well as Mishnaic law, Mishnah Terumoth 6: r, specify that the accidental consumption of Heave-offering by a non-priest carries the penalty of the Principle and the Added Fifth. That is, the amount of Heave-offering consumed, the Principle, must be replaced, and the offender must pay in addition a fine of one-fifth the value of the Principle. This logically means that if it is clear that the produce consumed is Heaveoffering and that the person who consumed it is a non-priest, the penalty of the Principle and the Added Fifth automatically should be incurred. Disagreement about the application of the penalty would result, however, if the status of either the produce or the consumer was unclear. The dispute between Eliezer and Joshua in D-E evidently applies to the three cases presented in A-C. The wife and the slave of the priest are permitted to consume Heave-offering by virtue of their relationship to the priest. Once that relationship ends they lose their special status. So their status actually changes. They were once allowed to eat Heave-offering; now they may not. But the situation of the ~allal-priest 6 is different. In his case what changed was not his actual status, but his and others' awareness of it. His lineage was always defective; at no time was he permitted to eat Heave-offering. So the three cases are not precisely comparable. In the instance of the wife and the slave there has been a change in fact; in the case of the ~allal-priest the fact of his status remains unchanged. Eliezer's ruling in D can only mean that the three are regarded as non-priests. Their consumption of the consecrated produce was improper, and they must pay the penalty. But from the context of A-E alone the scope of Joshua's exemption and his consequent view of the status of the woman, slave, and ~allal-priest 6 A pnest of defective lineage, techmcally Leviticus 21 .7.

regarded

as a non-pnest.

See

WILLIAM

4

SCOTT GREEN

are unclear. Are they exempt from the entire penalty or merely from the fine of the Added Fifth? The answer will come from an analysis of F-I. In F the fiallal-priest is offering sacrifices at the altar when his true status is revealed. Eliezer's rule, which fully states the issue, is that all his previous sacrifices are retroactively invalid. He was never qualified to serve at the altar. Joshua's position, which responds to Eliezer's in G, but not to F, is that the past sacrifices are valid. This can only mean that he regards the fiallal-priest as a legitimate priest, at least until the point that his status is made known. If the fiallal-priest is judged fit to offer sacrifices so long as his status is assumed to be proper, he is also fit to consume Heave-offering in the same period. It follows that the exemption of E means that the priest, as well as the slave and the woman, is free from any penalty whatever. 7 What is striking is the implication that self-perception determines actual status. Objectively, the fiallal-priest was always disqualified from eating Heave-offering and offering sacrifices, but while he was perceived by himself and others to be a legitimate priest, he is regarded as such in fact. Part I treats the problem of the blemished priest. Although it is difficult to imagine the case of a blemished priest who did not know of his ritual infirmity while others did, the language of I and the context in which it appears suggest that this is the situation envisioned. But here no disagreement is reported. Mishnah Terumoth 8:2 J-L deals with the problem of what to do if the person is in the midst of eating Heave-offering when his status is changed. It seems clear that the "And in all cases" of J is intended to apply to A, B, and C. Eliezer's rule permits the person to swallow what he is eating. Joshua's position is that he must spit out the Heave-offering. The principle behind Joshua's rule seems clear. So long as the woman, slave, and fiallal-priest are unaware of their true status, they are regarded as fit to consume Heave-offering, and he may offer sacrifices. Once they become aware of their disqualification, however, they must stop what they are doing. To continue in light of the new information would constitute a deliberate transgression. But Eliezer's rule is problematic in this context. For if he regards the fi,allal-priest's sacrifices as retroactively invalid, on what basis does he permit the defective priest to continue eating? If the sacrifices never should have been offered, 7

Cf. Bartinora, T1feret Yisrael here.

LEGAL TRADITIONS

OF JOSHUA

B. l,IANANIAH

5

the Heave-offering never should have been eaten. Logic suggests that he should stop eating. As we shall see, the problem is not with the substance of Eliezer's rule, but with the context provided by the redactor. In 8: 2 M-0 the issue is uncleanness of the man or Heave-offering which was not in effect when he began to eat. So the case is like that of A-B; an actual change in status has taken place. The opinions are the same as those of K-L. But the inconsistency in Eliezer's rule is again evident. In 8: r his rule was that the unwitting offenders of A-B were required to pay a penalty. Here he permits the man to continue eating. P resembles the case of I. The act was incorrect from the outset. Again there is no disagreement. vVe should observe that the masters' answers in 8:2 K, L, N, Oare in terse, one-word form: YBL< vs. YPLT. It seems likely that Joshua's answer was coined for mnemonic reasons. PLT actually connotes vomiting or discharge; the word for "to spit" is RQQ. 8 In Mishnah Terumoth 8: 3 (Q-V) the issue is not Heave-offering, but tithes. By walking from the garden to the courtyard the man subjects the grapecluster to tithing (See Mishnah MaW MRWB >W MSLSH HMNYN 2'. RWB BNYYNW WRWBMNYNW SL MT >p 'L PY S>YN BHNRWB'

Tos. Ah. 3:4 3. -

4· -

b. Naz 5zb 3. And the House of Hillel say, RWB'MN HGWYH,MRWB HBNYN>W MRWBHMNYN

[4. See below, no. 9.J

M. Ed. has and (W). Tos. Ah. has Judah assign to the Shammaites the exact words of the Hillelites in M. Ed., no. 3, except for the inclusion of or (>W) in place of and; 2' contradicts the foregoing ruling; now we are told that even less than a qab will be sufficient (if it is from a single corpse). No. 2 of b. Naz. is nearly exact; >W/>Wreplaces BYN/BYN, not an important change. b. Naz., no. 4 follows M. Ed. in specifying from the corpse, which M. Oh. leaves out, but it preserves or ('W) of M. Oh. Since that difference is substantive, b. Naz. no. 4 seems closer to M. Oh. than to M. Ed. As to the sayings of Joshua: Tos. Ah. 3·4 5. R. Joshua said, 6. I can make the words of the House of Shammai and the words of the House of Hillel one. 7. MSWQYM WMYRKYM NMS> RWB BNYNW BGWDL WHSY RWB MNYNW >YNN MSTRPYN. From the shoulders and ·from the thighs are found the greater part of the larger bones in quantity. And half the greater part of the larger bones and half the greater part of the number do not join together.

b. Naz. 5zb 5 Same as Tos. Ah. No. 5 6. Same as Tos Ah. No. 6 7. For the House of Shammai say, MSNYM >W MSLSH >W MSNY SWQYM WYRK >HD >W MSNY YRKYYM WSWQ >I:ID, HW>YL WRWB GWBHW SL >DMMGWBH (From two or three-either from two shoulders and from one thigh or from two thighs and one shoulder since this is the major part of a man's structure in height).

THE CASE OF MISHNAH OHALOT I

8. -

9. -

:z

45

8. And the House of Hillel say MN HGWYH 'W MRWB BNYN 'W MRWB MNYN HW'YL WYSNN BMRPQY YDYM WRGL YM. From the corpse, from the greater part either m structure or m number, for this 1s to be found m the jomts of the hands and feet. g. Shamma1 says, Even a bone from the back bone or from the skull.

The Hillelite lemma of no. 4 has no counterpart in Tos. The b. Naz. no. 3 version of Shammai is scarcely related to Tos. Ah. no. 3, except that both make reference to shoulders and thighs. It is difficult to figure out what has happened. Obviously, Tos. Ah. is a defective text, since it ignores the Hillelites and in no way solves the problem of making the Houses say the same thing. b. Naz. is so slightly related to Tos. Ah. that it looks as though the editor of the baraita has simply worked things out on his own, just as we have done. Obviously, at the foundations of this confusion is the dual mnemonic, BNYN MNYN, RB' RB. That and the names of the Houses are apt to have been the entire 'tradition' before the authorities, probably of the middle of the second century, behind M. and T. M. clearly is the beginning of the matter, but whoever put together BNYN MNYN RB' RB botched the job completely, providing two clauses which contradict one another, and the later efforts to improve the matter, beginning with T.'s excellent version, could never overcome the original disaster, a mnemonic no one really understood. Since Smith has maintained that 70 marked a radical break in the transmission of traditions and that the pre-70 traditions which did come down were thoroughly revised-probably by people with only a dim notion of what had gone on before the destruction-this becomes an appropriate place to conclude.

TWO TRADITIONS OF SAMUEL Evaluating Alternative Versions * BARUCH M. BOKSER University of California, Berkeley

The problem of alternative versions of a single statement attributed to a given authority troubled the Tannaim and the Amoraim. At times they suggest that each formulation of the statement initially constituted a separate tradition designed to teach a distinct lesson. Alternatively, they posit the presence of a single original saying handed down by different tradents, one of whose versions may be original to the authority standing behind it, or both may represent interpretations of a now non-extant statement. Early rabbinic commentators employed both of these methods and, where they knew the Palestinian Talmud, often drew from it to clarify traditions cited in the Babylonian Talmud. Modern literary critics *Abbrev1at10ns. b. Ber. BT DS Florence Ms Gn. R.

Leiden Ms M.Ms Oxford Ms P Ms Pes. Pes1kta Rabbati PT Ratner

SRAG Vatican

y

Ms.

Babyloman Talmud Berakhot Babyloman Talmud R. Rabbmov1cz, Diqduqe Sofrim, New York, r960 reprint. BT Codex Florence, Florence National Library II 1 7-9, Makor, Jerusalem, r972. Genesis Rabbah, cited accorclmg to sect10n and page m J. Theodore and C. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, Jerusalem, 1965. 2 PT, Leiden Cod. Seal J, Keclem, Jerusalem, 1971. BT Codex Munich 95, Sefer Pubis Jerusalem, 1971. C1tecl 111 DS. Pans Ms, cited in DS. Pesa]:11111 M. Fneclrnann, Pesihta Rabbati, Vienne, r88o, Tel-Aviv, 1963. Palestiman Talmud B Ratner, Ahawath Zion We-Jeruscholaiin: Traktat Berachot, Vilna, 1901, Jerusalem, n cl. Piskei HaRid: The Rulings of R. Isaiah the Elder, ed., Worthe1mer, Jerusalem, 1964. Siddur R Ainrain Gaon, eel D. Goldsclumt, Jerusalem, 1971. Codex Vatican IJJ to PT, Makor, Jerusalem, 1971. Palestm1an Talmud

TWO TRADITIONS

OF SAMUEL

47

of the Talmud, including J. N. Epstein, Saul Lieberman, Abraham Weiss, and David Weiss-Halivni, build upon their work 1 and demonstrate the viability and necessity of this endeavor. 2 An analysis of sugyot often indicates that they are composed of discrete sources. Such analysis, however, only constitutes the first step. Once the different formulations of a tradition are recognized and presented, they cannot be harmonized. One cannot, a priori, presume that a person normally contradicts himself or repeats, the same thing in slightly different wording; accordingly, we must account for the existence of the different versions. This task is based on an understanding of the role of the transmission of the material and, secondly, on the nature of the formation of the Talmud. Thus, for example, PT and BT may present an Amoraic statement according to the Talmuds' respective understanding of the issue. 3 While the problem of the transmission of the Talmudic material has not yet been fully explored, 4 nevertheless certain things are clear. When a tradent cited the tradition for a particular purpose, he might add words of emphasis. 5 The tradition's function thus affected its formulation. 6 In addition, traditions were cited in certain forms. Accordingly, the study of the form is essential. Then one can consider whether or not the spokesman originally stated his remarks in those forms, and whether or not a tradent shaped 1 See, for example, S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshufah (New York, 1955), pp 791-92. 2 J. Neusner's analyses of Tannaibc sources extends this work. See The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (Leiden, 1971), I-III. I have learnt much from those named and from Professor Zalman D1mitrovsky, who has yet to pubhsh the results of his work, explored 111seminar sessions, 111which I participated. For a study of the contnbut10ns of, and the differences between, the early researchers and those named, see Neusner, ed. The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud (Leiden, 1970). 3 For the PT's altenng a Babyloman anonymous statement see S. Lieberman, The Laws of the Yerushalmi of Rabbi Moses ben Maiman (New York, 1947), p. 22, note 5 For analyses of the Talmud's editors placmg later conceptions of a term or of a late termmology 111toearlier statements, see J. N. Epste111, Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah (Tel-Aviv, 1964 2), pp. 245-62, esp 245-46, 248-49, 251, fn. 3, 262, 233, 251, 279-80, 598, fn. 3, and 613 4 See Weiss-Hahvm, Sources and Traditions (Tel-Aviv, 1968), p. 15, and J. Neusner, "The Rabb1mc Traditions About the Pharisees Before A D. 70 The Problem of Oral Transmiss10n", ]JS 22 (1971), pp r-18. 5 See Weiss Halivm, op cit., pp. 55, fn 6, 569-70 6 Weiss-Hahvm's Sources and Traditions, m particular, presents a systematic analysis of the effects of the use of a tradition on the tradition itself.

BARUCH

M. BOKSER

them into such forms for the sake of transmission. 7 The following pages present two cases, for which such considerations help explain diverse formulations of traditionso f Samuel. It shows, how, in these cases, the words attributed to Samuel have been changed.

II We will present and analyze the version of the tradition PT and then turn to its parallel in the BT.

in the

A. TNY Fire and hybrids even though they were not created during the six days of creat10n, nevertheless were considered ('LW BM}:ISBH) from the six days of creation. B Fire. C. Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Nezira, "The light that was created on the first day [i.e. the light God created and then stored away for the righteous for the time to come] 8 served thirtysix hours, twelve on Sabbath eve, twelve on Sabbath mght, and twelve on the Sabbath .... Since the light did not cease, the entire world began to sing, ... As soon as the Sabbath departed it started to get dark. Man became frightened and said, .... D. Said Rabbi Levi, "At that very hour God prepared for him (ZYMN LW) two flints, and he struck them against each other, and from them came out fire, as it is written "And the night [will be] light about me (Ps. 139: rr)." And he said over it the blessing "Who has created the light of the fire." E. Samuel said, "Therefore (LYPKK), we say a blessing over the fire [The Vatican Ms. and several early citations, following SRAG, p. 85-see Ratner, p. 188,-read "over it"] on the end of the Sabbath since it (SHY') was the begmning of its creation." F. R. Hunain the name [SRAG, p. 85, and Gn. R. # II, p. go, add "of Rav"] Rabbi Abbahu m the name of R. Yol;ianan, "Even ('P) at the end of Yorn Kippur one says the blessing over it, since the fire rested that whole day." (y. Ber. 8:5; p. 12b) The pericope consists of several parts. It explains the initial baraita, A. Rabbi Levi presents the remarks of Rabbi Nezira, C, and then adds his own comment, D. Then PT cites the statements of Samuel and Yo]:ianan. Samuel connects the origin of the blessing over fire said Saturday night with this supposed etiology. Yo]:ianan ' Of course, certain "forms" may be editorial construct10ns. For an example, see Vle1ss Hahvm, op. ci,t., pp. 569-70. 8 This 1s the readmg on the margin of the Leiden Ms., rn the text of the Vatican Ms, and rn the text of R. Sinlho's commentary. The text of the Leiden Ms., on the other hand, has "The light for the first Sabbath " which is crossed out. The readmg, however, is d1scermble.

TWO TRADITIONS

OF Si\MUEL

49

claims it should also be said on the night after Y om Kippur because fire then was not used. He is evidently referring to the practice of some localities not to leave the lights on in the house, on Yorn Kippur; see M. Pes. 4:4. The use of the word "even" in Yol_ianan's remarks seemingly implies that what he includes, the first view had excluded. Thus the pericope presents a dispute between Samuel and Y ol_ianan. Two problems, however, present themselves. Samuel's remarks are cited as an independent statement that glosses the previous material, D. But Samuel cannot have appended his remarks or have referred to Levi; (R.) Levi was a second-to-third generation Palestinian Amora. 9 In addition, Samuel's statement contains two 'purposes' references. The initial "therefore" sufficiently explains the origin of the blessing over fire by referring back to the above material. Yet he is then represented as repeating himself by spelling it out: "since it was the beginning of its creation." The natural explanation would then be that Samuel- and Yol)-anan-material was added on later and that the "therefore" represents an editorial, transitional term. It presents Samuel as glossing the earlier statement. The same explanation can be offered for those texts which read, in Samuel's statement, "over it" instead of "over the fire." The above suggestion finds support from the pericope's parallels in the Palestinian midrashic literature. Some of the material has been altered or adopted to the context. See Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, pp. n8a-b, fns. 51-2. But the parallels are so close that they either used a common source or else borrowed from each other. This is particularly true of the Gn. R. and Pesikta Rabbati passages. In Gn. R., # 82, p. 996 and Pesikta Rabbati, # 23, p. n8b, our line E is cited as "This follows Samuel, for Samuel says ('TY' KSMW'L D'MR SM\i\PL), ' ... over the fire .... "' We also find this reading in one of the citations of Gn. R. # II, p. 89, while the present text and Mss. have "like Samuel, for Samuel says (KSMW'L D'MR SMW'L)." The former one is the normal style of the Palestinian Talmud for citing a view or statement to which a previous one is analogous. None of the Mss. or citations of the pericope by early rabbinic commentators, however, has this read9 See A. M. Hyman, Toldoth Tannaim Ve'Amoraim (Jerusalem, 1964), III, pp. 851 f and 859 f. "R. Levi" refers to the late Amora and not to Levi bar Sissi. The latter was not called "R. Levi" but "Levi".

4

50

BARUCH M.BOKSER

ing. 10 A study of the Gn R. parallels of the PT has shown that the former used an earlier recension or edition of the latter. 11 This conclusion is supported by our passage. Thus, undoubtedly the "therefore" reading is not original to Samuel's remarks. Similarly, the reading "over the fire" should be preferred to "over it." Thus the form of the present text is "Samuel said, 'Therefore (SMW'L 'MR LYPKK).' " But our passage has afforded us the unusual opportunity to see its formulation in a less worked over form. The tradition's form in that earlier formulation was "This follows Samuel, for Samuel says ('TY' KSMW'L D'MR SMW'L)." A. Said R. Judah said Samuel, "One does not say the blessmg over the fire except after the end of the Sabbath, since (HW'YL W) 1t is the beginmng of its creat10n." B. Said to him a certam elder, and some say Rabbah bar bar I:Ianah [said the following], "Right (YSR), and similarly R. Y o]_lanan said, 'Right.' " 12 C. 'Ulla was nding on an ass. R. 'Abba was walking on his right, and Rab bah bar bar I:Ianah on his left. D. Said R. 'Abba to'Ulla, "Is it true that you said in the name of R Yo]_lanan,'One does not say the blessing over the fire except after the end of the Sabbath, since 1t is the beginning of its creation?" E. He 13 looked askance at Rabbah bar bar I:Ianah. F. He said to him, "I did not speak in reference to that but m reference to the followmg :14 It was taught (DTNY) before R. Yol).anan, R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, 'Yorn Kippur that occurs on the Sabbath, even where they said not to light candles, they light [candles] out of respect of the Sabbath.' "R. Yo]_lanan15 said after him, 'And the Sages forbid.' " G. He said to him, "Verily." H. And they hold 16 according to this which said (KY H' D'MR) R. Benjamin bar Yefet said R. Yol:ianan, "One says the blessmg over the fire whether after the end of the Sabbath or whether after the end of Y om Ki ppur." (b. Pes. 53b-54a) See Ratner, p. 188. See Albeck, Bereschit Rabba (Jerusalem, 1965 2}, III, "Introduction," pp 66-75. 12 See DS, p. 155, fn. 300. 13 See DS, p. 155, fn. 400. I have basically followed Rash1's rendering of D through H, certam d1ff1culties, though, rernam. Their elucidation must await separate study. 14 See DS, p. r 55, fn. I. 15 See DS, p. 155. 16 See DS, p 155, Otzar HaGaonim (Jerusalem, 1930), III, p. 73, and SRAG, pp 85 ancl 172 10

11

TWO TRADITIONS

OF SAMUEL

51

The pericope presents us with a tradition of Samuel with the attributive formula of "said R. Judah said Samuel." Judah presents an explicit statement that the blessing over the fire is said only Saturday night. On the other hand, we find different and contradictory opinions attributed to Y o]:ianan. According to B, Y o]:ianan agrees with Samuel. According to F, though, Yo]:ianan did not comment at all about a blessing over the fire. Finally, according to H, he requires the blessing over the fire at the conclusion of the Sabbath and of Yorn Kippur. The pericope indicates that Samuel's view circulated autonomously and apart from Y o]:ianan's; indeed, Yo]:ianan's opinion variously circulated--if at all-among different individuals. BT's pericope attests to the tradition of Samuel which PT had cited. BT and PT both include the same 'reason': "since it is the beginning of its creation." It thereby supports our contention that Samuel did not originally, as reported in y. Ber. 8: 5; rzb, say his remarks as a gloss of someone else's statement. In addition, the exclusive nature of the tradition of Samuel in PT, only implied by Yo]:ianan's opening word "even," is confirmed here by the wording of Samuel's own remark. Nevertheless, one must inquire which version represents the closer approximation of Samuel's own words. the "therefore" and reading "over the fire" PT's version-without a simple statement. It explains why the and not "over it"-is blessing for fire is said Saturday night. The reason fits in well. It is not presented in a dispute form. BT's version, transmitted by Judah, has the added words of emphasis "one does not ... except ('YN ... 'L')." This formulation argues that one says the blessing that night and not another night. The emphasis comes to exclude Yorn Kippur. But Samuel's saying, iforiginally presented independent of other Amoraic views on the matter, probably originated as a discrete statement without being formulated to dispute an alternative position. In addition, the reason, "since it is the beginning of its creation," is more of an explanation for the recitation of the blessing Saturday night than a reason for excluding it another night. Just because the beginning of the creation of fire was Saturday night does not logically prelude that another night might have a different reason for the same blessing.17 Accordingly, the plain sense of the clause supports the authenticity (without the added "therefore") of Yerushalmi's version of Samuel's tradition. Then one 17

See, for example, the commentary

of R. Yom Tov Ashbih to b. Pes. 54a.

52

BARUCH

M. BOKSER

must assign the added words of emphasis in Babli's version either to Judah or to the arranger of the pericope. There the tradition serves a purpose in the context and was shaped by redactional considerations. Thus both Talmuds attest to Samuel's saying concerning the blessing for fire which is said Saturday night.

III For the following tradition of Samuel, we will first present both versions of the saying and then examine them together. One version appears in a pericope commenting upon M. Ber. 5 :r. And even if a snake is clinging to his heel, he should not stop (L' YPSYQ) [from saymg the Shema']. (M. Ber. 5 :r) A. Said R. Isaac the son of Judah, 18 "If he saw oxen, he stops (PWSQ)." B. For teaches (DTNY) R. Hoshaia, "One removes oneself to a distance (MRI:IYQYN) from a tam [= an ox not known to have previously gored three times] 19 50 cubits, and a mit'ad [a 'warned' ox, i. e., one known to have already gored] as far as one can see (KML' 'YNYW)." C. Said Samuel, "In these situations (HNY MYLY): With a black ox and in the days of Nisan, [M. and P. Mss. and Rid. add: when it is coming up from the marsh,] because the devil (HSTN) dances between lus horns." D. It was taught (TN') in the name of R. Meir, "A head of an ox in the fodder basket [i.e., eating]-ascend to the roof and throw [down] the ladder from behind you.'' [The printed text presents D before C.] (b. Ber. 33a) A'.

Four things our holy Rabbi commanded his son,

20 •••

"And

-----

See DS, p. 175, fn 400. See Rashi, loc cit .. "A 'tam' 1s an oxe which has not injured a person". Cf. the commentary of Abraham Ashb1h, prmted m M Herschler, ed. Ginze Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 378-see fn. 91, there. Cp. Sefer Hameorot, ed. M. Y. Blau (Brooklyn, 1964), p. 106. If B supports A, the reference to tam and mu'ad must encompass all oxen. Accordmgly, the defmition of "tam" common in cases of torts, 'an ox that has inJured one time', is mappropnate. Thus Rash1 defmes "tam" here as he does. Hoshaia, though, may have meant "tam" 111the usual sense. Yet the one who cited the text undoubtedly uses 1t to refer to all oxen, not only those suspected to be gorers. Either way, Hosha1a's text clearly refers to oxen all year long and is far closer to a umversal principle than a statement apply111g only to animals when 111heat. 20 See DS, p. 345, fn. 20. 18 19

TWO TRADITIONS

OF SAMUEL

53

do not stand before an ox when it is coming up from the marsh because the devil dances between his horns." B'. Said Samuel, "With (B) a black ox and in the days of Nisan." C'. For teaches [= M. Ms.; Oxford Ms. = "And teaches"; printed text = "Teaches." 21] R. Hoshaia, "One removes oneself to a distance (MRI:IYQYN) from a tam 50 cubits, and from a mu'ad as far as one can see (KML' 'YNYW)." D'. It was taught in the name of R. Meir, "A head of an ox in the fodder basket-ascend to the roof and throw [down] the ladder [from behind you]." 22 (b. Pes. rrzb) M. Ber. 5: r deals with interrupting the recital of the Shema'. M. emphasizes the importance of the prayer by ruling that even if a snake is at one's heel one still does not break off. The gemara, though, asserts that when one is confronted by a danger one does stop. Items B, C, and D have parallels in b. Pes. rrzb, B', C', and D'. There, however, they follow a different initial statement, A'. In addition, the order of the comments varies in each pericope. Furthermore, in the printed editions of b. Ber., D preceeds C and one clause is missing from D. I have printed them according to the sequence in the Mss. and early citations. 23 The point of departure in Ber., A, assumes all oxen always pose a danger, while in Pes., A', it is assumed that only certain ones do. B 24 and D remain consistent with the principle of A C, Samuel's statement, on the other hand, affirms the alternative principle, that is, that only certain oxen are dangerous at certain times. In Pes., only B', Samuel's statement, agrees with the opening principle, A', while C' and D' teach the opposite one: all oxen are dangerous. The wording of Samuel's remark varies in the two pericopae. In Ber., it includes the introductory "in these situations," which B' lacks. B' uses the B-prefix, a set form which means "the text speaks of a case in which." 25 C also adds the purpose clause 21 22 23

See DS, p. 345. "From behind you" is lacking in the Mss. See DS, p. 346, fn go. See DS, p. 175, fn. 2. Florence Ms. has D before C, a pomt not clear from

DS. See fn. 19. The meaning of the B- prefix is thus tantamount to that of the introducSee Baruch M. Bokser, Samuel's tory phrase in Ber., "in these situations." Commentary on the Mishnah (Leiden, 1975) and Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Leiden, 1973), p. ng. 24

25

54

BARUCH

M. BOKSER

"because the devil dances between his horns" and, according to M. and P. Mss. and Rid, the extra clause "when it is coming up from the marsh." In both pericopae, Samuel's remarks cannot stand alone in their present form; they lack a verb. But the referens varies in each. In Ber., Isaac's comment, A, uses the same verb at the Mishnah, "stop" (PWSQ); it thus clearly refers to lVI.Ber. 5: I. Hoshaia's baraita, B, is introduced by the formula normally used for citing a supporting baraita ("For teaches, DTNY,"). It thus serves to support Isaac's statement. Either Isaac or a later hand cited it. Samuel's remarks ostensibly stand with this baraita. For it cannot refer to the statement of Isaac b. Judah, since the latter was a third generation Pumbeditan Amora. Nor, according to the order of the printed text, where Samuel's statement follows Meir's, can it refer to Meir's, for the two statements propound opposite principles, and reflect different situations; if an ox is eating fodder, it is not coming up from the marsh 26 and under the devil's control. Yet Samuel's principle undermines the reason for which the baraita was cited, that one stops reciting the Shema' when one sees an ox, for any ox is dangerous. Pes. presents Samuel's statement in a logical place. It follows Rabbi's statement and serves to explain or modify it: Not only must the ox be coming up from the marsh, but it must be a black ox in the month of Nisan; then it poses a danger. Samuel's statement originally referred to Rabbi's statement, which it glossed. Ber. sugya consisted of Isaac's statement, A, the Hoshaia baraita, B, 27 and seemingly Meir's statement, D. All three affirm the same principle. Later Samuel's statement was transferred to the Ber. pericope. The different locations of the statement in the printed text and the Mss. may reflect the fact that the statement was added later. Since the original formulation of Samuel's words, "with a black ox and in the days of Nisan" is meaningless by itself in the Ber. context, the one who transferred it, or a later hand, interpolated into it Rabbi's point which had been Samuel's point of departure: when sexually driven "because the devil dances between his horns." Similarly, the clause "when it is coming up from Followmg the readmg of M and P. Mss and Riel. of A and B together is reflected m the postThe appropnateness Talmudic rabbimc sources that iust cite, for halahhic purposes, the5e two See Alfasr, loc cit., and Halakhot Gedolot, Warsaw, 1874 ed., p. statements 12a; H1ldeshe1mer, Berlm, 1888, ed, p. 52; and Jerusalem, 1971, ed., I, p. So. 26

~7

TWO TRADITIONS

OF SAMUEL

55

the marsh," according to the readings that include it in C, was added. 28 The introductory "in these situations" was added to provide a smooth transition between Samuel's statement and the statement it was to modify, B. Similarly, a later hand transferred B and D to Pes. The introductory formula of C', according to the Mss. readings, "And teaches" and "For teaches," represents the language in Ber., which serves to support a previous statement. But in Pes. it does not offer a support. Accordingly, the literary tradition reflected in the printed edition dropped the "And" or "For" and presented the tradition as an independent statement: "Teaches R. Hoshaia." We have thus isolated the original language of the statement attributed to Samuel. It corresponded to Rabbi's warning concerning oxen. The form of Samuel's statement which modifies a previous view consisting of X-, Y-, is "Said Samuel, 'With (B) --.' " This evidently represents a commentary form. The version of the statement in its new setting consists of :"Said Samuel, in Y--.' " these situations, 'With (B) --,

IV We have examined two separate sets of pericopae, each of which contains varying formulations of a tradition of Samuel. Our analyses have suggested the presence of several factors to account for the variations. The redactional considerations, the use of the traditions, in these cases, clearly have affected the formulation. Furthermore, the editorial process of the Talmud provided connecting links between otherwise discrete traditions. 29 28 It is difficult to say which readmg 1s original to Ber 33a The presence of the clause m lVI.and P. Mss is s1gmficant In b Ber, P Ms generally has fewer later mterpolahons than M. Ms. The prmted edition may reflect a different literary tradition, perhaps an earlier stage of the text Alternatively, the fuller text may constitute the "original" readmg and someone removed the clause in quest10n due to the lack of smoothness or on the basis of the reading in Pes. 29 I would like to thank Prof David Weiss-Hahvni, who offered cntical comments on several points.

Addendum For Fn 13: As to the different vers10ns of Yohanan's Comment, see Abraham Goldberg, "R Ze'1ra and Babyloman Custom m Palestine," Tarbiz 36 (1967) · 336-37.

R. ABBAHU OF CAESAREA LEE I. LEVINE Hebrew University,

J eritsalem

Halakhic discussions and homiletical discourses dominate rabbinic literature and have engaged the interest of scholars for generations; the personality and activities of individual rabbis have merited little, if any, attention. Rabbinic sages display a wide range of interests, attitudes, habits and beliefs. Some boasted expertise and renown in a particular profession or trade, others barely eeked out a living. Intellectually and religiously, there were those of conservative and liberal proclivities, some open to the influences and demands of their age, others who studiously avoided any- such confrontation. 1 R. Abbahu of Caesarea is one of the most fascinating of these rabbinic figures. 2 As a leading religious authority, he was conversant with all aspects of Jewish law, and his teachers, colleagues and students comprised the mainstream of Palestinian rabbinism for almost a century. 3 The unique aspects of R. Abbahu's career lay 1 Cf. S Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), pp If , E. E Urbach, "The Rabbm1cal Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centunesm the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts", IE], IX (1959), 149 f., 229 f 2 The most useful collections of traditions on R. Abbahu remam G. Perhtz, "Rabbi Abbahu", MGW ], XXXVI (1887), 60-88, n9-126, 269-274, 310-320; W. Bacher, Aggadot Hatannaim v'Amoraim, II, r (Tel-Aviv, 1926), 84-135. 3 Cf. A Hyman, Sefer Toldot Tannaim v'Amoraim (3 vols.; Jerusalem, 1964), I, 62-7r. R. Abbahu was presumably an extraordmanly wealthy man. In preparat10n for the Sabbath, he would sit on an ivory stool (B Shabbat rr9a) and on Saturday mght he would have a three year old calf slaughtered, eatmg only its kidneys, a practice found wasteful by his son, Ab1mi (ilnd, II9b; Midrash Hagadol - Exodus, ed. Margoliot, p. 331). His rather lavish eating habits are further reflected in an account of his visit to Bostra One Jose (cf. Bacher, Aggadot, p 88, n. 7) prepared an assortment of delicacies for him, while lamentmg the inadequacy of the meal (Lamentations Rabba III, 17, ed. Buber, p 65b) R Abbahu once undertook to provide a feast for the rabbis of Caesarea when his student, R. Ze'ira, recovered from an illness (B Berakhot 46a), and when teaching, he would hold in his hands a diplomatanon (om1swµcrnipLDv),a box for valuable objects (J Beza I, 7, 6oc, ed Francus, p. 105; B. Ratner, Ahavat Zion ve Yerushalaim, p 10 Cf. also Deuteronomy Rabba XXVII, ed Lieberman, p. 28; J Ta'anit II, 6, 65d). 'Gothic' attendants are ment10ned in connection with R. Abbahu and his visit to the

R. ABBAHU OF CAESAREA

57

in the extent to which it reflected the interests and concerns of the Caesarean Jewish community, and his direct involvement in its activities. During his lifetime R. Abbahu emerged as spokesman and central figure in Caesarean Jewish life. Intellectually, religiously, socially and politically he dominated the local, and in certain ways even the wider Palestinian, scene. 4 Active rabbinic participation in Jewish communal life was far from axiomatic during the Talmudic period. There were, of course, rabbis who regarded such involvement as positive and even mandatory. Others appear to have been quite content to restrict their activities to the four walls of the academy. Still others might have preferred the latter, but were amenable to participation when the occasion demanded: so, for example, the statement of R. Nehemiah: It is said about the haverim (rabbis) that as long as one is a haver, he does not care about the community and he is not punished. When one is appointed as the head ( ?) he dons a talit (toga) and must not say, "I am doing it for my own good and I do not care about the community", but rather the burdens of the community should be upon him.5 R. Abbahu's involvement in the life of the Caesarean Jewish community is well documented. 6 Several of his acts, as recorded in rabbinic literature, indicate an official position within the community at large. Some attest to his considerable influence in the Jewish market place. baths (J Beza, I, 6, 6oc, ed Francus, pp 102-103). Whether they were his or bath-house employees is, however, unclear; cf. personal bodyguards Bacher, Aggadot, p 85, n. I; H Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, 1965), p. 242, n. 505. Rabbinic literature, however, is almost completely silent regardmg the source of his wealth. A smgle mchcat10n is provided by a statement that R. Abbahu dealt m women's Jewelry (J Bava Mezza IV, 7, gd). Whether he of such articles is unclear. Cf. Bacher, was a merchant or manufacturer Aggadot, p. 85, n. 1. 4 On some of the legends regarding R Abbahu in hfe as well as m death; cf. J Berakhot, II, 3, 4c; Song of Songs Rabba, I, 52; J 'Avoda Zara III, I, 42c; Deuteronomy Rabba, 'Ekev, ed. Lieberman, p 77; Genesis Rabba LXII, 2, p. 671 and parallels cited therein. 5 Exodus Rabba XXVII, 8 6 R. Abbahu also appears to have taken an active role within rabbinic circles of Caesarea. \Vhen the sages once wished to appoint him as their head, he refused, supporting instead R. Abba of Acre who needed the financial benefits accruing from such an office (B Sota 40a).

58

LEE

I. LEVINE

In Caesarea R Abbahu established the practice (l':ili"I) that the fat parts and nervus ischiadicus (illL'lil "T'l)belong to the buyer thus making sure that the butcher will clean it (i.e. the fat) well.7

The term l'illil indicates that the legal decisions of R. Abbahu affected market practices. This is further illustrated by such a phrase as "R. Abbahu announced in Caesarea" (•io•p:i in:rn,, t•i::>N) regarding importation, 8 or his personal inspection of gentile-owned kegs. 9 His considerable interest in weights and measures and utilization of mathematics and geometry in such calculations also suggest commercial involvement. 10 R. Abbahu's prestige was recognized by non-Jewish agoranomoi of Caesarea, as reflected in his acquiring a thirteen-year market-tax exemption for R. Safra. 11 In Caesarea, as elsewhere in the Empire, the synagogue was the central institution of the Jewish community. 12 This fact is already evident in the first century during the Jewish-Greek struggle for control of the city. When the Greeks wished to harass the Jews, they crowded the already narrow passageway to the synagogue with additional buildings, and later mockingly offered a bird sacrifice (prescribed for lepers) in front of the synagogue while the Jews were praying inside. 13 R. Abbahu is often mentioned in connection with a Caesarean synagogue, in particular one called the M aradata synagogue. There he would study, teach and adjudicate. 14 In this J Demai II, 5, 23a B 'Avoda Zara 39a. 9 J 'Avoda Zara II, 4, 41b. 10 J Terumot V, 34c, J Peah, V, r, r8d. Cf. also, Jewish Encyclopedia I, 36. 11 B 'Avoda Zara 4a. In add1t10n, R Abbahu may have been actmg man official capacity when he helped pay the debts of a man who was about to hire himself as a gladiator in order to pay off his obhgat10ns (J Gittin IV, 9, 46b). 12 Cf. S. Baron, The Jewish Community (3 vols ; Ph1ladelph1a, 1942), I, 55-74. Lieberman has suggested a larger Jewish commumty structure in many non-Palestmian cities called 'Ioul>o:,x~; cf "Notes", P'raqim-Yearbook of the Schochen Institute for Jewish Research of the Jewish Theological Seminary, I (Jerusalem, 1967-68) (Hebrew), pp 101-102 13 Josephus, War, II, 14, 4-5, #285-292. 14 J Berahhot III, 6a; J Nazir VII, 56a; J Sanhedrin I, 18a, Numbers Rabba XII, 3. Cf. also J Megilla III, 74a, which tells of R. Abbahu passing through the colonnaded courtyard (iliiiiD) of a synagogue. However, the identity and location of this building are not recorded. R. Isaac by Eliezar, R. Abbahu's younger contemporary, was also to be found in Caesarea's Maradata synagogue (J Bikhurim III, 65cl; Midrash Samuel VII, 6, eel. Buber 34b). 7

8

R. ABBAHU OF CAESAREA

59

last capacity, he might either sit alone 15 or together with several other rabbis. 16 It was in this capacity that he once administered corporeal punishment, 17 or, in another, demanded payment from a guilty party. When the latter decision was protested, R. Abbahu successfully obtained a court order (l'i li':J :,w:;i?J)to enforce his opinion. 18 Regarding the synagogue ritual itself, R. Abbahu took an active role. On important occasions he was responsible for selecting a prayer-leader for the synagogue services. The story is told of one who worked in a Caesarean theater and was responsible for decorating the hall, hiring entertainers, providing musical accompaniment during performances and generally attending to their various needs. Upon learning that this man had performed an unusually charitable deed, R. Abbahu chose him to lead the congregation in prayers for rain. 19 At other times, R. Abbahu prescribed rulings dealing with such prayers. 20 He himself made numerous comments on the High Holiday liturgy 21 and issued an ordinance, normative to this day, regarding the blowing of the shofar. 22 Moreover, he rendered decisions on the blessings to be recited on different occasions, 23 and emphasized the need to introduce a new prayer into each daily service. 24 He likewise composed a prayer for salvation from the vicissitudes of the time. 25 Finally R. Abbahu excelled in preaching, an activity with which he is often associated in rabbinic traditions. 26 A portion of one sermon exemplifying his forensic ability has been preserved: Rabbi Abbahu opened his discourse with the text, "They that sit in the gate talk of me" (Psalms 69: r3) This refers to the nations of

J Sanhedrin I, r8a. BBeza38a, BKetubot84b, BGittin29b, BBava Kama u7b, B Bava Batra 142b-143a 17 J Bikkurim I, 64a. 18 J Kiddushin III, 2, 63d. 19 J Ta'anit I, 4, 64a and comments of Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, pp. 31-32. 20 B Ta'anit 6b; J Ta'anit III, rr, 67a; III, 14, 67a 21 J Rosh Hashana IV, 6, 59c, B Rosh Hashana r6a, 32b; B Yoma 37a. 22 B Rosh Hashana 34a. 23 J Berakhot V, 2, 9b; VI, I, IOa; BBerakhot r4b, 51b 24 J Berakhot IV, 3, Sa. 25 Ibid, V, I, 8d. 26 Lamentations Rabba-Prologue XVII, ed. Buber, p. 7b; B Sanhedrin roza-b; Song of Songs Rabba I, 52; Pesikta Rabbati, Supplement B, ed. Friedman, p. 196b; Lamentations Rabba I, 223-224, ed. Buber, p. 32a. 15

16

60

LEE I. LEVINE

the world who sit in theaters and circuses. "And I am the song of the drunkards." After they have sat eating and drinking and become mtoxicated, they sit and talk of me, scoffing at me saying, "We have no need to eat carobs (food for the poor) as the Jews do!" They ask one another, 'How long do you wish to live?" To which they reply, "As long as the shirt of a Jew which is worn on the Sabbath!" They then bring a camel into their theatres, put their shirts on it, and ask one another, "Why is it in mourning?" They reply, "The Jews observe the law of the Sabbatical year and they have no vegetables; so they eat this camel's thorns, and that is why it is in mourning!" Next they bring a mime with a shaven head into the theater, and ask one another, "Why is his head shaven?" They reply, "The Jews observe the Sabbath, and whatever they earn during the week they eat on the Sabbath. Since they have no wood to cook with, they break their bedsteads and use them as fuel; consequently they sleep on the ground and get covered with dust, and anoint themselves with oil, which is very expensive for that reason! "(After a while they can no longer afford the oil and have to shave their heads). 27 We have here an example of sermonic technique at its best: a current issue {the scorn of gentiles), presented in dramatic fashion, drawn from the immediate experience of his listeners. Undoubtedly this depiction derived from a mime presented in the theater of Caesarea. In what way R. Abbahu developed this theme has not been preserved, yet it is not difficult to imagine that the sermon was intended to defend and explain Jewish rituals and practices in the wake of gentile mockery. The very fact that R. Abbahu addressed himself to such an issue reflects his concern for problems besetting the community at large. It is little wonder then that people would flock to hear him speak. Once when travelling with R. Hiyya b. Abba, he delivered a sermon, while R. Hiyya discoursed on a halakhic matter. According to this account, the townspeople came to hear R. Abbahu, leaving his colleague both insulted and humiliated. 28 27 Lamentations Rabba, Prologue 17, ed. Buber, p. 7b. Poor Jews were also smgled out by the satirists of Rome; cf. H. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia, 1960), pp. 234-235; J. Levy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 197-203. In Alexandria, a burlesque of the Jewish kmg Agrippa was presented at the local theater in 38 C.E. leading eventually to widespread disturbances; cf. Philo, In Flaccum, 33 f. For other examples of the mockery of Jews by Alexandrians in their theaters; cf. V. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, 1957-64), II, 94; III, n8. 28 B Sota 40a In one instance, an audience laughed at one of R. Abbahu's teachmgs, upon which he appealed to an older authority (Genesis Rabba, XXX, 9, p. 275).

R. ABBAHU OF CAESAREA

61

R. Abbahu's involvement in communal affairs is also reflected in his well-known and much discussed polemical activity. Living as they did in a large cosmopolitan setting with other religiousethnic groups, the Jews of Caesarea were often confronted by the need to counter the claims of others or parry their attacks on Judaism. Christian, Samaritan, gnostic and pagan communities flourished during this period, and exchanges between them were common occurrences. 29 R. Abbahu emerges as chief spokesman of Jewish beliefs and practices and a not unworthy critic of his opponents' tenets. Much has been written about his polemical statements, primarily in trying to determine against which group he was directing his comments. 3° Christians and gnostics are the two most oft-referred-to opponents, although many of his remarks are so general as to render pointless any attempt at identification. 31 In reviewing R. Abbahu's polemical activity, it is striking to whom he refers and whom he neglects of those living in thirdfourth century Caesarea. It is not surprising that R. Abbahu frequently addresses himself to Christian and gnostic (probably Jewish) claims; both groups emphasized beliefs and ideas that contrasted sharply with those of rabbinic Judaism. Vis-a-vis the Samaritans, whose numbers and positions of power within the city were significant, R. Abbahu does little polemicizing, adopting instead a rather strict and exclusive halakhic stance. He was, in fact, instrumental in further separating the Samaritans from the Jews by declaring their wine forbidden. 32 The degree of his antagonism for the Sama29 In general; cf. the author's Caesarea Under Roman Rule (Leiden, 1975). Indicative of this state of affairs is the exchange between R. Abbahu and Caesarean agoranomm after the latter had polemically confronted the Babyloman R. Safra with disputed Biblical verses: "He said to them: 'Why are you oppressing hnn ,' They said to him. 'Did you not tell us that he was a great man ? He does not even know how to exp lam this verse.' He said to them. 'I told you this regardmg oral (1.e. rabbm1c) traditions, who said anythmg about Scnptures ,, They said to him: 'How is it that you know,, He said to them. 'VVewho are constantly m your company have taken 1t upon ourselves to learn (these matters), they (i.e. rabbis from Babyloma) have not learned (these matters)" (B