The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion: Second Edition [2 ed.] 0199730040, 9780199730049

Citation preview

a

THE

OXFORD OF

DICTIONARY TEE:

JEWISH RELIGION SECOND

EDITION

eee

REFERENCE ONLY

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/oxforddictionaryOOOOunse_d1v4

THE

OXFORD

DICTIONARY

OF

THE

SECOND EDITION

JEWISH

RELIGION

EDITORIAL EDITOR

BOARD

IN CHIEF

Adele Berlin Robert H. Smith Professor of Bible Emerita, University of Maryland

SENIOR

EDITOR

Maxine Grossman

Associate Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Maryland

TEE,

(OX FO Rape Or

Jb

CallcO NCAR OY Pierce:

WEES

RELEGIOR® SECOND

EDITCR

EDITION

EIN. CHIEE

Adele Berlin

New York

Oxford

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS

Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dares Salaam HongKong Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

Karachi Nairobi

With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2011 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

Wwww.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. BWHEBB,

BWHEBL,

BWTRANSH

[Hebrew]; BWGRKL,

BWGRKN,

and BWGRKI [Greek] Postscript® Type 1 and TrueTypeT fonts Copyright © 1994-2009 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical exegesis and research. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Oxford dictionary of the Jewish religion / editor in chief, Adele Berlin. — 2nd ed.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-19-973004-9 (alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-19-975927-9 (drs)

1. Judaism—Dictionaries. I. Berlin, Adele.

BM50.094 2011 296.03—dc22 2010035774

S35) 7 OS Oth 2 Printed in the United States of America

on acid-free paper

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Preface to the First Edition Common Abbreviations Used in This Work

x xvii

Hebrew Transliteration Table

xx

Directory of Contributors

XXI

THE OXFORD SECOND

Index

DICTIONARY OF THE JEWISH RELIGION

EDITION

Si7

AND

EDITORIAL

PRODUCTION

ACQUIRING

Damon

STAFF

EDITOR

Zucca

ASSISTANT

EDITOR

Holly Seabury PRODUCTION

EDITOR

Claudia Dukeshire COPYEDITOR

Jan A. Maas PROOFREADERS

Jonathan Aretakis, Patti Brecht,

Bayani Mendoza de Leon, Guy Ron-Gilboa, Barbara Stussy INDEXER

Katharyn Dunham COMPOSITOR

Glyph International, Bangalore MANUFACTURING

CONTROLLER

Genieve Shaw COVER

DESIGN

Brady McNamara, Caroline McDonnell MANAGING

EDITOR

Mary Araneo DIRECTOR,

EDITORIAL

DESIGN

AND

PRODUCTION

Steven Cestaro EXECUTIVE

EDITOR,

DEVELOPMENT

Stephen Wagley PUBLISHER

Casper Grathwohl

PREFACE First published in 1997, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion was well received by readers, who found it to be useful and informative, and by reviewers, who appreciated its scope, depth, and scholarly merit. Noting its success, Oxford University Press planned a revised edition, which would preserve and enhance the volume’s value and bring it to the attention of a new generation of readers. A new editor-in-chief was appointed, and she was joined by a senior editor with complementary expertise. They, along with a number of newly-commissioned authors, produced the present volume, whose final shape preserves much of the 1997 edition, while at the same time updating and reframing it in ways that its editors, and perhaps the Press, could not have

predicted. The goals of this volume remain the same as its predecessor’s: to be a scholarly and accessible reference for the Jewish religion. It bears reiterating that this is a Dictionary of the Jewish Religion and does not encompass all of Jewish history or culture. It is not a Dictionary of Jewish Studies, Jewish

History, or of Judaism in all its dimensions, but focuses on Jewish religious terminology, texts, figures, institutions, concepts, beliefs, and practices. The

editors of the first edition intentionally chose the term “Jewish religion” rather than “Judaism,” because, as they said, “Judaism implies a more secular focus and a broad sociocultural approach to the subject” whereas they wished to focus on religion per se. It seems to us that their choice of terms also reflects a time when Jewishness was perceived and promoted as a religious identity rather than as an ethnic one. That has changed to some degree during the last decades; the ethnic component of Jewish identity is more readily acknowledged now, even as Jews as a group have become more biologically diverse. To espouse Judaism does not mean to have Jewish DNA (there is no such thing), but to identify with the Jewish community, past and present, its beliefs, culture, and lifestyles—in short, its way of being in the world. A very large part of this identification may be defined as “religion,” for this term, as the editors of the first edition acknowledged, is not easy to contain. In the case of the Jewish religion it encompasses not only beliefs and rituals, but also a legal (halakhic) system, communal structures and functions, the concept of Israel and the Diaspora, and much more that might not immediately be thought to belong under the heading of “religion.” So Jewish religion in its broad sense is the subject of this volume. Our appreciation for the volume we inherited, and for its editors-in-chief and their topic editors and consultants, has grown as we have read and reread it. Many world-class experts contributed entries that present a goldmine of information in concise form. The majority of entries remain as complete and compelling now as they were when they were written. Some entries, we felt, could benefit from updating to incorporate more recent scholarship or to describe further developments in phenomena addressed very briefly or not at all in the first edition. In some cases, the original authors updated their

Vili

PREFACE

entries: in other cases, new authors were commissioned for the revisions. The editors took upon themselves a good bit of revising as well. At least half of the entries received some revision, and bibliographic references to recent

scholarship have been added to about 75 percent of the entries (and some older references have been deleted). As in the 1997 edition, the bibliographies give priority to recent English-language printed research, along with some works in other languages, especially Hebrew; only in a few cases are electronic sources included. These editorial revisions notwithstanding, we aimed to preserve the integrity of each entry. In addition to the updates, new entries were added; and some entries were

rewritten to such an extent that they may be considered new entries. These additions are of three types: (1) Important religious leaders who have died since the 1997 edition was prepared. We have maintained the convention of omitting living persons from the volume. (2) Entries that reflect recent developments in religious thought and practice. Like the 1997 editors, we strive to represent all branches of Judaism and to present newer customs and practices as well as more traditional ones. Because there have been noticeable innovations during the last decade, especially among religiously liberal Jews, and among all Jews in areas relating to women, several of our new or rewritten entries focus on these innovations. Examples are BABY NAMING; ECOKOSHER; AND JEWISH RENEWAL. There have also been changes in our understanding of important concepts; some of these may be found, for example, in the entries on CHOSEN PEOPLE; MONOTHEISM;

and PURITY AND IMPURITY, RITUAL. (3) A few

topics or terms that lacked entries of their own in the earlier volume seem important enough to have brief entries, such as HIDDUR MITSVAH; MIoRA’OT GEDOLOT; and QITNIYYOT. We see this Dictionary as a work in progress, a volume that has evolved from its roots in the one-volume Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion (edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder and published by Massada Press in Jerusalem

in 1966), to the 1997 edition of The Oxford Dictionary

of the Jewish Religion (also edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder),

to the present edition, and, we hope, to future revised editions.

Between the 1997 edition and the present one, the balance has shifted slightly from

Israeli

authors

to North

American

authors;

from

a dominant

to a

somewhat less dominant emphasis on rabbinic perspectives; and from the interests of the 20th century to those of the 21st century. The study of the Jewish religion, like all academic enterprises, evolves over time. Signs of this evolution can be detected in the choice of new entries, in the revisions

of older entries, in the deletion of several entries that no longer seem as central to the current discussion of Jewish religion as they were before (e:8;, EVOLUTION; DEISM; SCIENCE), and in some of the terminology we have favored

in this edition. The terminological changes reflect contemporary usage and are, we think, more intuitive search terms for today’s readers. (For example, we changed “Pentateuch” to “Torah”; “benedictions” to “blessings”; and listed shir ha-ma‘alot under SONG OF ASCENTS instead of DEGREES, SONG OF. “Oriental

Jews” are now “Jews from Muslim lands,” and “children of Israel” are “people

ix

PREFACE

of Israel.” The entry on Homosexua.ity has been rewritten and listed under GAY AND LESBIAN.) Yet, though

we

wanted

to update,

and

in a few cases,

to reorient

the

older material, we also wanted to preserve the admirable scholarship of the 1997 edition, and to keep before us its model of a comprehensive view of the Jewish religion from its ancient and classical beginnings to its contemporary manifestations. We have not attempted to erase our predecessors but rather to build on their work, and to make the volume’s contents

more

accessible

to new

readers.

The

volume

itself,

then,

gives

expression to some of the ways that the Jewish religion has changed and continues to change. (Interestingly, some of that change can be observed in the name changes of several institutions: the University of Judaism is now called American

Jewish

University; Jews’ College is the London

School

of Jewish

Studies; the Union of American Hebrew Congregations has become the Union for Reform Judaism [for ease of reference, these entries are still listed under their former names].)

The first edition was not easy to navigate, so we have expended considerable effort to make its treasure trove of information more readily accessible. Toward that end we have consolidated some entries with overlapping information, increased the number of blind entries and cross-references, and added an index.

We have changed the heads of several entries from a strict transliteration of the Hebrew or Yiddish to a more conventional English spelling, for example, YORTSAYT

is now

ANDROGYNOS. added

YAHRZEIT,

TSHOLNT

is CHOLENT,

and ANDEROGINOS

is now

In other cases we have retained the strict transliteration but

blind entries, such as, KIDDUSH.

See QippUSH.

The balance

between

exact transliteration and conventional English spelling is a matter of taste and judgment, and the 1997 editors struggled with it, too. Already they had opted for KABBALAH rather than QABBALAH, KIMHI for QimHI, and the like. Biblical proper

names are in their accustomed English spelling (Abraham, Joseph, Moses) but when borne by postbiblical figures those Hebrew names are Avraham, Yosef, Moshe (which we simplified from Mosheh).

The system of alphabetization used by the Press construes multiple-word entries as single words, so that DINEI SHAMAYIM will precede DIN TorAH and SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE will come before SON oF Gop. Cross-references are indicated, as they were in the earlier edition, by an asterisk before a word that serves as a heading of a separate entry, and by “See X” cross-references. We have retained the transliteration system employed in the 1997 edition. Unsigned entries were inherited in that form from the 1997 edition; they, in turn, were

drawn from the 1966 Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion and rewritten by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. A substantially revised entry bears the name of its author (if it was signed) and of its reviser.

We thank the editors-in-chief of the 1997 edition, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder, for the fine volume they produced. Their work served as a model to imitate and a standard to live up to. Oxford University Press took the initiative for this revised edition and provided support all along the way. We gratefully acknowledge the help of executive editors Damon Zucca

PREFACE

x

and Stephen Wagley, editor Grace Labatt and former editor Ben Keene, and assistant editor Holly Seabury. Our husbands, George Berlin and Hayim Lapin, acted as unofficial consultants and gave generously of their time and knowledge. We have enjoyed collaborating on this project and lending our voices to the larger conversation that the volume represents.

Adele Berlin Maxine L. Grossman

PREFACE

TO THE

FIRST

EDITION

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, envisioned as a companion volume to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, is designed to be a scholarly, accessible reference to the whole of Jewish religion. The more than threemillennium history of the Jewish people and Jewish religious thought has undoubtedly made a unique contribution to Western civilization and thus warrants the special attention that this volume gives to the subject. CON

CEPE

As editors in chief, we have carefully chosen the term Jewish religion rather than Judaism for the title of this work. Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, Judaism implies a more secular focus and a broad sociocultural approach to the subject; the scope of this dictionary is the Jewish “religion” per se. Despite the absence of consensus on the nature of religion and the lack of a widely accepted definition of the term, writers, editors, and

readers seem to share a general, though at times vague, notion of what is meant by it: a combination of attitudes, beliefs (often systematized by theology), and practices ranging from prayer and/or meditation to prescribed codes of conduct (frequently codified in law books) that shape individual lives as well as social structures. The decision to call this work a dictionary of the “Jewish religion” is not without its problems. There are many dictionaries and encyclopedias of religion(s), varying in size, content, and orientation.

Both the word religion

and its semantic spectrum are part of the history of Western culture, shaped as it is by Christianity. The term has percolated, for better or worse, from the West to other cultural traditions and (in translation) to other languages. Although there is general agreement that because of its Western origins the use of religion preempts discourse on many issues that are conceived differently in various cultures, the term is, nevertheless, widely established. The use of the

word therefore must take into account cultural specificities. The Hebrew language originally had no equivalent to religion. Torah (teaching), the accumulated corpus of divine scriptural revelation—especially in the Pentateuch—and oral revelation, with its divinely sanctioned modes of

interpretation, perhaps comes closest to it. (When a word for religion became necessary, a loan word derived from Persian, dat, came into use.) Torah (as well

as its analogues in other traditions) is so all-encompassing in both its individual and social aspects that some authors have preferred to define it as a “way of life” rather than a “religion.” Any work on the Jewish religion, because of its all-encompassing character, must incorporate subjects that would be considered irrelevant or even extraneous in dictionaries of some other religions. The most striking example is the field of law (Heb. halakhah), with its roots in biblical legislation, later developed and refined throughout the ages as administered by rabbinic courts. The teachers of Jewish religion were legal scholars rather than theologians; xi

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

xii

hence, also the prima facie unexpected inclusion in the present work of entries on such topics as insurance, barter, and alimony. At the same time, systematic theology, which only arrived some twenty centuries after the time of Moses, has to be fully represented. Another

specific character of the Jewish religion, “chosenness,”

requires

mention, especially in a world in which religions are generally thought of as universal. Nonuniversal religions practiced in antiquity or tribal societies tend to be considered obsolete. But the Jewish religion, alongside its universalistic elements, sees itself essentially as the religion of one particular people or nation, bound to God by a special covenantal relationship that also implies a special bond to a particular land, Erets Yisra’el. Almost all religions have a concept and doctrine of the religious community (e.g., church, ummah, sangha), but in this case, the community that perceives

itself as the bearer of the divine charge and promise is a historical, concrete, and nonmetaphorical “people of God.” This gives the Jewish religion an ethnonational quality that is not found in most current religious systems; this quality is reflected in this dictionary. For most of its history, especially after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 cE, the Jewish religion was basically monolithic. Two centuries ago, the Emancipation brought in its wake Reform Judaism, subsequently supplemented by Conservative Judaism and Reconstructionism. Historical differences and contemporary pluralism mean that on many issues there is no single voice. Though limitations of scope make it impossible to provide exhaustive coverage in this dictionary, every attempt has been made—with the assistance of special consultants—to state all views and varying practices, including recent developments. However, since many views and practices are still evolving, they do not lend themselves to the definitive treatment that can

be given, for example, to rabbinics or medieval philosophy. As editors in chief, we have made every effort to achieve balance and to present content that is descriptive and informative and in which ideology is reported but does not affect the subject matter. DEVELOPMENT

One of the results of the Holocaust tragedy was the destruction of the great centers of Jewish scholarship in Europe. Fortunately, two other centers were in the process of emerging—in Israel and the United States—and these have taken over unquestioned leadership in the field. Most of our contributors were drawn from these two centers, and this bipolarity was assisted coincidentally by the fact that we are from Jerusalem while the Oxford University Press administrative team was working out of New York. In 1966 we served as editors for the single-volume Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, published by Massada Press in Jerusalem but allowed to exe) out of print within four or five years. In 1992 Itzhak J. Carmin Karpman, a New York publishers’ agent who had an interest in the work, approached Oxford University Press with a proposal to reprint it for an American audience. Claude Conyers, editorial director of scholarly reference works at Oxford,

xiii

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

responded immediately and enthusiastically with the suggestion that the work be used instead as a basis for a new, updated, and considerably expanded work, provided the original editors could be engaged. His was the vision of an Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, and he has since played a central role in the development of the concept and its execution. Much has changed since the publication of our earlier work, and consequently this volume is very different from its predecessor. Developments in scholarship and practice as well as the much larger compass of the dictionary meant that more than half the entries had to be newly commissioned. Although we found some of the articles to be basically adequate, all have been thoroughly rewritten. Because the earlier work contained no bibliographies, the entire bibliographical apparatus, seen as a crucial element in this dictionary, has been newly added. All the new entries are signed by their contributors’ names, while those derived from the former volume, as well as new entries written by the two of us, are unsigned.

The

work

has been

conceived

to present,

in a single volume,

as much

information as possible about the Jewish religion; the additional tool of the bibliographies opens each topic to further research. Thus, it is directed to both the scholar and the layperson seeking a reference book that is concise but not abbreviated, authoritative but not overly technical, in which they can follow

the entire variegated kaleidoscope of subjects embraced under the term Jewish religion. This is not the first single-volume work on the Jewish religion, but it has set

itself especially high scholarly standards. This is reflected in the incorporation of bibliographies; in bibliographical information contained in the body of the entries (notably dates and places of the editio princeps); and in the liberal use of Hebrew terminology, following trends in recent Jewish scholarship. Thus the festivals, fast days, and prayers are named in transliterated Hebrew. English forms are used as entry terms when they easily reflect a Hebrew term (“Sick, Visiting the” instead of Bigqur Holim), but Hebrew terms are used when the English form is almost meaningless when encountered out of context (e.g., Kil’‘ayim rather than “Mixed Species”). In each such case, the English equivalent is given as a blind entry, from which the reader unfamiliar with Hebrew terminology is directed to the article. Because this work is not a general Jewish encyclopedia, but a dictionary focused on Jewish religion, our criteria for choosing subjects of entries were fairly clear. There is no entry summarizing the general history of the Jews, for example, and entries on such important historical topics as the Holocaust and the State of Israel confine themselves to religious angles. As in any reference book, however, subjectivity in the selection of entries eventually must emerge. Although consensus reigns on the selection of subjects of most major entries, when it comes to determining which individuals are to be included—be they biblical figures, rabbinic authors, or modern scholars—a dividing line has to

be drawn. Inevitably, disagreements arise as to whether certain figures lie above or below that line. In this case, on the basis of our experience with reference works, we drew up an initial list of proposed subjects of entries and

xiv

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

of people we judged to have made a contribution specifically to the Jewish religion, independent of people famous in Jewish history for other reasons. This list was then organized into categories and sent for approval to our advisory editors, a panel of distinguished scholars in various fields, for their review, emendment, and approval. The advisory editors also worked with us in suggesting contributors for entries. Considerable leeway was left to the contributors. They were given general guidelines but within these parameters were free to write their entries as they saw fit. Thanks to the judicious selection of contributors, virtually all presented an objective assessment of their subjects and avoided imposing their own theories or viewpoints. Every effort has been made to ensure that all sides are represented in cases of differences of opinion between various trends and in conflicting scholarly theories. All entries were reviewed by one or both of us and on occasions submitted to the advisory editors for additional input. EDITORIAL

PRACTICES

Entries are in alphabetical order, arranged strictly letter by letter. In a work of this nature, the treatment of each entry is necessarily concise; however, extensive cross-referencing provides a guide to complementary entries

containing

additional

relevant

information.

Cross-references

are

indicated in two ways: by the use of an asterisk before a word, directing the reader to the entry beginning with that word, and by “see” cross-references, both in the body of an entry and at its conclusion. Bibliographies also direct the reader to further sources of information. Exact references are provided to biblical and rabbinical sources. The main source for biblical quotations is the Jewish Publication Society of America’s Tanakh (Philadelphia, 1985), but contributors have been allowed to use other

translations of their choice. References to the Talmud Yerushalmi are preceded by Y.; to the Tosefta’, by T. References to the Mishnah and the Talmud Bavli are unmarked. Transliteration from the Hebrew poses problems for all works of Jewish scholarship. The sixteen-volume Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) uses no less than three systems! We adopted one that generally allows for transliteration back into Hebrew—including the differentiation between h for he and h for het and the use of ’ for alef and < for N; God, the Lord [of All Works]), alphabetical hymn recited in the *Yotser blessings preceding the *Shema‘ on Sabbath mornings. Composed by mystics of the geonic era, it replaces the briefer

latter was temporarily deposed from the presidency of the *Yavneh academy. After Gamli’el’s reinstatement, El‘azar continued to play a central role in the communal and religious life of his time and traveled to Rome with Gamli’el for meetings with the Roman authorities and the Jewish community. El‘azar was an outstanding preacher and aggadist and is credited

Avot

3.21);

and

“The

Bible

is written

in

human language” (Qid. 17b, in defense of the literal interpretation of scripture). He was also responsible for the hermeneutical principle (see HERMENEUTICS) according to which a biblical verse can be interpreted in the light of the preceding or following verse. ¢ Tzvee Zahavy, The Traditions of Eleazar Ben Azariah, Brown Judaic Studies 2 (Missoula, Mont., 1977). -DANIEL SPERBER

EL‘AZAR

BEN

PEDAT

(4th

cent.),

Babylonian

and Palestinian amora’; usually referred to simply as El‘azar. Of priestly lineage, he was born in Babylonia and received instruction from Shemu’el and Rav before settling in Erets Yisra’el, where

he was

ordained. He was taught by R. Hosha‘yah Rabbah in Caesarea and by R. Hanina’ bar Hama’ in Sepphoris (see Y., Ter. 8.5, 45c; in Meg. 15a, R. El‘azar transmits

the famous dictum of R.Hanina’ that he who states a saying in the name of its originator brings redemption to the world). He also studied with R. Yohanan bar Nappaha’, succeeding him as head of the Tiberias academy in 279 but dying that same year (according to Iggeret Rav Sherira’ Ga’on). In the Talmud Yerushalmi, he often passes on traditions in the name of Hiyya’ ben Abba’, with whom he worked harmoniously (Y., B. M. 10.4, 12c). It was said that his absorption in

Torah study was such that he would become oblivious to material

matters

(“he sat in the lower

market

of Sepphoris, while his garment lay in the upper market of Sepphoris,” ‘Eruv. 54b). His repute as a Torah scholar was equally acclaimed: according to R. Yohanan

(Yev. 72b) he once seemed

“like Moses

expounding from the mouth of the Almighty,” and in his old age he was known as “the Master of the Land of Yisra’el” (Yoma’ 9b).

He is mentioned thousands of times in the Talmud and midrashim, and the Talmudic phrase “they sent from there” (San. 17b) is used with specific reference

to his teachings being brought to Babylonia. Through his brilliant and encyclopedic scholarship, he was one of the formative sages in the development of the oral law. He also laid down principles for resolving

EL‘AZAR BEN YEHUDA OF WORMS

234

EL‘AZAR BEN PEDAT halakhic disputes in the tannaitic sources (as passed on, in particular, by R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’; cf. Yev. 42b).

Some of his teachings and aggadic comments have taken on almost proverbial significance in Judaism: the practice of charity is greater than all sacrifices, but acts of kindness are greater than charity (Suk. 49b); a man without a wife is not a man (Yev. 63a; cf. Git. 90b,

where it is stated that the altar weeps over the man who

He emphasized the importance of teachers and students treating one another with respect and honor (Avot 4.12, in clear contrast to the poor behavior of the

previous disciples of R. “Aqiva’). e Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten (1903; Berlin, 1965-1966). Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tanna'im ve-“Amora'im (1910; Jerusalem, 1987).

Israel Konovitz, comp., Ma‘arakhot Tanna’im: Osef Shalem shel Mishnatam u-Ma'amreihem ba-Sifrut ha-Talmudit veha-Midrashit (Jerusalem, 1967—1969). Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden, 1969). —~MICHAEL

L. BROWN

divorces his first wife); and, a person should continue

to hold out hope for mercy, even when a sharp sword

EL‘AZAR

lies on his neck (Ber. 10a).

tanna’. Together with his father, R. *Shim‘on bar Yoh’ai (Suk. 45b), he is the subject of extensive aggadic material, including their fabled thirteen years

Both

his

poverty

and

generosity

were

fabled

(Ta‘an. 25a; Y., B. M. 2.3, 8c). At times he could barely

afford to eat (in spite of earning his living by testing coins; B.Q. 100a), which led to weakness and health

problems (Ber. 16b). But he refused to accept gifts from the nasi’, citing Proverbs

15.27, “he who hates

gifts shall live” (see Meg. 28a), and stressed to all the members of his household the necessity of practicing hospitality without earthly reward (Y., Pe’ah 8.6, 21a).

BEN

SHIMC‘ON

of hiding from the Romans

(2d cent.),

Palestinian

in a cave (cf. Shab. 33b;

B. M. 85a) and their alleged authorship of the El‘azar was pressured into working for the government, helping to apprehend Jewish in spite of the disapproval of his colleagues 83b). However,

his stature was

*Zohar. Roman thieves, (B. M.

such that upon

his

e Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der paldstinensischen Amoréer (1892-1899; Hildesheim, 1965). Gershom Bader, The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, translated from the Yiddish by Solomon Katz (Northvale, N.J. and London,

death his widow refused to marry R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’ (with whom El‘azar had frequent halakhic disputes), claiming that Yehuda was not her late husband’s equal

1988). Jacob Nahum Epstein, Mavo'le-Nusah ha-Mishnah, 2d ed. (Tel Aviv, 1964). Isaak Halevy, Dorot ha-Ri'shonim vol. 2 (1923; Jerusalem, 1979). Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tanna'im ve-'Amora'im (1910; Jerusalem, 1987).

(B. M. 84b). El‘azar is cited directly in the Mishnah only three times (e.g., Beits. 4.5, although several

-MICHAEL

L. BROWN

EL‘AZAR BEN SHAMMUSA (2d cent.), Palestinian tanna’. Tradition relates that after the twelve thousand pairs of disciples of R. “Aqiva’ had died (purportedly because of their lack of respect for one another), ‘Aqgiva’ elevated five last disciples, of whom R. El‘azar, a priest (Sot. 39a) born in Alexandria, was the most prominent (Yev. 62b; Gn. Rab. 61.3), comparable in learning to his teacher (cf. ‘Eruv. 53a). After the

Bar Kokhba’ Revolt, he and the other disciples were ordained by R. Yehuda ben Bava’, in violation of the Roman ban (San. 14a). El‘azar fled for safety until the Hadrianic persecutions waned, then returned

to Galilee to establish his academy (Y., Hag. 3.1, 78d). He was one of the teachers of R. Yehuda haNasi’ (Men. 18a), who reported that the students in

R. El‘azar’s academy had to sit cramped six to one cubit (‘Aruv. 53a). Later, R. Yehuda included some of his rulings in the Mishnah (e.g., Git. 9.4; however,

there is constant confusion

in the sources between

R. El‘azar and R. Eli‘ezer ben Hurqanos). Called the

happiest of the sages by Rav (Ket. 40a), he lived (according to a later tradition) to be 105, the result

of scrupulous piety toward God and man (Meg. 27b), dying as one of the fabled *Ten Martyrs, commended

by a divine voice for his lifelong purity (San.

14a;

Midrash Elleh Ezkerah).

anonymous mishnayot were later attributed to him; cf. Hul. 30a) but is mentioned often in baraiytot in the Tosefta’ and Talmuds. The comment in his eulogy that he was a liturgical poet (Lv. Rab. 30.1) led some to identify him incorrectly with R. El‘azar Kallir. e

Wilhelm

Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten

(1903;

Berlin,

1965-1966).

Israel Konovitz, comp., Ma’arakhot Tanna’im: Osef Shalem shel Mishnatam uMa’amreihem ba-Sifrut ha-Talmudit veha-Midrashit (Jerusalem, 1967-1969). —-~MICHAEL L. BROWN

EL‘AZAR BEN TSADOQ

(ist—2d cent.), Palestinian tanna’. Of priestly lineage, he was the son of R. Tsadogq, a noted tanna’ of the late Second Temple period (cf. Git. 55b-57a). He transmitted traditions and personal recollections (e.g., Hul. 90b; Suk. 41b) related to Second Temple services and customs, also

recounting some of the horrible sufferings that took place at the time of the Temple’s destruction (Lam. Rab. 1.47; T., Ket. 5.10). He was among the sages who

subsequently convened at Yavneh, dealing especially with calendrical matters and working closely with R. Gamli’el (e.g., Pes. 37a). He eventually disseminated

the Yavneh traditions among the sages who convened at Usha’. For his teaching on suffering, reward and punishment,

and the afterlife, see Qiddushin

Job 8.7 and Proverbs

40b to

14.12; for.his adage on good

deeds, see Nedarim 62a. His grandson, also El‘azar ben

Tsadogq, was a tanna’ of the late second century. ¢

Wilhelm

Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten

(1903; Berlin, 1965-1966).

Once El‘azar and R. Yohanan ha-Sandelar decided to go to Nisibis, Babylonia, to study with R. Yehuda ben Batyra’, but when they reached Sidon, they tearfully recalled Erets Yisra’el and returned home exclaiming “Dwelling in Erets Yisra’el is equivalent to keeping all

EL‘AZAR

the commandments of the Torah” (Sifrei on Dt. 80).

1230), the most well-known writer of esoteric theology

El‘azar taught that only he who studied Midrash, halakhot, and aggadot was a fully rounded scholar.

Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tanna'im ve-'Amora’im (1910; Jerusalem, 1987). Israel

Konovitz,

comp., Ma’arakhot

Tanna'im:

Osef Shalem shel Mishnatam

u-

Ma‘amreihem ba-Sifrut ha-Talmudit veha-Midrashit (Jerusalem, 1967-1969). -MICHAEL L. BROWN

BEN

YEHUDA

OF

WORMS

(c.1165-

and ethics of the Kalonimos school of Ashkenazi Hasidism (see HasIDEI ASHKENAZ), which flourished in

EL‘AZAR BEN YEHUDA OF WORMS

235

the Rhineland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. His teacher was R. *Yehuda ben Shemu’el he-Hasid, the leader of that school. El‘azar’s best-known work is the halakhic code Rogeah (Fano, 1505), a word that is numerically identical to El‘azar. To this work he added an extensive ethical introduction, dealing with the norms of piety (hasidut) and repentance. He wrote an extensive commentary on the prayers, which survived in three manuscript editions, each probably representing an original version that was reedited by the author. This work is based in part on Yehuda ben Shemu’el he-Hasid’s lost commentary; El‘azar’s is the first commentary on the prayers that has survived. When Yehuda died in 1217, El‘azar began to preserve the esoteric traditions of the Kalonimos school in a series of books. Five of these are collected in his Sodei Razayya’ (edited by I. Kamelhar [1936]): Sod Ma‘aseh be-Re’shit, Sod ha-Merkavah, Sefer haShem, Hokhmat ha-Nefesh (Lw6w, 1876) and the

commentary on *Sefer Yetsirah (Przemysl, 1883). The basis of his thought is the utter spirituality and transcendent uniqueness of God, from whose concealed essence there emanates the visible glory that links the infinite divine with finite creation. He also wrote commentaries on biblical books and on piyyutim. In his Sefer ha-Hokhmah, written in 1217, he presented his methodological concepts, the system of seventy-three gates of wisdom according to which divine truth is organized. Repentance plays a major role in his teaching. His wife and daughters were massacred by Crusaders before his eyes, and he dedicated a poem to their memory. His disciples included *Yitshaq ben Moshe of Vienna and *Avraham ben ‘Azri’el. ¢ Joseph Dan, “The Emergence of Jewish Mysticism'in Medieval Europe,” in Mystics of the Book, edited by Robert A. Herrera (New York, 1993). Yisrael Kamelhar, Rabbenu El‘azar mi-Germaizah ha-“Rogeah”: Qorot Hayav u-Meoratav (Tel Aviv, 1974). Ivan G. Marcus, Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany (Leiden, 1979). Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1961), pp. 80-120. -JOSEPH

DAN

EL‘AZAR BEN YOSEI (2d cent.), Palestinian tanna’, to be distinguished from El‘azar ben Yosei, the

fourth-century Palestinian amora’. Often quoted with praise by his father, Yosei ben Halafta’ (e.g., Pes. 117a), he is cited directly in the Tosefta’, though not in the Mishnah; however, many anonymous mishnayot are to be attributed to him (e.g., Kel. 11.3). The Talmud

counts him among the Yavneh sages and relates that he journeyed to Rome with R. Shim‘on ben Yohai to appeal to Caesar to rescind his decree forbidding circumcision and Sabbath observance (Shab. 33b). He

emphasized the efficacious power of Israel’s charity and kindness (B.B. 10a). ¢

Wilhelm

Bacher,

Die Agada der Tannaiten

(1903;

Berlin,

1965-1966).

Israel Konovitz, comp., Ma‘arakhot Tanna ‘im: Osef Shalem shel Mishnatam uMa’amreihem ba-Sifrut ha-Talmudit veha-Midrashit (Jerusalem, 1967-1969). —~MICHAEL

L. BROWN

ELDAD AND MEDAD

EL‘AZAR

HA-QAPPAR

(2d

cent.),

Palestinian

tanna’, probably to be distinguished from Bar Qappara’, apparently his son. He is quoted in the Mishnah, baraiytot, and Talmuds and was a member of the academy of R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’ (T., Ohal. 18.18).

He taught that envy, lust, and ambition take a man out of the world (Avot 4.21) and described in detail the fearful reality of the final judgment (Avot 4.22). Other preserved teachings concern the sin of denying oneself the pleasures of life (Ta‘an. 11a, to Nm. 6.11), Second Temple customs relating to Yom Kippur (Yoma’ 67a), poverty (Shab. 151b), and the importance of national unity and the greatness of peace (Sifrei on Nm. 42). The epithet ha-Oappar may be derived from the town of Qefira’ in the Golan, where an inscription was discovered in 1969 bearing his name (or that of his son); the Syriac qufra’ (asphalt dealer); or the Hebrew qapparis (caper blossom), indicating that he may have worked with spices or drugs related to the plant. ¢ Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten (1903; Berlin, 1965-1966). Dan

Urman, “Eli‘ezer ha-Qappar u-Var Qappara’: Ha-’Umnam Av u-Veno?” Be’er Shev‘a 2 (1985): 7-25.

EL‘AZAR Worms. ELBOGEN,

-MICHAEL

ROQEAH.

L. BROWN

See EL‘azAR BEN YEHUDA OF

ISMAR (1874-1943),

scholar

and

teacher. Born in Poznan, Elbogen was one of the most

important intellectual and institutional forces in early twentieth-century Jewish scholarship in Germany. He studied in Breslau, both at the local university and at

the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary. He was appointed Dozent at the liberal Hochschule fiir die Wissenschaft des Judentums in 1902, where he remained for over

thirty-five years. Elbogen’s most significant research lay in the area of Jewish liturgy, in which he produced a major study entitled Der jtidische Gottesdienst in seiner

geschichtlichen

surveyed Elbogen history, Germany *Graetz’s

Entwicklung

(1913),

which

the history of Jewish synagogal prayer. also published widely in the field of Jewish including a volume on Jewish history in and a supplementary volume to Heinrich history of the Jews (A Century of Jewish Life

[1944]). Elbogen immigrated to the United States in 1938, where he served as editor for a large and diverse

array

of journals

and

encyclopedias

in German,

English, and Hebrew. ¢ Regi Elbogen, [smar Elbogen, 1874-1943: A Biography (New York, 1946); repr. from Historica Judaica 8:1 (April 1946): 69-94, -DAVID

N. MYERS

ELDAD AND MEDAD, two Israelites who were among the seventy elders who started prophesying in the wilderness when the spirit of God rested upon them. They were exceptional because they remained in the camp, while the others joined Moses at the tent of meeting. Joshua insisted on silencing them, but Moses reacted with the words,

“Would

that all the Lord’s

people were prophets” (Nm. 11.29). e

EL‘AZAR HA-QALLIR.

See KALLir, EL‘AZAR.

Jacob Milgrom, Numbers,

1990), pp. 89-91, 380-384.

The JPS Torah Commentary

(Philadelphia,

-SHALOM

PAUL

HA-DANI (9th cent.), traveler of uncertain origin who claimed to be from the lost tribe of Dan. He announced the existence of an independent Jewish kingdom in Ethiopia comprised of remnants of the tribes of Naphtali, Gad, Asher, and Dan. His warring kingdom lived across the *Sambatyon from the “sons of Moses.” This mythical river was believed to be a mighty torrent of stones all week that rested on the Sabbath. Eldad gave vivid descriptions of the customs of his community to the Jews of Kairouan. His announcement of Jewish sovereignty stirred the imagination of Mediterranean Jewry who eagerly hoped to learn of the lost ten tribes and their traditions regarding the advent of the Messiah. His divergent rituals regarding shehitah puzzled his North African Jewish audience, who wrote to Tsemah Ga’on, the leading scholar in Baghdad, regarding his identity and that of the Jews he represented. The ga’on reassured

ELDAD

his interlocutors in Kairouan that, although Eldad’s customs were indeed at variance with the norm,

they need not be considered heretical. Diversity of practice was commonplace in the Diaspora. Eldad also presented his audiences with a number of unknown Hebrew designations of a zoological and botanical nature. Eldad’s account was extremely popular among medieval Jews and was first printed in Mantua in 1480. Some medieval authorities such as Me’ir ben Barukh of Rothenburg and Avraham ibn Ezra regarded him as an impostor. Some scholars assert that Eldad’s account influenced Christian legends of Prester John.

Some

modern

scholars,

however,

postulate on linguistic grounds and internal evidence that Eldad originated among the Jews of Ethiopia. ¢

Elkan N. Adler, ed. and trans., Jewish Travellers (New York, 1930). Salo

W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 6 (New York, 1958). Haim Z. Hirschberg, History of the Jews in North Africa, edited and translated by Eliezer Bashan and Robert Attal, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1974). -JANE

ELDERS

(Heb.

zegenim),

in

ancient

S. GERBER

times,

the

authoritative body ruling the people or state. The first such group to be appointed was during the time of Moses (Nm. 11.16-17), but similar bodies are reported

to have existed earlier, both among the Jews in Egypt (Ex. 3.16, 12.21) and at Sinai, where seventy elders

were privileged (Ex. 24.1). On I Kgs. 21.8-14, the elders are

ELISEZER BEN HURQANOS

236

ELDAD HA-DANI

to accompany Moses up the mountain several subsequent occasions (e.g., the narrative of Naboth’s vineyard) mentioned as a representative and

an advisory, though never a legislative, body. The Mishnah (Avot 1.1) reports that the elders constituted

a link in the chain of tradition between Joshua and the prophets. Reference to the elders is found in the Book of Ezra (10.8), and it is possible that they were the basis for the *Keneset ha-Gedolah. Many scholars maintain that the elders participated in administering affairs of state until the Hasmonean period and that their functions were eventually incorporated into those of the Sanhedrin. The elders doubtless included men

noted for their sagacity and learning, not necessarily for their great age. See also GEROUSIA. ¢ Timothy M. Willis, The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in —SHALOM PAUL é Deuteronomy (Atlanta, 2001).

ELECTION ELEGY.

See CHOSEN PEOPLE.

OF ISRAEL.

See QINAH.

ELEPHANTINE.

See YEB.

ELI, high priest at Shiloh and judge in Israel before and during the days of *Samuel’s youth (/ Sm. 1-4). When Eli was a priest at the sanctuary in Shiloh, he did not recognize Hannah’s praying and rebuked her for assumed

drunkenness

(1 Sm.

1.9-18). Similarly,

when the young Samuel heard God calling to him in the sanctuary, Eli did not recognize the divine communication

until the third call (J Sm.

3). His

sons Hophni and Phinehas are portrayed as wicked priests who had no regard for God, abused “the offering of the Lord” (cf. 7 Sm. 2.29), and “lay with the women who served at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (7 Sm. 2.22). For these reasons, the house

of Eli was condemned by an unnamed “man of God” (1 Sm.

2.27), who

stated that God would

choose

a

“faithful priest” whose descendants would replace the line of Eli (7 Sm. 2.29-35). Eli died upon hearing that the Philistines had killed his sons and captured the Ark of the Covenant, which his sons had carried into battle as a talisman to ensure Israel’s victory (J Sm. 4). e J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 4, Vow and Desire, 1 Sam. 1-12, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 31 (Assen/Maastricht, 1993). Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel:A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies, and Parallels (Ramat Gan, 1985). P. Kyle McCarter, / Samuel, The Anchor Bible, vol. 8 (Garden City, N.Y., 1980). Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pt. 2, 1 Samuel (San Francisco, 1989). —-MARVIN A. SWEENEY

ELIEZER BEN HURQANOS (ist-2d_ cent.), *tanna’, pupil of *Yohanan ben Zakk’ai (whom he helped to smuggle out of Jerusalem during the Roman siege), and teacher of R. *‘Aqiva’ben Yosef; he was also known as Eli‘ezer the Great. After the

destruction of the Temple, Eli‘ezer ben Hurqanos headed the academy of Lydda and was a leading member of the Sanhedrin. He was one of the central figures in the critical transitional period following the destruction of the Second Temple. As depicted in the sources, he possessed a phenomenal memory and accumulated and retained ancient traditions of the Second Temple period that were in opposition to the new tendencies of the *Yavneh academy. His many halakhic opinions tended to be stringent, based as they were on the teachings of the school of Shamm’ai (see BEIT HILLEL AND BEIT SHAMM’AD.

His protracted

struggle with the nasi’ (patriarch) and other members of the Sanhedrin and his refusal to accept the majority ruling culminated in his excommunication and ostracism from the academy (B. M. 59b). e

Yitzhak

D. Gilat, R. Eliezer ben

Ayrcanus:

A Scholar Outcast

(Ramat

Gan, 1984). Jacob Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man (Leiden, 1973).

-DANIEL

SPERBER

ELISFEZER BEN NATAN OF MAINZ

237

ELIEZER BEN NATAN OF MAINZ (c.10901170), rabbinic scholar, tosafist, and legal authority; known by the acronym Raban. He studied in Mainz in the period just after the First Crusade (on which he wrote a booklet). In 1150, together with R. Ya‘aqov ben Me'ir Tam and R. Shemu’el ben Me'ir, he promulgated the so-called Troyes ordinances, *tagqanot in various fields of Jewish law. Rabbi Eli‘ezer’s major work, called Sefer Raban or Even ha-‘Ezer (Prague, 1610), contains halakhic rulings and responsa following the order of the Talmudic tractates. It includes much information about the scholars and practices of France, Germany, and Babylonia. Another work attributed to Raban, Tsafnat Pa‘neah, has not survived, although it appears to have been related to Sefer Raban. Rabbi Eli‘ezer commented extensively on piyyutim and other aspects of the liturgy. Subsequent Ashkensazi commentators on the prayers often added their remarks to the commentary of Raban. Sefer Raban was published with a commentary by Solomon Z. Ehrenreich in 1926. ¢ Victor Aptowitzer, Mavo'le-Sefer Rabiyah (Jerusalem, 1938), pp. 49-57. Efraim E. Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980), vol. 1, pp. 173-184. —EPHRAIM

ELIEZER

BEN

(c.1140-1225),

YO’EL

rabbinic

HA-LEVI

scholar,

ELIEZER BEN YOSEI HA-GALILI (2d cent.), tanna’; pupil of R. *‘Agiva’ ben Yosef, he was one of those who established the academy at *Yavneh (Ber. 63b) and then in Usha’. A noted aggadist, he is credited with having laid down. thirty-two hermeneutical rules for the interpretation of the *ageadah (see HERMENEUTICS). These were preserved in a special baraiyta’, which is printed in some Talmud editions after the tractate Berakhot. It was also discovered in a manuscript entitled The Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer, to which was appended another longer midrash attributed to him, but probably of a much later date, also known as Midrash Aggur. He is only mentioned once in the Mishnah (Sot. 5.3) but

frequently in baraiytot. His halakhic dicta are few, and most of his extant statements are of an aggadic nature. *

Gershom

Bader, The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, translated from

the Yiddish by Solomon Katz (Northvale, N.J., and London, 1988). Hyman Gerson Enelow, ed., Mishnat Rabbi Eli‘ezer oMidrash Sheloshim u-Shetayim Middot (New York, 1933). Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tanna’im ve-’Amora’im (1910; Jerusalem, 1987). Menachem, Mendel Kasher and Jacob Ber Mandel-

baum, eds. and trans., Sarei ha-’'Elef, rev. and corr. ed. (Jerusalem, 1978), vol. 1, pp. 38-39. Mordecai Margaliot, ed., Entsiqlopediyyah le-Hakhmei ha-Talmud veha-Ge'onim (Jerusalem, 1946). —DANIEL

SPERBER

KANARFOGEL

OF

tosafist,

BONN and

legal

authority; known by the acronym Rabiah or Ravyah. He was the grandson of R. *Eli‘ezer ben Natan of Mainz, the leading halakhist of twelfth-century Germany.

ELIEZER OF BEAUGENCY

His father, R. Yo’el ha-Levi of Bonn, was

venerated by tosafists in both Germany and northern France. Eli‘ezer traveled throughout Germany, studying with such masters as Rabbi Eli‘ezer of Metz, R. Yehuda ben Shemu’el he-Hasid, and R. Yehuda ben Kalonimos of Speyer. He established his academy in Bonn and moved to Cologne toward the end of his life. The bulk of his major work of Jewish law, known as Sefer Rabiyah (vols. 1-3 [1933-1935]) or Avi ha-‘Ezri, was published by Victor Aptowitzer in three volumes, along with an introductory volume containing biographical descriptions of Eli‘ezer and his family, teachers, and students (vol. 4 was edited by M. H. Fischel [1965]; additional volumes have been published by David Dablitsky [1976-1989]). This work is a collection of legal decisions, responsa, tosafot, and other extracts arranged according to the order of the tractates of the Talmud. Eli‘ezer also wrote a separate work on the orders of Nashim and Neziqin entitled Avi'asaf, which was cited in Ashkenazi rabbinic works of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries but is no longer extant. The beginning of Eli‘ezer’s entitled Seder Bayit Sheni, has survived.

treatise,

He refused compensation for teaching Torah and turned down formal rabbinic office. He was a leading proponent of the Ashkenazi practice of adhering to the view of the majority in matters of communal government, defending this position against challenges from rabbinic scholars of northern France. ¢ Efraim E. Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980), vol. 1, pp. 378-388 and index. —EPHRAIM KANARFOGEL

ELIEZER OF BEAUGENCY (late 12th cent.), biblical exegete. Eli‘ezer represents the final phase of the northern French school of Jewish bible exegesis pioneered by *Rashi, which endeavored to interpret Scripture according to its plain sense (see PESHAT). Three of Eli‘ezer’s full commentaries have been published: on Isaiah (published by Nutt [1879]), on Ezekiel, and on the Twelve Minor Prophets (published by Poznanski [1913]). Fragments of his Job commentary are extant and it seems that he also wrote commentaries on the Torah, Jeremiah, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Daniel. Heavily influenced by the great peshat commentator *Rashbam (Rashi’s grandson), Eli‘ezer focused attention on the poetic features of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., parallelism), as well as the redaction process of the prophetic books. He also placed particular emphasis on the historical allusions in the Bible, aiming to place them within their ancient context. Eli‘ezer’s commentaries provide

a window into the broader cultural life of northern French Jews. He frequently provided Old French glosses on Hebrew words (see LA‘az). He also knew Latin, and cites the Vulgate in his commentaries in order to refute Christological interpretations of the prophetic literature. His commentaries focus on the themes of martyrdom and exile, in an effort to provide spiritual sustenance to Jews of his generation, who had

endured

the Crusades

and

other,

less-violent,

forms of Christian evangelization. e Robert A. Harris, “The Literary Hermeneutic of Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency” (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, 1997). Samuel Poznanski (ed.), Perush ‘al Yehezqel u-Terei ‘Asar (Warsaw, 1913). John W. Nutt (ed.), Commentaries on the Later Prophets: Isaiah (London, 1879). -~MICHAEL

A. SIGNER, REVISED BY MORDECHAI Z. COHEN

ELIEZER OF TOUQUES (died c.1290), rabbinic scholar and tosafist. He studied with R. Yitshaq ben Moshe of Vienna and was the teacher of R. Hayyim Palti’el. He was considered by his contemporaries to be on a par with R. Me’ir ben Barukh of Rothenburg, the

leading German scholar of the late thirteenth century. Rabbi Eli‘ezer was one of the last editors of *tosafot. His tosafot were based primarily on earlier ones by R. Shimshon ben Avraham of Sens and R. Yehuda ben Yitshaq. The disciples of R. Me’ir of Rothenburg used R. Eli‘ezer’s tosafot extensively, which hastened their acceptance. The printed tosafot to the tractates of Shabbat, Pesahim, Ketubbot, Gittin, Bava’ Qamma’, Bava’ Metsi‘a’, Bava’ Batra’, Shevu‘ot, and Hullin were

edited by R. Eli‘ezer, making him the most important editor of the standard tosafot texts. It is unclear whether R. Eli‘ezer hailed from the village of Touques (in Normandy)

or whether

ELIJAH

238

ELIEZER OF TOUQUES

he arrived

there

from

earthquake, and fire. God did not appear to Elijah in any of these phenomena but only in the form of a “still small voice” (J Kgs.

19.12); he commanded

him to anoint Hazael as king of Aram and Jehu as the new king of Israel (tasks eventually fulfilled by Elisha), and to appoint Elisha as his prophetic successor, in order to prepare for the overthrow of the Omride dynasty. Elijah is also known for his condemnation of Ahab for his role in the murder of Naboth

the Jezreelite

(7 Kgs. 21). When

Ahab

was

frustrated in his attempts to buy Naboth’s vineyard, Jezebel had Naboth executed on trumped-up charges of treason so that Ahab could then take possession of the vineyard without cost. Elijah’s death, like Moses’,

was not witnessed by human beings. Instead, he was carried off by a chariot and horses of fire to heaven in a whirlwind before the eyes of his successor Elisha (2 Kgs. 2). Some thought Jesus to be Elijah

Germany, where several members of his family lived.

(e.g., Mt. 16.14; Mk. 6.15), but Jesus denied this and

¢ Efraim E. Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980), vol. 2, pp. 581-585

attributed the role to John the Baptist (e.g., Mt. 11.14;

and index.

Mk. 9.17ff.).

—EPHRAIM

KANARFOGEL

ELIJAH (Heb. Eliyyahu; 9th cent. BCE), prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel who appears in the narratives of / Kings (18-19; 21) and 2 Kings (1-2) during the reigns of kings Ahab, Ahaziah, and

Jehoram. It is generally believed that Elijah came from Gilead in Transjordan, based on his identification as

the “Tishbite” in biblical tradition. The Hebrew text in 1 Kings 17.1 refers to him as a “sojourner in Gilead,” but it does not identify Tishbe as a place name. The Septuagint,

on the other hand, refers to “Tishbe

in

Gilead” in / Kings 17.1. Elijah is portrayed as a miracle worker who feeds the widow of Zarephath and restores life to her dead son as a means to legitimate his prophetic calling. His Transjordanian origins could account for his opposition to the religious and political policies of the Omride monarch Ahab and his Tyrianborn wife Jezebel, who promoted the worship of the god Melgart. Elijah fought the Arameans’ efforts to bring the country into a closer relationship with the Phoenicians. Elijah called for the exclusive worship of God.

Together

with

his successor,

*Elisha,

he

helped to bring about the overthrow of the Omride dynasty. Elijah is best known for his contest on Mount Carmel against the four hundred fifty prophets of Baal (see BAAL WorsuiP) and the four hundred prophets of *Asherah (1 Kings 18). Both Elijah and the pagan prophets prepared altars and called upon their respective deities to light the sacrificial fires in order to demonstrate their divine powers. Although the prophets of Baal spent half a day in pleading, frenzied dancing, and self-immolation, they received

no response. After pouring water over his altar, Elijah called upon God, who sent a fire that consumed the entire altar. When Jezebel sought to kill Elijah for executing the prophets of Baal, Elijah fled to Mount

Horeb (Mount

*Sinai) where he lodged in a

cave (J Kgs. 19). Like Moses

in Exodus

33, Elijah

experienced a divine revelation, which included wind,

The prophecy in Malachi 3.23, in which Elijah appears as the precursor of the *Messiah who will “turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children unto their fathers,” combined with the fact that he did not die, succeeded in producing the image of the ever present prophet, wandering incognito over the earth, sometimes in the garb of a nomad,

to aid in moments

and danger, appearing teach

them

hidden

of distress

to scholars and mystics to

truths,

and

acting

as

a celes-

tial messenger. In folklore Elijah also appears in synagogues as a tenth man to make up the prayer quorum (minyan). The word teiqu in the Talmud is considered (popularly, but doubtfully) an acronym for the sentence meaning that the answer will eventually be given by Elijah. From the belief that he taught Talmudic sages emerged the *Seder Eliyyahu, supposedly communicated to R. ‘Anan, which formed the basis of the Midrashic compilation known as Tanna’ de-Vei Eliyyahu. Identified with the “angel of the covenant” in Malachi

3.1, where

the word

for covenant,

berit,

suggested the berit milah, the *circumcision, Elijah came especially to be associated with the circumcision ceremony and was thought to be present at every such occasion as guardian and witness (see ELUAH, CHAIR

OF). He is also associated with the Pesah *Seder: the custom of a fifth cup of wine, known as the “cup of Elijah,” has given rise to the popular belief in his invisible presence. (In fact, there was a dispute in the Talmud about whether to drink four or five cups at the Seder, and the fifth cup is placed there teigu— to await Elijah’s decision.) In hopes of his arrival, the front door is opened in the course of the evening to welcome him. The prominence of Elijah in the *“Havdalah liturgy ushering out the Sabbath (including the popular hymn Eliyyahu ha-Navi’) is also connected with his traditional role as harbinger of the Messiah. ¢ Alan J. Hauser and Russell Gregory, From Carmel to Horeb; Elijah in Crisis,

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, no. 85; Bible and Literature Series, no. 19 (Sheffield, UK, 1990). Burke O. Long, / Kings,

ELIJAH

239

The Forms of the Old Testament

Literature, vol. 9 (Grand

Rapids,

1984).

Burke O. Long, 2 Kings, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, 1991). Eliezer Margoliyot, Elivyahu ha-Navi’ be-Sifrut Yisra’el (Jerusalem, 1960), Alexander Rofé, The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem, 1988). Aharon Wiener, The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism (Boston, 1978). Marvin A. Sweeney, / and IJ Kings: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville, 2007). Marsha C. White, The Elijah Legends and Jehu's Coup (Atlanta, 1997). MARVIN A. SWEENEY

ELISHA

permanent item of the synagogue furniture. This may

derive from the time when all circumcisions were held in the synagogue. ¢ Yosef David Weisberg, Otzar (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 126-129.

Habrith:

Encyclopedia of Brith Milah —-CHAIM PEARL

ELIJAH, CUP OF. See Evan. ELIJAH,

BOOKS

OF. Two

different

works

are

known as the Apocalypse of Elijah. In spite of their many differences, the two works share some traits and may both have been based on an earlier Jewish text(s). Moreover, there are other Elijah traditions in Jewish and in Christian literature, some of which may ultimately have derived from the same postulated text(s). The Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah is a Christian work, originally written in Greek but extant only in a Coptic translation. It was composed in Egypt in the second half of the third century cE. It is a composite work, which includes an exhortation to prayer and fasting, a brief overview of historical events, and a description of the last days, the coming of the Antichrist, and the cosmic upheavals that will precede the final judgment. The Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah is a Jewish work, written in Hebrew and generally dated in the geonic period (6th-10th cent.). It purports to record the revelations made to Elijah on Mount Carmel by the archangel Michael and contains descriptions of Elijah’s heavenly journey and of future events, such as the advent

of the Antichrist,

the eschatological

upheavals, and the salvation of the righteous. ¢ George Wesley Buchanan, Revelation and Redemption: Jewish Documents of Deliverance from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Death of Nahmanides (Dillsboro, Ind., 1978), pp. 426441. David Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis, 1993). Michael E. Stone and John Strugnell, coll. and trans., The Books of Elijah, Parts 1-2, Texts and Translations, no. 18; Pseudepigrapha, no. 8 (Missoula, Mont., 1979). Orval S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Elijah,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1

(Garden City, N.Y., 1983), pp. 721-753.

ELIJAH,

CHAIR

OF (Heb.

customs,

¢

Martin

Buber,

Tales of the Hasidim

(New

York,

1947). Louis Jacobs,

Jewish Mystical Testimonies (New York, 1978), pp. 196-216. Rivka Schatz Uffenheimer, Hasidism as Mysticism (Princeton, 1993). -MILES

KRASSEN

-GIDEON BOHAK

kise’ shel

Eliyyahu),

a special chair placed for *Elijah the prophet at every *circumcision ceremony. When the baby boy is brought into the room for the circumcision, he is, in some

ELIMELEKH OF LYZHANSK (1717-1787), Hasidic master and author. A disciple of Dov Ber of Mezhirech, he became the most influential Hasidic leader in Galicia after his teacher’s death in 1772. He was one of the first to develop a Hasidic court. As the *tsaddiq, he was supported primarily by contributions that accompanied requests for his prayers. By nature, he was extremely ascetic. In his youth, he wandered around the pale of settlement with his brother *Zusya of Hanipoli, symbolically identifying with the exile of the shekhinah. His many disciples were instrumental in spreading and establishing Hasidism in Poland. Among them were Ya’agov Yitshaq ha-Hozeh miLublin; Menahem Mendel ben Yosef of Rymanéw; and Avraham Yehoshu‘a Heschel. In his work No’am Elimelekh (edited by Gedalyah Nigal [Jerusalem, 1978]), he was one of the first to grapple with the paradoxes involved in the theory of the tsaddiq. The tsaddiq must be a figure who can combine the spiritual aspiration of being entirely immersed in God with a compassionate concern for the material well-being of his followers. Essential to the tsaddiq’s path were periodic falls. By deliberately descending, even through the commission of light transgressions, the tsaddiq could achieve even greater heights and uplift his community with him.

first placed

on

Elijah’s chair

as the *mohel says “This is the chair of Elijah the prophet, of blessed memory”; in other customs (such as the Moroccan) the *sandagq sits in the chair during the ceremony. One reason given for the symbolic presence of Elijah at the circumcision ceremony (Zohar on Gn. 93a) is that Elijah, the personification of uncompromising zeal, complained to God that the people of Israel had “forsaken your covenant”

ELISHA (9th cent. BcE), prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel during the reigns of Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash; son of Shaphat from Abel-meholah, Gilead. Elisha was designated as the

prophetic successor to “Elijah, who threw his mantle upon Elisha (/ Kgs. 19.19-21) while he was plowing his fields. The primary narratives about Elisha appear in 2 Kings 2-13. His prophetic status is legitimated by a series of legendary stories that portray him as a miracle worker and powerful “man of God.” He parted the waters of the Jordan (2 Kgs. 2.14); called on a bear to kill the boys who taunted him for his baldness (2.1925); filled a widow’s jar with oil to save her from debt (4.1-7); brought the Shunammite woman’s dead

(1 Kgs. 19.10). God therefore decreed that he should

son back to life (4.8-37); cured the leprosy of Naaman,

be present at every circumcision in order to testify that the people are in fact faithful to the covenant (Zohar on

the general of the Aramean forces (5.1-19); brought leprosy upon Gehazi for his dishonesty (5.20-27);

Gn. 17.10; Pirgei de-Rabbi Eli’ezer, end of 29; Shulhan ‘Arukh, Yoreh De‘ah 265.11). Based on Malachi 3.1,

caused an iron ax head to float (6.1—7); and blinded

Elijah is mentioned in rabbinic sources as “the angel of the covenant” (and circumcision is the sign of the covenant). In Sephardi communities, Elijah’s chair is a

an Aramean raiding party (6.8-23). Apparently, these stories were originally preserved among the “sons of the prophets,” that is, the prophetic guild of which Elisha was the leader. His most important role was

240

ELISHA initiating the revolt of Jehu against the royal house of Omri, in which *Jezebel, the Phoenician-born wife

of Ahab, was executed. Following the instructions of his late master, Elijah, Elisha anointed Hazael to take

control of the Aramean throne and anointed Jehu as the next king of Israel, thereby paving the way for the overthrow of the Omride dynasty and the purge ofBaal worship (2 Kgs. 8.7-15, 9.1-37). ¢ Burke O. Long, 2 Kings, The Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, 1991). Rick D. Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 95 (Sheffield, UK, 1990). Alexander Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives About the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History (Jerusalem, 1988). Marvin A. Sweeney, J and I Kings: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville, 2007). —MARVIN A. SWEENEY

ELISHA‘

BEN AVUYAH

(2d. cent.), tanna’; teacher

of R. *Me’ir. His doctrines stress the virtue of ethical behavior,

without

which

mere

legal observance

is

valueless. Deeply affected by the failure of the Bar Kokhba’ Revolt (which he might have opposed) and influenced by mysticism, he came to reject rabbinic Judaism (especially the theory of reward and punishment and the resurrection of the dead) and apparently accepted one of the then widespread branches of heretical gnostic thought. The Talmud (which, in view of his defection, never calls him by name, but refers to him as Aher [another]) mentions

his absorption in sectarian literature and Hellenistic song (Hag. 15b); it also relates that he endeavored to influence students to abandon their Talmudic studies. The rabbis found it difficult to understand how such a great sage could have left the fold and suggested a variety of explanations, some of which serve to mitigate his personal responsibility for his actions (e.g., Qid. 39b). Rabbi Me’ir was the only one of his disciples who continued a personal relationship with him, begging him to repent even in his final hour. Me’ir continued to learn from him, and this was later

explained in the following manner: R. Me’ir found a pomegranate; he ate its flesh, and threw away its peel (Hag. 15b). e Alon Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: The Rabbinic Invention of Elisha ben Abuya and Eleazar ben Arach (Stanford, 2000).

Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, 2d. ed. (New York, 1965). Milton Steinberg, As a Driven Leaf (New York, 1939), a novel.

-DANIEL

SPERBER

ELI TSIYYON (})°8 *5N; Lament, 0 Zion), alphabetical hymn of medieval origin describing the misery accompanying the destruction of the Second Temple. It is sung in Ashkenazi rites on *Tish‘ah be-’Av after the reading of ginot (dirges). The traditional melody, whose origin is debated by musicologists, has influenced the chanting of other prayers recited during the three weeks of mourning (see BEIN HA-METSARIM) culminating in Tish‘ah be-’Av. ELIYYAHU

BEN

SHELOMO

VILNA (1720-1797), halakhist, kabbalist,

ZALMAN

Lithuanian and biblical

OF

Talmudist, commentator,

popularly known as the Vilna Ga’on or Ha-Gra’, an acronym

for

ha-Ga’on

Rabbenu

Eliyyahu,

whose

ELIYYAHU BEN SHELOMO

ZALMAN

erudition established him as one of Judaism’s greatest post-medieval scholars. A precocious child and virtually self-taught, he reputedly knew the Torah at age three and a half, had delivered a learned discourse in the Vilna synagogue at six and a half, and had mastered Talmudic literature by age nine. The Vilna Ga’on contributed to every aspect of traditional Jewish scholarship in over seventy works, including commentaries to scripture and the Mishnah,

commentaries

and

glosses

to the

Talmuds

Bavli

and Yerushalmi as well as the Shulhan ‘Arukh, commentaries on tannaitic Midrashic works, as well

as over thirty commentaries on kabbalistic texts. He was also the author of a Hebrew grammar book and composed treatises on astronomy, geometry, and geography, encouraging his disciples to master the sciences. However, he fiercely opposed the study of philosophy. He applied sophisticated philological expertise in analyzing texts, subjecting them to both internal and external criticism, proposing emendations to establish correct readings, and determining proper understanding of the text unclouded by fanciful pilpulistic expositions. His commentary on the Shulhan ‘Arukh sought to clarify the nature of halakhic disputes and trace all legislation to its primary source, the Talmud. He advocated a disciplined progression in studies, recommending that students possess a thorough knowledge of the rules of grammar and familiarity with all of scripture before commencing the study of the oral law. The Vilna Ga’on’s ascetic lifestyle and passionate devotion to scholarship led him to shun socializing. He slept only two hours out of each twenty-four-hour period. He occupied no public position and had no community responsibilities other than to study and teach a small circle of disciples. The emergence of the Hasidic movement prompted him to enter the public sphere. He leveled several bans of excommunication against Hasidim between 1772 and 1796 for alleged halakhic and theological infractions. Perceiving Shabbatean influences in the new movement and disturbed by monistic and quasipantheistic elements in the writings of his Hasidic adversary, *Shneur Zalman of Lyady, the Vilna Ga’on apparently feared that Hasidism could dethrone Torah study from its preeminent position by extolling moralistic literature over Talmudic texts and religious ecstasy over sober study, and by revering the Hasidic *tsaddiq for his charismatic powers rather than his Torah scholarship. Although the Vilna Ga’on stood as the preeminent kabbalistic scholar of his era and, according to his disciples, received nightly revelations from heaven, his attitude toward such visions was characterized by reticence. He did not welcome “intrusions from heaven” but preferred the mental exertion of study and rational analysis in order to arrive at the truth. He was a fiercely independent scholar who did not hesitate to dispute the authorities of earlier

ELIYYAHU BEN SHELOMO

ZALMAN

241

generations if he deemed their interpretations to be in error. His disciple Hayyim ben Yitshaq *Volozhiner testified, “I was warned by the Ga’on not to submit, even to the decisions of our rabbis, the authors of the Shulhan ‘Arukh, when it came to matters of halakhah”

(Aut ha-Meshullash no. 9). The Vilna Ga’on’s major published works are Commentary to the Pentateuch (Dubrovno, 1804), Commentary to Shulhan ‘Arukh (1803-1885, found in standard editions of the Shulhan ‘Arukh), Commentary Mekhilta’ (1844), Commentary to Sifra’ (1911), Commentary to Sifrei (1866), Commentary to Sifra’ de-

EL MELEKH

NE’EMAN

the welfare of society and provide a reward in the next world for the one who performs them: providing a dowry for a bride, visiting the sick, and burying the dead. A thoughtful reading of this passage is considered a partial fulfillment of the duty to study the law. Ellu Devarim she-’Ein Lahem Shi‘ur is found in most prayer books. ¢ Israel Abrahams, A Companion to the Authorized Daily Prayer Book (New York, 1966), pp. 11-15. Philip Birnbaum, ed., Daily Prayer Book (New York, 1949), pp. 15f.

-A. STANLEY

DREYFUS

to

Tseni‘uta’ (Vilna, 1820), Commentary to Zohar (Vilna, 1820), Commentary to Proverbs (Petah Tikvah, 1985), and Glosses to the Talmud (found in standard editions

of the Talmud). ¢ Elijah Meir Bloch, ed., Ru‘ah Eliyyahu (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1954). Jacob Israel Dienstag, Rabbenu Eliyyahu mi-Vilna: Reshimah Bibliografit (New York, 1949). Louis Ginzberg, “The Gaon, Rabbi Elijah Wilna,” in Students, Scholars and Saints (Philadelphia, 1928). Samuel Jakob Jazkan, Rabbenu Eliyyahu mi-Vilna (Warsaw, 1900), includes bibliography. Betsal’el Landoi, Ha-Ga'on he-Hasid mi-Vilna (Jerusalem, 1967); English version, The Gaon of Vilna, adapted by Yonason Rosenblum (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1994). Joshua Heschel Levin, Sefer “Aliyyot Eliyyahu (Vilna, 1855; repr. Jerusalem, 1989). Yehuda Leib Maimon, Toledot ha-Gra’ (Jerusalem, 1970). Elijah Schochet, The Hasidic Movement and the Ga’on of Vilna (Northvale, N.J., 1994). Mordecai Wilensky, Hasidim u-Mitnaggedim, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1970). —-ELIJAH

ELLEH

EZKERAH (77218 158;

J. SCHOCHET

“These

things

I remember”), opening words of an elegy written as an alphabetic acrostic for the *Ten Martyrs that, in the Ashkenazi rite, is read during the repetition of the Musaf service on *Yom Kippur and, in the Sephardi and ‘Adot ha-Mizrah rites, on the fast of *Tish‘ah be‘Av. Ostensibly a poetic version of the Midrash Elleh Ezkerah, describing Hadrian’s campaign against the Jews in the second century CE, this dirge reflects the contemporary massacre of innocents during the First Crusade (1096-1099) and the poet’s own attempt to justify bewildering calamities: “Hatred pursues us; through all the years / Ignorance like a monster has

EL MALE’ RAHAMIM (07977 8519 58; God, Full of Compassion), prayer for the. repose of the souls of the dead (hazkarat neshamot). This prayer is recited when a person observing a “*yahrzeit is called to the reading of the Torah to pray for the soul of the deceased relative. In many Orthodox synagogues, the mourner

makes

a donation

to charity,

and this is

mentioned in the prayer. Its current form is late, probably dating from the time of the Chmielnicki pogroms (1648-1649), though the custom of praying for the repose of the dead dates back to earlier times. In many Ashkenazi communities, the prayer is also chanted solemnly after a burial, on the thirtieth day after a death, at tombstone

consecrations, and after

the recitation of the *Yizkor prayer on the Shalosh Regalim and on Yom Kippur. It corresponds to the Sephardi *Ashkavah prayer. The text is shortened in Reform services. A special version has been composed for victims of the Holocaust, for Israeli soldiers who died for their country, and others who are considered

to be martyrs. ¢

Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:

A Comprehensive History, translated by

Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, New York, and Jerusalem, 1993), p. 162. Eric L. Friedland, “The Atonement Memorial Service in the American Mahzor,” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 243-282. Macy

Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (London, 1993), pp. 64-65. Eric Werner, “Traces of Jewish Hagiolatry,” Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980): 39-60.

devoured our martyrs....”

EL MELEKH

* Max Arzt, Justice and Mercy: Commentary on the Liturgy of the New Year and the Day of Atonement (New York, 1963), pp. 253-257.

faithful king”), a phrase interposed in the Babylonian and Ashkenazi rites (but not the Sephardi and Habad) between the *Ahavah Rabbah blessing and the recitation of the *Shema‘; its initial letters form the word *amen. The phrase may have been introduced in order to preface the Shema‘ with the basic idea of divine kingship, which does not occur in the Shema‘ itself. Some authors explain that the words El melekh ne’eman are added to the Shema‘ based on the Midrashic view that there must be 248 words in it (Tanhuma’ [Buber] Leviticus 37b-38a with note 25), to correspond to the 248 parts that, according to the rabbis, made up the human body. It is recited only when the Shema‘ is said in private prayer. (In public prayer, the first three words of the third paragraph of the Shema‘ are repeated to bring the number of

-GABRIEL

ELLU

DEVARIM

SHE-’EIN

(aww ond pruomatibN;

LAHEM

“These

A. SIVAN

SHITUR

are

the

things without measure”), the opening words of a composite paragraph in the Morning Blessings (Birkhot ha-Shahar) with which the daily liturgy begins; the passages cited are Mishnah Pe’ah 1.1 and Shabbat 127a. “Things without measure” refers to activities prescribed by the law. A minimum level of compliance with these things is sometimes fixed, but the maximum is to be determined by the generosity of the individual. Among these are the portion of the harvest left behind for the poor (pe’ah), according to Leviticus 23.22; the practice of benevolence, including personal service as well as charity for the needy; and the study of the Torah, which may be pursued both day and night, according to Joshua 1.8. Next are enumerated various activities that both promote

NE’EMAN (8) 972 28; “God,

words up to 248.) The old Palestinian rite, instead of

El melekh ne’eman, has blessings proclaiming God’s kingship and unity that are recited before performing a ritual commandment.

EL MELEKH

¢ Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, 1993), p. 20. Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud (Berlin, 1977), p. 161. —PETER LENHARDT

EL NORA’ ‘ALILAH (7°5y 874) 58; God, Whose Deeds

Are

Awesome),

a selihah

(see

SELIHOT)

in

the *Ne‘ilah service for Yom Kippur, by Moshe ibn Ezra. Each of the seven stanzas concludes with a reference to the “closing of the gates,” an allusion to ' the practice of closing the portals of the Jerusalem Temple at nightfall. The poet prays that by that moment,

which

marks

the

end

of Yom

Kippur,

the community’s repentance may be complete and acceptable to God. This selihah, originally recited only in the Sephardi rite, has been incorporated into a number of Ashkenazi prayer books, and likewise into the Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Reform

liturgies. * Lawrence A. Hoffman, ed., Gates of Understanding: Shaare Binah, vol. 2,

Appreciating the Days of Awe, with notes by Chaim Stern and A. Stanley Dreyfus (New York, 1984), pp. 152, 227. Abraham Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York, 1967), pp. 247, 294. -A. STANLEY DREYFUS

ELOHIM.

See Gop, NAMES oF.

(S15), sixth month in the religious calendar;

twelfth and last in the civil. It has twenty-nine days and its zodiac sign is Virgo. The name is Babylonian in origin and first occurs in Nehemiah 6.15. During Temple times, messengers would travel from Jerusalem to the Diaspora to announce the date of the new moon of Elul so that the following new moon, *Ro’sh ha-Shanah

(the month

almost natural process, like the emanation of rays from the sun. Doctrines of emanation generally suppose a higher degree of affinity, or even a substantial

of Tishrei), could be

accurately determined. Elul is a month of repentance and preparation for Yom Kippur. In the Ashkenazi rite the *shofar is sounded throughout the month of Elul after the Shaharit service (except on Sabbaths and the eve of the New Year) in order to inspire a mood of penitence. Sephardi Jews call Elul the month of mercy and recite *selihot nightly throughout the month; Ashkenazim start their recitation of selihot on

the Saturday evening preceding the New Year (unless the New Year falls on Monday or Tuesday, in which case the recitation of selihot is commenced a week earlier). ¢ Nathan Bushwick, Understanding the Jewish Calendar (New York, 1989).

Ellen Robbins, “Studies in the Prehistory of the Jewish Calendar,” Ph.D. thesis, New York University, 1989. George Zinberg, Jewish Calendar Mystery Dispelled (New York, 1963). -CHAIM PEARL

EMANATION, the process by which entities (personal or impersonal) proceed directly from a higher to a lower entity. Unlike the act of creation, which is defined as an act of will of a personal Creator, emanation is often conceived as an impersonal and

identity,

between

the various

forms

of

being—they may be higher or lower, spiritual or material, but ultimately all derive from a single source—whereas the doctrine of creation implies an essential discontinuity between the Creator and all other beings. Doctrines of emanation are prominent in *gnosticism, *Neoplatonism, and various mystical systems. Since medieval philosophy was_ heavily influenced by both Neoplatonic and Aristotelian doctrines, different theories were held by different thinkers regarding the emanation of lower levels of being (e.g., the sublunar universe) from higher ones (e.g., the celestial

spheres).

These

views,

however,

referred to the created universe, contradicting Greek philosophical, especially Neoplatonic, traditions. Religious Orthodoxy insisted that the universe as such was “created out of nothing” (see also CosMoLoGy).

The chief works

of Jewish mysticism,

namely kabbalistic literature, combined and Neoplatonic elements, developing an doctrine

ELOHIST SOURCE (EB), one of the originally separate documents from which the Torah was composed in the view of critical biblical scholarship. It was socalled because it refers to God as Elohim. See also BIBLE. -BARUCH J. SCHWARTZ ELUL

EMANCIPATION

242

NE’EMAN

of emanation

gnostic esoteric

(*atsilut) as an inner-divine

process describing the complex structure of the one deity—reminiscent in some ways of the Christian Trinity. The kabbalistic doctrine of emanation is concerned with the procession of the “divine worlds” rather than with the origin of the cosmos as a whole, and it describes the fullness of the manifest Godhead (*sefirot) as it emerges from the hidden depths of *Ein Sof. The symbolic and speculative elucidation of the nature and character of this process is one of the main themes of theoretical kabbalistic literature (e.g.,

in the *Zohar and in the works of *Cordovero). Whether emanation sphere of the divine or whether the lower worlds is a matter of kabbalistic schools.

Moshe ben Ya‘aqov is restricted to the it also extends to controversy among

¢ David B. Burrell, “Creation or Emanation: Two Paradigms of Reason,” in God and Creation, edited by D. Burrell and B. McGinn (Notre Dame, 1990), pp. 27-37. William Dunphy, “Maimonides’ Not-So-Secret Position

on Creation,” in Moses Maimonides and His Time, edited by E. Ormsby (Washington, D.C., 1989), pp. 151-172. Elliot K. Ginsburg, “The Image of

the Divine and Person in Zoharic Kabbalah,” in In Search of the Divine, edited by Larry Shinn (New York, 1987), pp. 61-94. Lenn E. Goodman, ed., Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (Albany, 1992).

EMANCIPATION. Jews in medieval Europe were limited by laws that forbade them to be employed in most trades or to own land, and they required special permission to move into a new geographic area. The impact of Enlightenment thinking in the eighteenth century led to a transformation of Jewish identity, with the opportunity for mixing more in greater European society, and this in turn led to challenges with regard to religious reform and acculturation. Emancipation happened in the United States as a matter of course, thanks in part to the Enlightenment

thinking of the founding fathers. The first document to grant Jews full equality was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson

EMANCIPATION

243

and approved by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786; the Constitution of the United States was adopted three years later, in 1789. In France, the “Jewish question” had a more contentious history. A special decree in January 1790 granted equality to the ten thousand somewhat assimilated Sephardic Jews who had come to France to escape the Inquisition. The thirty thousand Yiddishspeaking, and totally unassimilated, Jews who lived in eastern France represented more of a challenge for French egalitarianism, but they too were brought into citizenship under Napoléon (see ASSEMBLY OF JEWISH NOTABLES; CONSISTOIRE; SANHEDRIN, FRENCH). For European Jews, Emancipation raised fundamental questions about religious identity and inner life. Tensions appeared between those who preferred a gentler version of their existing life and those who wished to pursue a more integrated European identity. This was a point of conflict for Jews first in France, then throughout western Europe. Eastern Europe had to await the fall of the tsar in 1917 before Jews in Russia and the Russian empire (including Poland) were emancipated and received civil rights. In the Muslim world, European colonial powers spread Emancipation to some countries, but in more distant

parts, such as Yemen, the Jews were only emancipated when they moved to the State of Israel, which itself

represented a new achievement: the appearance of a Jewish nation among the nations of the world. The struggle for Emancipation had been closely connected to the struggle for religious freedom and the separation between church and state. Emancipation led to far-reaching changes in Jewish social and religious life. The Jews now had to face the challenge

of living in two of external

worlds.

With

the ‘disappearance

forces that had unified the community,

secularization and “assimilation set in and many Jews converted

to Christianity,

more

of them

out of the

desire to join the majority society than out of religious conviction. *Reform Judaism was founded on the one hand to provide an alternative for those Jews who found traditional Judaism incompatible with modernity and on the other in the conviction that Emancipation and liberalism heralded a messianic age. The Talmudic rule *dina’ de-malkhuta’ dina’ was comprehensively reinterpreted by the reformers, and laws maintaining Jewish exclusiveness were jettisoned. Even Orthodoxy was influenced by the Emancipation, and *Neo-Orthodoxy was based on the principle that strict Orthodoxy was compatible with complete social participation in the cultural and civic spheres of national life. With Emancipation and consequent acculturation the nature of Jewish identity changed radically, and the comparatively monolithic Jewish historical identity now gave way to a variety of forms of identification. See JEw, WHO Is a?, CONTROVERSY; PLURALISM, RELIGIOUS. e Shmuel Ettinger, “The Modern Period,” in A History ofthe Jewish People, edited by Haim H. Ben-Sasson (Cambridge, Mass., 1976) pp. 727-1096. Arthur Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (New York, 1968). Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto: The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation

EMET VE--EMUNAH AND EMET VE-YATSIV

(Cambridge, Mass., 1973). Michael A. Meyer, The Origins of the Modern Jew: Jewish Identity and European Culture in Germany, 1749-1824 (Detroit, 1967) -ARTHUR HERTZBERG, REVISED BY MAXINE L. GROSSMAN.

EMDEN, and

YA‘SAQOV (1697-1776),

authority;

known

as

rabbinic scholar

Yavets,

an

acronym

of

Ya‘aqov ben Tsevi. Born in Altona, where he lived most of his life, Emden was greatly influenced by the Torah studies and anti-Shabbatean polemical activities of his father Tsevi Hirsch *Ashkenazi. Emden was a preeminent scholar who produced an extensive literary oeuvre covering virtually all aspects of Jewish intellectual creativity including commentaries on the Bible (lost), the Mishnah (including a separate volume on Avot), the Talmud (in manuscript), the siddur, and the Shulhan ‘Arukh almost four hundred responsa; a major ethical tract; a book on grammar; several sermons; and an autobiography called Megillat Sefer (1896). He played a major role in the eighteenthcentury battle against Shabbateanism. In the last two and a half decades of his life, he became obsessed with exposing any vestiges of that generally

subterranean movement, motivated perhaps in part by the presence of Shabbateanism within his own immediate family. In 1751 he accused R. Yonatan *Eybeschuetz,

recently

elected

chief

rabbi

of the

neighboring communities of Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbek and one of the leading rabbinic figures of his generation, of being a clandestine follower of *Shabbetai Tsevi. This extremely serious charge, effectively one of heresy, gave rise to an intense, bitter, and repercussive controversy. Local secular authorities and the Danish monarch were drawn by both sides into the conflict, as were leading rabbis from across the Jewish world. Emden lived long enough to witness the emergence of the *Haskalah. Unlike some of his more traditional colleagues, he shared some of the openness to secular culture found in that movement headed by his acquaintance Moses *Mendelssohn. At the same time, Emden rejected its fundamental assumptions and vehemently opposed its effect on his contemporaries. e

Yehuda

Liebes,

le-Shabbeta’ut,”

R. Yehonatan Jacob

“Meshihiyyuto

Tarbiz

49

shel

R. Ya‘aqgov

(1979-1980):

122-165.

Eybeschutz ve-Yahaso el ha-Shabbeta’ut

J. Schacter,

“Rabbi

Jacob

Emden:

Emden Moshe

ve-Yahaso Perlmutter,

(Jerusalem,

Life and Major Works,”

1947). Ph.D.

dissertation, Harvard University, 1988. Azriel Schochat, ‘Im Hilufei Tequfot (Jerusalem, 1960). Avraham H. Wagenaar, Toledot Yavets (Amsterdam, 1868; repr. Lublin, 1880). -JACOB J. SCHACTER

EMET

VE--EMUNAH

(2-87 MN

|7VIN1 NIX;

AND True

EMET

VE-YATSIV

and

Trustworthy;

True and Firm), openings of the *Ge’ullah blessing recited after the three paragraphs of the *Shema‘ in the evening and morning service respectively. The Talmud Bavli states that whoever does not recite Emet ve-Yatsiv in the morning and Emet ve- Emunah in the evening has not fulfilled his obligations (Ber. 12a). These prayers were already recited in the Temple service (Tam. 5.1; Ber. 2.2). No interruption may be made between the end of the preceding third

EMET VE-EMUNAH

paragraph of the Shema‘ and the first words of these prayers (Ber. 2.2, 9b, 14a-b). The evening formulation differs from the morning one in accord with the biblical phrase “to proclaim... your faithfulness each night” (Ps. 92.2). The prayer professes the eternal truth of divine revelation and faith in the unity of God. * Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, 1993), pp. 21-22, 86-87.

;

-PETER LENHARDT

EMISSARY.

EMUNAH.

See SHALIAH.

The Second Book of Enoch is a composite work, preserved only in two different Slavonic versions, clearly derived from a Greek version, which may in turn have been a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic original. The date and place of composition are difficult to determine, and while an Egyptian Jew living in the first century BCE or CE would be a likely

END OF DAYS. See ESCHATOLOGY. See BETROTHAL.

ENLIGHTENMENT. ENOCH

See HAsKALAH.

(Heb. Hanokh),

the name

of two

biblical

figures. The earlier Enoch (for whom the first city was named; Gn. 4.17-18) was the eldest son of Cain and

father The father sixty

of Trad. next known Enoch was the son of Jared and of Methuselah. Enoch lived “three hundred and five years, and ... he walked with God

and he was

not, for God

took him”

(Gn. 5.21-24).

This enigmatic statement describing his death was interpreted in later literature as symbolizing his miraculous

ascension

alive

to

heaven,

where

he

enjoyed a close relationship with God (Gn. 5.18-19, 21-24). See also ENOCH, BOOKS OF. ¢ James C. VanderKam, Enoch, A Man for All Generations (Columbia, S.C.,

2008).

ENOCH,

—-SHALOM

BOOKS

Jewish people, from the Creation to the final judgment. One of these historically minded apocalypses, the socalled “Animal Apocalypse,” clearly was written in the wake of the Hasmonean revolt (see HASMONEANS) and is therefore contemporaneous with the Book of “Daniel. Several sections of 1 Enoch have exerted a considerable influence not only on some of its (chronologically) later sections, but also on such works as the Book of *Jubilees and on some of the texts found among the *Dead Sea Scrolls. The popularity of this Enochic corpus is also attested by its mention in the *New Testament (Letter of Jude 14).

See FAItu.

ENGAGEMENT.

ENOCH, BOOKS OF

244

AND EMET VE-YATSIV

PAUL

OF, literary works supposed to

have been written by, or at the time of, *Enoch, Son

of Jared, who—though of minor significance in the Bible—seems to have captured the imagination of the Bible’s early readers. Enoch is reported to have “walked with God” and to have been “taken” by God (Gn. 5.24). The latter phrase was the starting point of many Second Temple period traditions concerning Enoch’s heavenly journey. The First Book of Enoch is preserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic, but Greek and Latin fragments are also extant, and numerous fragments of the original Aramaic text(s) were found among the *Dead Sea

Scrolls. It is a composite work made up of several different sections, whose dates of composition range from the third century BcE to the first century CE. Parts of 7 Enoch recount events in Enoch’s life, including

his involvement in the account of the fallen angels who were expelled from heaven, a story based in part on Genesis 6.1-4. Other sections of 1 Enoch contain apocalyptic revelations (see APOCALYPSE), in some of which Enoch is taken on heavenly and earthly journeys and is taught the secrets of the universe, and in others of which he sees symbolic scenarios depicting the history of the world, and especially of the

author, a later Christian author cannot be ruled out.

In the first part of the book, Enoch describes the heavenly tour on which he was taken, and during which

he learned

the secrets

of the universe,

and

exhorts his children to behave righteously and to observe various moral and halakhic precepts. This section ends with Enoch’s translation to heaven. The second part of the work describes events following Enoch’s death, including Methuselah’s service as a priest, the miraculous birth of Melchizedek, and the Flood. The Third Book of Enoch is a composite Hebrew work extant in several different recensions and probably compiled in the sixth or seventh century CE in Erets Yisra’el or in Babylonia. It describes the ascent of R. *Yishma‘e'l ben Elisha‘ to heaven and his encounter with the archangel Metatron, who recounts how he was originally called Enoch and was taken into heaven where he was transformed into an angel. Enoch-Metatron takes R. Yishma‘e’] around heaven and reveals to him the secrets of the universe and of the angelic world. In its style and subject matter, 3 Enoch clearly belongs with the so-called *Heikhalot literature, with its many descriptions of God’s heavenly court and the hierarchies of the angelic world and their daily liturgies and with its pseudonymous ascription of such traditions to important tannaitic figures such as R. Yishma‘e’l. e

Philip

S.

Alexander,

“3

(Hebrew

Apocalypse

of) Enoch,”

Francis

I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” and Ephraim Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Qld Testament Pseudpigrapha, edited

by James

H.

Charlesworth,

vol.

1 (Garden

City,

N.Y.,

1983),

pp. 223-315, 91-221, 5-89. Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 7 (Leiden, 1985). Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken

Judentums

und

des Urchristentums,

Bd.

14 (Leiden,

1980).

David J. Halperin, The Faces ofthe Chariot, Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 16 (Tiibingen, 1988). Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York and Oxford, 1993). George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, / Enoch: A New Translation, Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis, 2004). Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of IEnoch, Early Judaism and Its Literature, no. 4 (Atlanta, 1993). James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series 16 (Washington, D.C., 1984), -GIDEON BOHAK

ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT.

245 See Eco ocy.

EQUITY

EPITAPH.

EPHOD, in the Torah, one of the ceremonial “priestly vestments, namely, the elaborate, apronlike outer garment described in Exodus 28.6-12 and 39.2-7 to be worn by Aaron, the high priest. Its two shoulder straps bore two lapis lazuli stones encased in golden frames; upon each stone were engraved the names of six of the tribes of Israel. Thus, the high priest symbolically represented the entire Israelite people when ministering “before the Lord” (Ex. 28.12). Two more golden frames, each with a golden chain descending from it, were attached to the shoulder straps; on these, the breastpiece containing the Urim and Thummim (see ORACLES) was suspended. The high priest’s robe, worn together with the ephod, is also referred to as “the robe of the ephod” (Ex. 28.31, 29.5).

In the remaining books of the Bible, the term ephod refers to some unspecified religious article. Sometimes it appears to be a garment, such as the linen ephod worn by Samuel (/ S172. 2.18) and by David (2 Sm. 6.14), which was not like the costly and intricate ephod of the high priest. Elsewhere, it is certainly nota vestment at all but an object of worship (V/gs. 8.27, 17.5,

See Tomes.

EPSTEIN,

JACOB

of Talmud

and

‘Amora’im (1962).

(Heb.

Efrayim),

Joseph’s

second

son,

born in Egypt; his mother was Asenath, daughter of Potipherah, priest of On (Gn. 41.50-52, 46.20). Before

scholar Litovsk,

of the Mishnah. Two other preparatory works of his on the Mishnah were published posthumously, Mevo’ot le-Sifrut ha-Tanna’im (1957) and Mevo’ot le-Sifrut ha¢

EPHRAIM

in Brest

volume work, Mavo'le-Nusah ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1948), which identified and cataloged discrete strands

18.14, 18.17) or an article for divination (/ Sm. 23.9,

Ephod, and the “Tent of Meeting” (Cincinnati, 1945). Tsevi Natanzon, Hoshen ve-Efod (Bene Beraq, 1992). -BARUCH J. SCHWARTZ

(1878-1952),

Born

Poland, he received traditional religious training in eastern Europe before moving on to university study in Vienna and Bern. After earning his doctorate in Bern in 1912, Epstein published extensively in German over the next decade in the fields of geonic and Talmudic philology. In 1915 Epstein also began work on a monumental project: the production of a critical edition of the Mishnah. In 1923 Epstein began to teach at the Hochschule fiir die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. Two years later he was appointed to a professorship in Talmudic philology at the fledgling Institute of Jewish Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In his opening lecture in Jerusalem, Epstein reiterated the need for a critical edition of the Mishnah. Though he never completed this task, he did publish a major two-

30.7; Hos. 3.4). Although the exact meaning of the word ephod is unknown, it has Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Syrian cognates. * Paul Carus, The Oracle of Yahveh: Urim and Thummim, the Ephod, the Breastplate of Judgement (Chicago, 1911). Julian Morgenstern, The Ark, the

NAHUM

rabbinics.

Baruch M. Bosker, “Jacob N. Epstein’s /ntroduction to the Text of the

Mishnah,” and “Jacob N. Epstein on the Formation of the Mishnah,” in The Modern Study of the Mishnah, edited by Jacob Neusner, Studia Post-Biblica, vol. 23 (Leiden, 1973), pp. 13-26, 37-55. Moshe Schwabe et al., Le-Zikhro shel Prof. Ya'aqgov Nahum Epshtain (Jerusalem, 1952). -DAVID

N. MYERS

EPSTEIN, YEHIEL MIKHAL (1829-1908), rabbi and halakhic authority. He was born in Bobruisk, Belorussia, and studied in Volozhin under R. Yitshaq of Volozhin.

In 1874

he was

appointed

rabbi

of

Novogrudok, Belorussia, where he remained until his

his death, *Jacob counted his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh as his own heirs, which later led

death. Epstein’s fame rests with his ‘Arukh ha-Shulhan

to their

utilizes the framework

status

as

independent

tribes,

and

blessed

(1884-1907),

a comprehensive code of Jewish law that

of the *Shulhan

‘Arukh. In

them both with fertility. He also placed his right hand on the head of the younger son, Ephraim, thereby granting him priority over his older brother,

his introduction,

Manasseh

therefore, “anxiety and confusion have reappeared, particularly in this lowly generation in which there are

(Gn.

48). Moses,

too, in his blessings to

the tribes before his death, blessed both Ephraim and Manasseh with fertility and recognized Ephraim’s priority over Manasseh (Dt. 33.13-17). Ephraim’s dominance over Manasseh in these blessings probably reflects the historical reality of early Manassehite numerical, political, or cultic superiority, which was

later superseded by the Ephraimite tribe. After the conquest of Canaan, the tribe of Ephraim received territory in the hills of Samaria. It was the tribe of *Joshua and the site of Shiloh, the sanctuary

where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. It also took the lead in splitting the kingdom after the death

of Solomon. Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim was the first king of the northern kingdom, which was sometimes known as Ephraim (cf. Js. 7.17). ¢ Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary 1989), pp. 289, 315, 324-330. -SIMEON

(Philadelphia, B. CHAVEL

Epstein wrote

that many

difficult

legal issues had arisen in the three hundred years since

the publication

of the Shulhan

‘Arukh,

and,

few students of Torah.” Epstein, therefore, undertook

to compose a work that would summarize and amplify the opinions of the Shulhan ‘Arukh and present and decide among the various opinions advanced since its publication. Epstein also codified material relating to the Temple period and Erets Yisra’el in his ‘Arukh haShulhan he-‘Atid (published posthumously from 1938 to 1969). ¢ Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, (Philadelphia, 1994), vol. 3, pp. 1448-1450. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, Megor Barukh, 4 vols. (Vilna, 1928), vol. 3, pp. 1163-1173.

-ADAM

MINTZ

EQUITY, the principle that governs the application of law to specific cases and ensures that fair results are reached. Its primary application is in civil rather than ritual law. Among the most significant principles used

by Jewish law to encourage fairness is the concept of lifenim mi-shurat ha-din, “beyond the letter of the law,” which allows a beit din to encourage, and in some cases

compel, activity that is not normally considered legally obligatory in the name of equity. Other principles used to advance fairness include the *tagqanah, *herem beit din, *minhag, and *dinei shamayim. * Aaron Kirschenbaum, Equity in Jewish Law: Halakhic Perspectives in Law: Formalism and Flexibility in Jewish Civil Law (New York, 1992). Aaron

Kirschenbaum, Equity in Jewish Law: Beyond Equity: Halakhic Aspirationism in Jewish Civil Law (New York, 1992).

ERETS

"-EREYV

246

EQUITY

—~MICHAEL

BROYDE

YISRA’EL (ONU PIN; Land of Israel),

traditional name,

since rabbinic times, of the land promised by God to Abraham and his descendants (hence, it was also called the Promised Land) and referred to as such in Ezekiel 40.2 and 47.18. The land was never occupied to the full extent of the frontiers indicated in the patriarchal covenant (Gn. 15.18-21). Other boundaries are described in Numbers 34.12 and in various biblical and Talmudic sources. The land was to be dedicated to the worship of God as its ultimate owner (Lv. 25.23) and was considered a divine gift, an

expression of God’s love for his people to be held by them as a sacred trust. It would cast them out if they followed the idolatrous and immoral practices of the peoples who had previously occupied it (Lv. 18.24~29). Israel’s acknowledgment of this relationship was expressed through such rites as the bringing of the *first fruits (Dt. 26.1-11), the institutions of the *shemittah and *yovel, and classified in Talmudic

literature as “commandments dependent on the Land” (Qid. 1.9), to be observed only in Erets Yisra’el, as opposed to the “commandments of the person” (Sifrei on Dt. 12.1), such as the Sabbath, dietary laws, and ethical precepts, which were applicable everywhere. Talmudic law, probably to maintain the economic viability of Jewish agriculture in the face of ruinous taxation imposed by the Roman authorities, restricted the application of the *agrarian laws to those areas that had been settled by the exiles who returned to Zion during the Second Temple period. The rabbis (Hag. 3b; Yev. 82b) reasoned that the “first sanctity” deriving from the biblical conquest had automatically lapsed with the destruction of the Temple and the

for the dead and the exclusive locale for prophesy. The religious supremacy of Erets Yisra’el scholars and congregations, irrespective of their erudition or numbers, was to be recognized by Jews everywhere (Hor.

51a).

The

insistence

of the Talmud

the

therefore, be written even on the Sabbath (by a nonJew, B. Q. 80b), and spouses may be compelled to follow their partners to reside in Erets Yisra’el. Refusal to do so was a reason for divorce and forfeiture of the marriage settlement (Ket. 110a). The enforced *exile from Erets Yisra’el after 70 CE was regarded as the greatest calamity to befall the people, and numerous expressions of mourning were introduced into the liturgy and religious practice to express longing for the land. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, persecution and growing insecurity in western Europe

prompted a wave of immigration to Erets Yisra’el led by prominent rabbis. However, other authorities maintained that in view of the dangers of travel and the difficulties involved in fulfilling the agrarian commandments the religious duty to reside in Erets Yisra’el no longer applied. Nevertheless, religious authorities have generally adopted a highly positive attitude toward resettling Erets Yisra’el or, failing that, toward visiting it on *pilgrimage. Nahmanides regarded the duty to dwell in Erets Yisra’el as a positive biblical commandment applicable for all time. Those buried in the Diaspora would try to have a bag of soil from Erets Yisra’el put in their grave. Classical *Reform Judaism, which regarded Judaism purely as a monotheistic, ethical religion with no national or territorial ingredient, accepted Diaspora existence as normative and deleted from its prayer books all references to a return to Erets Yisra’el. Contemporary Reform has reintroduced these formulas. The traditional and Conservative prayer books have always been centered on Erets Yisra’el: for example, the prayers for rain and dew (see TEFILLAT GESHEM; TEFILLAT TAL) are said in conjunction with

the appropriate season in Erets Yisra’el. What may be regarded as a theology of the Holy Land was developed in the medieval period by *Yehuda ha-

exile. The “second sanctity,” however, was viewed as

Levi, as well as by kabbalists

permanent, since it stemmed not from conquest but from legal possession exercised under the mandate granted by Cyrus (2 Chr. 36.22-23). It excluded such areas as Beth-shean in the Jordan Valley and the Gaza region. The agrarian laws have only rabbinic authority since their biblical validity depended on the majority of the Jewish people residing in the

recent times, particularly,

land (Ket. 25a). These rabbinic rulings enabled Jewish farmers to work their fields during the sabbatical year,

on

sanctity of the land was prompted by a desire to promote settlement and discourage emigration. A title deed to land purchased in Erets Yisra’el may,

ha-Kohen

and mystics,

by R. Avraham

and

in

Yitshaq

Kook (see Kook FAMILY), whose disciples

inspired *Religious Zionism, which has promoted the resettlement of Erets Yisra’el within its biblical boundaries. See also ZIONISM. ¢ Meir Bar-Ilan and Shelomo Y. Zevin, eds., Otsar Erets Yisra’el, new ed. (Jerusalem, 1987). Martin Buber, Bein ‘Am le-‘Artso (Jerusalem, 1944).

Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion ofIsrael, translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (New York, 1972). Zev Vilnay, Ari’el: Entsiglopedyah li-Yedi‘at Erets Yisra’el (Tel Aviv, 1984). Zvi Yaron, The Philosophy of Rabbi Kook,

a precedent followed in modern Israel by those who strictly observe the agrarian laws. In contrast, Erets Yisra’el within its biblical boundaries possessed an

English version by Avner Tomaschoff (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 208ff. on Erets Yisra’el. Yosef Zahavi, Erets Israel in Rabbinic Lore, translated by Aryeh Newman (Jerusalem, 1962), ~ARYEH NEWMAN

intrinsic sanctity (Jl. 4.2; cf. Kel. 1.2) that made it a

“EREV (37D; eve), in popular

preferred place of residence for the living and of burial

ceding the beginning

usage,

the day pre-

of a holy day (so that ‘erev

“ERBV

247

Shabbat is a Friday and ‘erev yom tov before a festival). It is the eve inasmuch in the Jewish *calendar commences with period of holiness is inaugurated some

is the day as the day sunset. The time before

sunset, and in Temple times (as in the State of Israel

today) the shofar was sounded as a signal to cease work. The rabbis also advised people to eat lightly on the eves of Sabbaths and festivals so as to derive the maximum enjoyment from the evening meal. The Tahanun prayer is omitted from the afternoon service on the eves of Sabbaths and festivals. On the eve of Ro’sh ha-Shanah,

selihot are recited (including a

special one for this occasion—*Zekhor Berit). The eve of Yom Kippur is a time for eating and also for asking forgiveness from others who may have been offended during the past year. The eve of Pesah is *Ta‘anit Bekhorim; the eve of Ro’sh Hodesh is observed by some as a fast called *Yom Kippur Qatan. ¢ Robert Gordis, “An Unrecognized Biblical Use of Ereb,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 107-108.

ERUSIN.

“ERUV

—-CHAIM

PEARL

See BETROTHAL; MARRIAGE.

(2372; blending), the general term for three

types of rabbinic enactments intended to promote the sanctity of the Sabbath. The first type is known as ‘eruv tehumim (‘eruv of boundaries), a legal device intended

to ease certain Sabbath restrictions of rabbinic (but

never of biblical) origin. According to the rabbinic interpretation of Exodus

16.29-30, which commands

“each man to sit in his place” on the Sabbath, there is no biblical prohibition on walking outside the limits of one’s place of residence on the Sabbath unless this distance exceeds twelve miles. Rabbinic law, however, places the limit at two thousand cubits (about twothirds of a mile) from the point where the more heavily populated area of a locality ends. The rabbis permitted a person to go another two thousand cubits provided he had, before the Sabbath, placed food for two meals

at the end of the first two thousand cubits. The location of the food would then, in theory, be considered his

place of residence for the Sabbath, thus permitting him to go another two thousand cubits from that point. Hence it became possible to walk from one town to another whenever the distance between the two was less than four thousand cubits. An extension

ESAU

join all their houses into a single dwelling by each contributing some food to be placed in one of the houses belonging to the courtyard. This “common” eating place makes it permissible to carry objects in the whole courtyard. The same procedure makes it possible to carry objects from all the courtyards into a common alleyway enclosed on at least three sides (and symbolically on a fourth), except that the food is placed not in the alleyway but in one of the courtyards. The name of this type of ‘eruwv is Shitufei mova’ot (partnership of alleyways). The third type of ‘erzv is called ‘erwv tavshilin (eruv of cooking) and is intended to safeguard the eminence of the Sabbath when preceded by a festival day. Ordinarily one may cook on a festival day only for that day. However, when such a day precedes the Sabbath, one is permitted to cook on that day for the Sabbath

(since one may not cook on the Sabbath),

provided one has symbolically begun the Sabbath preparation on the day preceding the festival by setting aside something cooked and something baked for the Sabbath and making an appropriate blessing. The laws are discussed in tractate *“Eruvin. ¢ Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas, 2d ed. (Skokie, Ill., 1995). Elimelech Lange, Hilkhot ‘Eruvin (Jerusalem, 1972).

Zekharyah Yehi’el ben Avigad Shar‘abi, Sefer Yavo’ Shiloh (Jerusalem).

“ERUVIN

(77299; Blendings),

tractate

in Mishnah

order Mo‘ed, consisting of ten chapters, with related material in the Tosefta’ and in both Talmuds. ‘Eruv is a term for various practices associated with the laws of Sabbath and festivals. “Eruvin discusses the definition of a partition, which establishes a domain

as private and permits carrying therein, followed by the laws governing two forms of ‘eruvin: ‘eruv hatserot and ‘eruv tavshilin (see “ERUV). The tractate was translated into English by I. W. Slotki in the Soncino Talmud (London, 1938). ¢

Chanoch

Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah,

1952). Philip Blackman,

Seder Mo‘ed (Jerusalem,

ed. and trans., Mishnayot,

vol. 2, Order Mo‘ed

(Gateshead, 1973). Pinhas Kehati, ed., Mishnah: A New Translation with a Commentary, Seder Mo‘ed, vol. 1, Shabbat, ‘Eruvin (Jerusalem, 1990). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992). -AVRAHAM WALFISH

ESAU

(Heb. ‘Esav), elder son of *Isaac and *Rebekah

stringing of a wire (attached to posts) round a whole

and twin brother of *Jacob. The personalities of Jacob and Esau in the Book of Genesis symbolize the biblical view of the character and origin of the two nations

area or town, which is then considered a single domain

of Israel and Edom,

within which carrying is permitted. Every city in Israel is surrounded with such an ‘eruv, and many Diaspora communities have also erected them. The second type of ‘erwv is called ‘eruv hatserot (‘eruv of courtyards). According to biblical law, one may carry things on the Sabbath from a house into a courtyard even if many other houses open onto it: as long as the courtyard is enclosed, it is considered a private domain. To promote the sanctity of the Sabbath, however, the rabbis prohibit such carrying unless the inhabitants of the courtyard symbolically

background but developed an enmity toward each other (Jacob is identified with Israel in Gn. 32.25-29 and Esau with Edom in Gn. 36.1). Esau is depicted

of this, ‘eruv reshuyyot (‘eruv of domains), permits the

which

derived from a similar

as a hunter (Gn. 25.27) who sells his birthright to Jacob (Gn. 25.28-34). His anger at Jacob for having obtained their father Isaac’s blessing through cunning results in Jacob’s flight to Haran (Gn. 27); but on Jacob’s return twenty years later, Esau shows only friendliness (Gn. 32). At the age of forty, Esau married two Hittite women and later the daughter of Ishmael (Gn. 26.34, 28.9). The rabbis depict Esau as the

epitome of wildness and lust for power; the name Esau (or Edom) is used as an eponym for Rome and in medieval Hebrew literature for any anti-Jewish regime, Christianity in particular. e E. Langer, ed., Esau—Bruder und Feind (Gottingen, 2009). Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 177-182.

-SHALOM

PAUL

ESCHATOLOGY, doctrines concerning the fate of human beings after death (individual eschatology; see AFTERLIFE) or beliefs about the end of history (collective or cosmic eschatology). The word is derived from the Greek eschaton (end).

The

ESCHATOLOGY

248

ESAU

united

kingdom

under

David

and

Solomon

(1000-922) could be seen as the fulfillment of God’s

covenant with Israel: Israel lived in peace and prosperity in the land promised to its fathers. But with the division of the kingdom, ongoing wars with neighbors and enemy incursions, as well as social and moral corruption, life for the Israelites looked much less golden. Amos, the first of the classical prophets (mid-eighth cent. BCE), provides the earliest biblical evidence for the expectation of a coming Day of Judgment

(see Yom HA-DIN),

a “*Day of the

Lord” (Am. 5.18-20). The prophet rejects what was apparently the popular view of that day as the moment when the Lord would take vengeance on Israel’s enemies and grant his people the peace and prosperity they lacked. Rather he insists that the Day of the Lord is a day of judgment for the people of Israel as well. Later prophets follow Amos in claiming that God’s judgment would not spare the people of Israel, but they emphasized the subsequent restoration. Isaiah of Jerusalem, a younger contemporary active in Judah, the southern kingdom, from the middle of the eighth through the beginning of the seventh century BCE, suggests that a righteous remnant of the people of Israel will survive the judgment and enjoy the new age. Other prophets also pictured a future reconciliation between God and the whole people or a pious and holy remnant.

The sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE overturned the basic assumptions of the southern kingdom: the divine inviolability of the house of David, of the house of the Lord, the Temple, and the

City of the Lord, which was also the City of David. The prophet known as Deutero-Isaiah interpreted the conquest of Babylonia by the Persian king Cyrus in 538 BCE as an event fraught with eschatological significance. His prophetic interpretation seemed confirmed when Cyrus issued his decree permitting the exiles to return to their land and rebuild the Temple. But reality failed to measure up to the prophet’s high hopes. The new Temple was a sad sight for those who remembered

the first, and it stood in

the midst of a divided community ruled by a Persian governor rather than a descendant of David. The hope for the restoration of national sovereignty made eschatology a central concern of the Second Temple period as Hellenistic and Roman rulers

followed

the Persians,

with only a century of inde-

pendence under the Hasmoneans. Other subjects of the Hellenistic empire, particularly the Egyptians, produced prophecies about a new era in which a native king would be restored to the throne and proper order again established. Nevertheless, the content of Jewish

eschatology was unique, because it was embedded in biblical traditions and prophetic utterance. According to the eschatology of the Second Temple period, the course of history represented the unfolding of a plan determined by God. The Book of Daniel, for example, says that Israel had to be subjugated to four foreign kingdoms in succession before the establishment of “the kingdom of the holy ones of the Most High.” Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the enemy at the time of the book’s composition, is the last of the

kings of the last kingdom. In the Fourth Book of Ezra, written several centuries later, after the destruction of

the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, a vision identifies the Roman empire as the last of the four kingdoms. Responses to the belief in the imminent end of history were varied. The *Qumran community practiced an intensified version of the purity rules of the Bible. The earliest Christians introduced new practices in keeping with their belief that the Messiah had already appeared and inaugurated the end time. For

others,

the knowledge

that the end

was

near

inspired political and military action. According to Josephus, a number of messianic pretenders who led small groups of followers against the Romans toward the end of the Second Temple period and the Jewish revolt against the Romans from 66 to 70—which led to the destruction of the Second Temple—had eschatological components. The timing of the Bar Kokhba’ Revolt between 132 and 135 seems also to reflect eschatological expectation: since the Second Temple was rebuilt roughly seventy years after the First Temple was destroyed, some Jews believed that the time was ripe for the establishment of the third and final temple as the seventy-year mark from the destruction of the Second Temple approached. The belief in a future era of redemption is central to rabbinic thought, and it is expressed clearly in the liturgy of the synagogue as well as in rabbinic literature. The new era is always presided over by the *Messiah,

who

was

not

a constant

feature

of

the eschatological scenarios of the prophets and the authors of the Second Temple period. Still, the rabbis remained cautious, which is not surprising in light of the unhappy outcome of the revolts against Rome. While the end was certain to come, its coming could

not be forced by human beings. No unified picture of the end of time emerges

from

the literature.

Indeed,

Gershom

Scholem

has

suggested that there is a fundamental split in Jewish eschatology between “restorative” and “utopian” strands. The restorative strand comprises visions of an end that is possible in the world as we know it: Israel is established in its own land under a new Davidic king.

ESCHATOLOGY

249

The Utopian strand, on the other hand, is not limited by the world as it is: the lion lies down with the lamb and death is abolished. The third-century Babylonian rabbi Shemu’el insisted that the only difference between his age and the messianic era was that Israel would no longer be subjugated to the nations. He cites Deuteronomy 15.11, “The poor shall never cease from the midst of the land,” as proof of his anti-utopian position. Such a position is less of an incitement to messianic activity than a more Utopian one. Maimonides’ picture of the messianic era in his legal code, the Mishneh Torah, comes from Shemu’el: the Messiah will be recognized as such because he will succeed in restoring the Jews to their homeland and rebuilding the Temple; there will be nothing supernatural about what he accomplishes; anyone who fails to restore Israel to its biblical state is not the Messiah. Maimonides’ view is connected to his involvement in the controversy about a messianic pretender who had attracted many followers among the Jews of Yemen. The most important of the messianic claimants of the Middle Ages was *Shabbetai Tsevi. The ideology of the Shabbatean movement was derived from the kabbalistic thought of Yitshaq *Luria, who believed that creation involved a cataclysm in which sparks of the divine were dispersed into the created world. By observing the commandments, a pious Jew helped to restore these sparks from their exile. When the restoration was completed, the world would be perfected and the exile of the Jews ended together with the exile of the divine. In Poland a century later, the Shabbatean Ya‘aqov *Frank (1726-1791)

claimed to be the Messiah

and led his

followers to baptism in order to complete the work of Shabbetai Tsevi. The end of the twentieth century provides a striking example of the vitality of such expectations in some quarters. In the years before the death of their seventh

rebbi, Menahem

Mendel

Schneerson,

the Lubavitcher Hasidim undertook a campaign to encourage nonobservant Jews to perform various Jewish rituals in an effort to speed the raising of the fallen sparks so that the rebbi could manifest himself as the Messiah. Some continue to believe that he is the Messiah even after his death. The Reform movement suggests that there will not be one Messiah; rather humans will be raised to their messianic potential and thereby enjoy the fruits of a messianic era. * George W. Buchanan, Revelation and Redemption: Jewish Documents of Deliverance from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Death of Nahmanides (Dillsboro, Ind., 1978). John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix ofEarly Christianity (New York, 1984). John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York, 1995). Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn ofApocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, 1979). George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1927— 1932), vol. 2, pp. 323-376. Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit, 1979). E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism

(Philadelphia,

1985). Gershom

Gerhard

Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1961). Gershom Gerhard Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1971). Emil Schiirer, The History ofthe Jewish

People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and edited by Geza Vermes et al.

ESHET HAYIL

(Edinburgh, 1973-1987), vol. 2, pp. 488-554. Efraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, translated by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1975),

pp. 649-690,

-MARTHA HIMMELFARB

ESDRAS, BOOKS OF, several Jewish works in the Greek *Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. Esdras is the Greek form of the biblical name Ezra. In the Septuagint, and in current scholarship, / Esdras is the name given to a composite work containing materials from the biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and 2 Chronicles, as well as the extra-biblical story

of Zerubbabel’s wisdom as displayed in the court of Darius I, the Persian king. It remains uncertain when 1 Esdras was composed and whether it was originally written in Hebrew or in Greek; the book was used by

*Josephus Flavius, in approximately 90 cE. The Second Book of Esdras is the Hebrew Bible’s *Ezra-Nehemiah. In the Vulgate, / Esdras is the name given to the biblical Book of Ezra, 2 Esdras to the Book of Nehemiah,

and

3 Esdras

to the above-described

/

Esdras. The Fourth Book of Esdras, which today is often called 2 Esdras, when Ezra and Nehemiah

are

not counted as 1 and 2 Esdras, respectively, is a work that falls into three distinct sections. The Fourth Book of Esdras 3-14 (known today as 4 Ezra) is a complex apocalyptic work, originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Latin from a Greek translation (only fragments of which survive). Itis also preserved in several other languages, including Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian,

Georgian,

and Arabic. Written

shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, it reflects the confusion and desperation of Jews who lived through tumultous times and tried to reconcile their situation with the biblical promises for God’s chosen people. About half of the work is devoted to the dialogues of Ezra, distressed by the destruction of the First Temple, with the angel Uriel, who comforts him by expounding on the meaning of this apparent calamity and promising that the end and the Jews’ salvation are near. The second part of the work describes the complex symbolic visions revealed to Ezra, visions of Israel’s future oppression, followed by eschatological upheavals and finally salvation with the coming of the savior *Messiah. Chapters 1-2 of 4 Esdras (known today as 5 Ezra) and chapters 15-16 (6 Ezra) are later Christian additions and are among

the numerous Christian texts that bear Esdras’s name. ¢ R. J. Coggins and Michael A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras, The Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge, 1979). Bruce M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (Garden City, N.Y., 1983), pp. 516-559. Jacob M. Myers, J and II Esdras, The Anchor Bible, vol. 42 (New York, 1974). Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis, 1990). -GIDEON BOHAK

ESHET

HAYIL (6°97 nUX; A Woman of Worth),

alphabetical acrostic from Proverbs 31.10-31 describing the ideal wife, the type of wife the young man addressed in Proverbs should seek. In the Ashkenazi and kabbalistic rites, the husband recites this poem in the home on Sabbath eve. The custom originated with the sixteenth-century kabbalists in Safed, for

whom the term eset hayil was a mystical metaphor for the Shekhinah. Some modern feminists read the poem as stereotyping women as subservient homemakers

and

therefore

have

discontinued

its

recitation. Reform liturgy suggests a parallel reading by women

(Ps. 112.1-9) in honor of their husbands.

¢ Tziporah Heller, More Precious Than Pearls: Selected Insights into the Qualities of the Ideal Woman, Based on Eshes Chayil (Jerusalem and New York, 1993).

ESNOGA, a word used among for a Synagogue. That it appears the Zohar is taken as evidence work was composed in northern speaking, Jewish environment. the famous

Portuguese

western Sephardim for the first time in that this kabbalistic Spain, in a SpanishIn the Netherlands,

synagogue

in Amsterdam

is

commonly called the “Snoge.” e Judith C. E. Belinfante et al., eds., The Esnoga: A Monument to PortugueseJewish Culture, translated by John Rudge and Sammy Herman (Amsterdam, 1991).

ESSENES (Heb. Jsiyyiim), religious movement that flourished in Palestine from the mid-second century BCE to the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce. The derivation of the name is unclear but may be related to the Syriac equivalent of the Hebrew Hasidim (pious ones)

ESTHER

250

ESHET HAYIL

or to the Aramaic

word

for healers

(which

parallels the Greek; see THERAPEUTAE). When the first *Dead Sea Scrolls were published in the early 1950s, most scholars were convinced that they originally belonged to an Essene library and that *Qumran was the site of an Essene settlement. Despite many challenges, this theory is still the most widely accepted explanation, given the many similarities between the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the descriptions of the Essenes by *Philo and *Josephus Flavius, as well as the location of the Qumran site itself, which fits well with Pliny the Elder’s description

of the Essenes’ location. The origins and early growth of the Essenes is still a subject of controversy, and it can be definitely stated only that the group emerged at some time during the second century BCE, a period of great political and religious change in Erets Yisra’el (see HASMONEANS). According to Philo and Josephus, whose descriptions are possibly tendentious, there were some four thousand Essenes scattered throughout the villages of Judea. The reliability of Josephus’s account, which notes that there were two distinct groups among the Essenes, one practicing celibacy while the other permitted marriage, is still a matter of debate. According to these descriptions, the Essenes were a tightly knit, exclusive group, living together in communities and practicing communal ownership of wealth and goods. It was forbidden for an Essene to pass on the teachings of his sect to an outsider, and anyone wishing to join their number had to undergo a period of testing and examination. Discipline was strict, the most severe punishment being expulsion from the group, an act that, according to Josephus, was equivalent to a sentence of death by starvation if

the expelled member continued to observe the peculiar dietary laws of the sect. The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to a number of beliefs, as well as several distinctive practices, that are mentioned by the classical sources in connection with the Essenes. An emphasis on fate and the predestined nature of God’s will is found in both contexts, as is an attention to angels. In both contexts we find prohibitions against the use of oil for washing and anointing (presumably out of concern for the transmission of impurity) and a prohibition against spitting. Distinctive toileting practices may also be common to both. Given the complexity of the evidence provided by the Dead

Sea Scrolls, which

also appears

to reflect

Sadducean perspectives and possibly a Sadducean halakhah (especially in the context of *Miqtsat Ma‘asei ha-Torah), scholars have begun to reconsider the relationship and relative origins of the Essenes and the Sadducees. There are also similarities between early Christians and the Essenes, most likely the product of their development in the same social and religious contexts, but the suggestion that *John the Baptist may have been an Essene is not generally accepted. ¢ Todd S. Beal, “Essenes,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 1 (New York, 2000), pp. 262-269. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Guide to The Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2008). Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4: Migtsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

10 (Oxford, 1994). Emil Schiirer, Geza Vermes, and

Fergus Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 555-590. James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2d ed., 2010; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1994). Geza Vermes and Martin D. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield, UK, 1989).

-GIDEON

BOHAK

ESTHER (Heb. Ester), heroine of the biblical Book of Esther (see ESTHER, SCROLL OF). The name Esther, derived apparently from the ancient Persian stara (star), occurs only in the Book of Esther. Esther’s other personal name, Hebrew in origin, was Hadassah (Est.

2.7

only),

derived

from

the

Hebrew

word

for myrtle. In the Esther story, the Persian king *Ahasuerus ruled an empire that stretched from India to Ethiopia (1.1). During the third year of his reign, he gave an elaborate banquet, at which time he deposed his wife Vashti for her refusal to appear (1.3-8, 10-19). After a search, he finally selected as his next queen the beautiful virgin Esther, a Jew who hid her identity from him (2.1-4, 17). At the instigation of his chief

minister, *~Haman, who was frustrated by the refusal of Esther’s relation *Mordecai to bow down to him, Ahasuerus, without even inquiring as to whose death sentence he was sealing, issued a decree of genocide against the entire Jewish people (3.1-15). The plot was eventually thwarted by Esther, who, at a special banquet for the king and Haman, accused Haman of plotting to kill her and her people. Angered, Ahasuerus accused Haman of wanting to take the kingship, which in fact he had been symbolically trying to do, and he had Haman and his sons executed and promoted Mordecai to the position of chief minister. Ahasuerus, under the influence of Esther, issued a decree allowing

ESTHER

251

the Jews to defend themselves against their enemies. Their eventual victory led to the establishment of the holiday of *Purim (8.3-14, 9.5-10, 13-14). * Adele Berlin, Esther, JPS Bible Commentary

(Philadelphia, 2001). -CHAIM

COHEN

ESTHER, ADDITIONS TO BOOK OF, six passages that are found in the Greek translation of the Book of *Esther in the Septuagint, but not in the masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. These additions include a dream of Mordecai at the beginning of the story, in which the events about to happen are foretold in a symbolic manner, as well as the text of Haman’s anti-Jewish edict and of Mordecai’s own edict following Haman’s downfall. They were not found in the original story of Esther but were added later, probably from the second century BCE to the first century CE; some may have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic and others composed in Greek. The Septuagint version (there are actually two Greek versions, the Alpha Text and the Septuagint version, whose relationship is not entirely clear) contains prayers and God’s name, and several religious observances, thus providing the religious dimension absent in the masoretic version. The Septuagint’s Esther is less comic and more melodramatic in tone, and in its present form it reflects Hellenistic concerns (Jewish ritual observance,

including circumcision).

Scholars

debate whether these religious elements were original to the story or not. ¢ David Clines, The Esther Scroll: the Story of the Story (Sheffield, UK, 1984). Michael V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther (Atlanta, 1991). Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, The Anchor Bible, vol. 44 (Garden City, N.Y., 1977), pp. 153-252. -GIDEON BOHAK

ESTHER,

FAST OF. See Ta‘anit ESTER.

ESTHER,

SCROLL

the *Hamesh tradition,

the Book

of Esther

up with the holiday the raison d’etre for (story of its origin) for historical tale of how arch-enemy;

OF, (megillat

ester)

one

of

Megillot in the *Writings. In Jewish is inextricably bound

of *Purim. The book provides Purim; it supplies the etiology the holiday through the pseudothe Jews were saved from their

and it authorizes its annual observance

and models how it is to be celebrated in the letter of *Mordecai (and Esther).

The heroes are Mordecai and Esther, the villain is *Haman,

who plots to have the Jews killed, with the

permission of the muddle-headed king, *Ahashuerus. When

Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman, Haman becomes incensed and plans revenge against all the Jews through an irrevocable royal decree declaring that they are to be killed. Mordecai urges Esther to plead to the king for her people. Although even a queen may not go uninvited into the king’s inner court, Esther goes and invites the king and his prime minister

Haman to a banquet, where they are invited to a second banquet. Meanwhile, Haman had planned to have Mordecai hanged on a high stake in disgrace. So eager was he to obtain royal permission to do so that

ESTHER, SCROLL OF

he entered the palace that very night. The sleepless king realized that he had never rewarded Mordecai for previously having saved his life. Before Haman could speak, Ahashuerus turned to Haman for advice: What should be done for the man whom the king wishes to honor? Thinking the king was referring to him, Haman designed a ceremony that would make the honoree look like a king: dressed in royal robes, mounted on a royal horse in the city square, with a proclamation of honor announced by a high official. Much to Haman’s chagrin, the king accepted his suggestion but applied it to Mordecai, with Haman making the proclamation. Later, at the queen’s banquet, Esther accuses Haman of plotting to kill her and her people. Enraged, the king leaves the room, returning to find Haman bending low over Esther’s couch, pleading for his life. Mistaking the scene (perhaps intentionally) as an attempt to seduce the queen, which is tantamount to claiming the throne, Ahashuerus orders Haman’s execution. Mordecai replaces Haman as prime minister; the Jews are permitted to defend themselves against those who try to kill them, and the perpetual commemoration of the event is instituted. Esther is best read as a comedy. Rabbinic midrashim intuited this, adding to the fun by their preposterous embellishments of the story and its characters. The voyeurism of chapter 1—drunken nobles hoping to ogle the queen—is made more explicit in the midrash (e.g., Esther Rabbah)

was

bidden

on

to appear

1.11 that says that Vashti

“wearing

and nothing else, that is, naked.

a royal diadem” Chapter 2, with its

inside view of the harem, where the girls apply their cosmetics for a year in preparation for a night in the king’s bed, is no less sexually suggestive. The lavishness of the Persian court and the ten drinking banquets in the story add to the aura of comic excess. The misunderstandings between Ahasuerus and Haman in chapters 6 and 7, the climax of the plot,

produce belly laughs. The story’s plot is structured on improbabilities, exaggerations, misunderstandings, and _ reversals. Esther’s identity remains hidden although her relationship

to Mordecai

the

Jew

was

known;

an

insignificant Jewish minority killed 75,000 of its enemies; Haman erected a seven-story stake for impaling his enemy. The characters are caricatures. Ahasuerus is a buffoon, always at the mercy of his ministers’ suggestions. Haman is an erratic egomaniac, concerned only for his own honor and

his enemy’s disgrace. Even Mordecai and Esther seem one-dimensional and unrealistic. In fact, nothing about the events of the story is realistic, and therefore

attempts to read history from it are misguided. The setting of the Persian court is authentic, but the events are fictional. There was no known Jewish queen of Persia. Moreover, the Persian empire was tolerant of its ethnic minorities and is the least likely place for an edict to eradicate the Jewish population. The story draws on conventional themes of ancient storytelling about Persia known from the Bible and

ESTHER RABBAH

252

ESTHER, SCROLL OF

Persia (in Herodotus and his contemporaries), Esther

More specifically, Haman’s false claim about the Jews is a prototype of antisemitism, which must have been familiar enough to resonate with the book’s original audience. In the end, though, the message is positive: good triumphs and evil is eradicated; the threat of Jewish annihilation was averted and the Jewish community is assured of continuity and prosperity. It is no wonder that Haman became the symbol of

features royal luxury bordering on decadence, concern for protocol and legalities, wine parties, and the

later enemies of the Jews, and that “local Purims” (see PurIMS, LocaL) were celebrated in medieval and

renowned communication

in Mordecai and Haman. The stories of Joseph and Daniel also resemble Esther in that they feature Jewish

early modern times in communities where great danger was averted. The psychological release that is embodied in a carnivalesque holiday like Purim and in the Book of Esther lends itself to similar celebrations of the communal triumph over danger. The book was probably written about 400-300 BcE, toward the end of the Persian period. It apparently

courtiers in foreign courts. (These stories in Dn.

adopted

from Greek sources: a rivalry between courtiers (this one

focusing on honor and shame),

a woman

who

uses her charm to save her people, an ancient ethnic feud, hidden identities, and the triumph of the forces

of good over the forces of evil. The portrayal of the Persian court is equally conventional, if at times made into a burlesque. Like the many Greek stories about

system. Esther is, then, in

tune with contemporary literary works about Persia. At the same time, it draws on biblical traditions, most obviously those about Saul and Agag, king of the Amalekites,

who

are

reincarnated,

as

it were,

1-6

are roughly contemporary with Esther.) Finally, Esther echoes the book of Kings in its mention of royal annals, and some

scholars have found other similar

phraseology in the two books. Noticeably absent is any mention religious

observance

(prayer,

of God

kashrut,

or of

traditional

modesty, and endogamous marriage). The rabbis were troubled by Esther's marriage to a non-Jew, and solved the problem by explaining that she remained completely passive in the king’s bed or that she never actually consummated the marriage. They also provide her with kosher food, although the Bible is silent about her diet (unlike Daniel, who became

a

an

earlier

tale

about

Mordecai,

Esther,

and Haman. The story appears in rather different form in the Greek version of Esther (LXX; see ESTHER,

ADDITIONS

TO

Book

OF), where

it has

six

major additions plus a number of other significant differences. The Greek version is less comic and more melodramatic, and in its present form it reflects Hel-

lenistic concerns (Jewish ritual observance, including circumcision) not found in the masoretic version. An

ancient body of midrashic interpretation attaches to Esther, found in the Talmud (b. Megillah 10b-17a), in Josephus’s paraphrase (Antiquity of the Jews, Book 11, ch. 6), in the two Targumim (Aramaic renderings) to Esther, and in several midrashic collections.

vegetarian so as to maintain kashrut). Mordecai and the Jews mourn and fast, but do not pray—a most striking omission (Daniel also prays). In its omission of God and religious practice, the masoretic text is highly unusual, so much so that in the Greek version of Esther there are prayers, the name of God occurs, and Esther desists from eating non-kosher food or drinking non-kosher wine (there are other major

Interestingly, Esther is the only biblical book of which no remnant has been found at Qumran; apparently the Dead Sea community did not preserve this book (although they seem to have had stories of the same genre), perhaps because they did not observe Purim, which according to their 364-day calendar would always fall on the Sabbath, creating a conflict of observance (according to the Jewish calendar now in

differences in the Greek Esther as well, especially its

use, Purim can never fall on the Sabbath).

tone). It is not clear whether these religious items were part of the original story and then removed, or added to an original story that lacked them. The best explanation for their absence, especially the absence of God’s name, is that, given that the story is so comic, such reticence about things religious is preferable, lest religion be debauched. The book does have a serious side, and an important

The Book of Esther is the centerpiece of the observance of Purim; it is read publicly on Purim eve and the following morning, accompanied by the noisy blotting out of Haman’s name by children and adults, many of them dressed in funny costumes. The regulations for its reading are contained in tractate *Megillah. It was to be read from a special scroll, which became a favorite subject for decoration by Jewish artists.

function as a Diaspora story, a story written about

e Adele Berlin, Esther, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia, 2001). Elias

and for (and perhaps by) Jews of the Diaspora. It promotes Jewish identity, solidarity within the Jewish community, and a strong connection with

Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther (New York, 1967), pp. 171-240. Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia, S.C., 1991). Carey A. Moore, “Esther, Book of,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David N. Freedman et al., vol. 2

Jewish

(New York, 1992), pp. 633-643.

(biblical) tradition. It is more centered on the Diaspora than most Jewish works of its time; it does not refer to the land of Israel (other than the mention of the exile of Jehoiachin) or to the Temple. It addresses the inherent problem of a minority people, their vulnerability to political forces and government edicts, their lack of autonomy and their dependence on royal favor and on the sagacity of their own leaders.

-ADELE

BERLIN

ESTHER RABBAH, a midrash on the Book of *Esther, from the collection called the *Midrash Rabbah, originally known by several other names: Midrash Ahasuerus, Midrash Megillah, or Haggadat Megillah. In the earliest printed editions, the midrash was divided into six chapters, while publishers in

ESTHER RABBAH

253

Vilna divided it into ten sections. Analysis of the midrash, based on the assumption that the existence of a proem reveals the beginning of a section, shows that the midrash should be divided into seven sections. A closer reading of the midrash shows that the seventh section is actually a separate midrash. The first midrash, consisting of six sections that explain the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Esther, is an early exegetical midrash; each section is opened by a classically styled proem. The proems that mark the beginning of the second midrash are not in the classical style, and the midrash itselfismore a retelling of the biblical story of Esther than an exegetical midrash. The first part uses early sources, including the Targum Onkelos, while the second part shows an affinity with the Book of Yosippon, which was compiled in the tenth century. Closely associated with Esther Rabbah is another midrash on the Book of Esther, Abba’ Guryon, known

by the words with which it begins, whose contents are almost

identical to Esther Rabbah,

on which

it

is clearly based. Because Abba’ Guryon has, at times, better readings of the text than those to be found in the present edition of Esther Rabbah, it must be presumed that its editor had access to earlier manuscripts of Esther Rabbah than those that have survived. Esther Rabbah was first published in Pesaro in 1519; it was translated into English by Maurice Simon (London, 1939) and Jacob Neusner.

ETHICS

ETERNAL ETHICAL

LIGHT.

See Ner Tamip.

CULTURE.

See ADLER, FELIx.

ETHICAL WILLS, parting deathbed messages given most often by fathers to their children. The biblical example of Jacob (Gn. 49.33) and the various instances

of last messages in the Talmud, such as the deathbed message of Yehuda ha-Nasi’ (Ket. 103a—b), were verbal communications. In the Middle Ages, however, the custom developed of scholars writing testamentary dispositions to their children. Since these consisted not of worldly possessions but of ethical advice, they have been called ethical wills. Among the most famous ethical wills are those of R. El‘azar ben Yehuda

of Worms,

R. Asher

ben

Yehi’el,

his

sons Yehuda and Ya‘agov, and R. Avraham and R. Sheftel (father and son, respectively, of Yesha‘yahu Horowitz). There is also at least one example of a mother writing an ethical will for her children, found

in the Memoirs

of Glueckl

of Hameln

(first

published by David Kaufmann in 1896; translated into English by M. Lowenthal in 1932). Enjoining humility, piety,

and

ethical

conduct

of the

highest

degree,

the ethical will became

a distinctive literary genre.

In

Holocaust

modern

times,

the

for many poignant LITERATURE. e

Israel Abrahams,

examples.

was

responsible

See also TESTAMENT

ed., Hebrew Ethical Wills, 2 vols. (Philadelphia,

1926).

¢ Jacob Neusner, ed. and trans., Esther Rabbah I: An Analytical Translation, Brown Judaic Studies, vol. 182 (Atlanta, 1989). Joseph Tabory, “Le-Gilgulo shel ha-Midrash la-Katuv ‘Divrei Fi Hakham Hen,” Sidra’ 2 (1986): 151-155 (Hebrew). Joseph Tabory, “Mi-B‘ayot ha-Hadarah shel Ester Rabbah,” Sidra’

Jack Riemer and Nathaniel Stampfer, Ethical Wills: A Modern Jewish Treasury

1 (1985): 145-152.

ETHICS. The norms and principles of Jewish religious ethics are founded on theological presuppositions, including the existence of God, his purpose

ESTIMATES

-JOSEPH

(Heb.

‘arakhim),

sums

TABORY

of money

to

be given to the Temple in place of something that was dedicated by a vow but that cannot be sacrificed (Lv. 27). The possibility for such substitution, “redemption” money in biblical terms, enables a person symbolically to offer his own life or that of one of his dependents as a sacred gift, or to offer an animal even if he does not have one or cannot afford actually to put one to death; it also allows him to offer an impure animal, a home, or a field. Some of the monetary values are fixed by law; others are determined by the priest. In the case of real estate, the value is based on the field’s productivity. After redeeming the dedicated item, thereby rescuing it from being sacrificed, the owner must add one-fifth of its value in order to regain possession. Fields that have been dedicated from one’s ancestral allotment must be reclaimed before the jubilee year; otherwise,

they become Temple property in perpetuity. The institution of ‘arakhim was a major source of muchneeded revenue for the Temple. In rabbinic law, the

possibilities for such donations and dedications are enlarged. The laws of estimates are in the Talmudic tractates *‘Arakhin and *Temurah. ¢ Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Winona —-BARUCH J. SCHWARTZ Lake, Ind., 1985).

(New York, 1983).

in creation,

revelation,

and the destiny of the soul

in this world and in the hereafter. The question of the autonomy of ethics was much discussed by medieval philosophers: Is an action right because God commanded

it, or did God command

it because it is

intrinsically right? Some thinkers assert that ethics and

religion

are

the same,

while

others

hold that

despite the overlap, there is an essential difference between them. Abraham, they suggest, was ready on purely religious grounds to obey God’s command to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gn. 32), although on purely moral grounds he ought to have disobeyed. However, the analytical distinction between the realms of religion and ethics belongs to later philosophical development. The difference is not recognized in most ancient

religions,

where

ceremonial,

ethical,

legal,

and cultic precepts appear together (cf. the biblical Holiness Code in Lv. 19-20). The ethical element is

prominent throughout the Bible. There is an urgent appeal to man’s free will to choose the good, which is also his true blessing and happiness (Dt. 30.1520); the

divine

will, as

revealed

in the Torah,

is

that man do “that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God” (Dt. 12.28). God is the advocate

“of the fatherless

and

widow,

and

loves

the stranger” (Dt. 10.18). The historical books of the Bible as well as the prophets interpret history in moral terms: prosperity and disaster are regarded as divine reward and punishment, respectively. History will end with the ultimate triumph of good over evil (See ESCHATOLOGY). The great literary prophets emphasize the ethical elements of religion even more strongly. Their criticism of sacrifices and ritual (cf. /s. 1.10-17; Jer. 7.9) is a passionate denunciation of ceremonial

worship that is not matched by “social justice and purity of heart. The principles of prudence and common sense in “wisdom literature are ultimately based on the fear of God and the knowledge of his commandments. A similar tendency is discernible in Jewish *Hellenism, particularly in the writings of Philo of Alexandria: the moral life and the practice of virtue are nothing but conformity to the laws of the cosmos,

which

the Creator

established

from

the very beginning and which he revealed in his Torah. The Talmud, though primarily a record of legal discussions, contains a detailed though unsystematic rabbinic ethics, both implicitly in its halakhah and explicitly in a wealth of moral dictums and maxims,

as well as in parables and homiletic interpretations of scripture. Hillel’s saying, “What is hateful to you, do not unto your fellow man,” and R. ‘Aqiva’s statement, “Love your neighbor as yourself—this is a basic principle of the Torah,” are among the best-known of the rabbinic maxims,

as is Mishnah

tractate *Avot,

known as the Ethics of the Fathers. The aggadah is a treasury

of ethical

teachings,

which,

in general,

eschews excesses and recommends a golden mean (“a man should spend no Jess than one tenth of his income on charity, and no more

than one fifth, lest

he become himself dependent on charity’), although the extreme and uncompromising ethics of the hasid (pious one) are also held up as exemplary. Halakhah, too, implicitly assumes ethical categories; for example, it distinguishes among “matters between man and God” and “matters between man and his fellow,” and

it says that the agent of certain actions “must be acquitted by the human court but is guilty according to heavenly law.” The concept of *lifnim mi-shurat ha-din implies an ethical norm of which the actual law is but the last limit. Ethical literature as a distinct genre began to appear in the Middle Ages under the influence of Arabic thought. The earliest ethical treatise is the tenth, concluding,

chapter,

“Man’s

Conduct,”

of Sa‘adyah

Ga’on’s theological work Emunot ve-De‘ot, which was written in Arabic during the first half of the tenth century. Another example is Shelomo ibn Gabirol’s Tiqqun Middot ha-Nefesh. But the most important early work is Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’s Hovot ha-Levavot.

ETHICS

254

ETHICS

(All three of these works were translated

into Hebrew by Yehuda ibn Tibbon in the second half of the twelfth century.) Bahya differed from his two predecessors in the radically spiritual and pietistic orientation of his teaching, and his work, written in the eleventh century, remains to this day one of the

most influential manuals of spirituality and religious ethics. The first ethical works in Hebrew were written in the twelfth century: Hegyon ha-Nefesh, four homilies

on the nature of the soul, ethics, and repentance, by

Avraham

bar Hayya’; Yesod Mora’, by Avraham

ibn

Ezra; and Sefer ha-Madda‘, the first part of the M ishneh

Torah, by Maimonides. These were followed in the thirteenth century by works of philosophers including Ya’aqov ben Abba’ Mari Anatoli and Shem Tov ben Yosef Falaquera. All of these works were marked by the philosophical rationalism dominant in Sephardi theology. A different, independent school of ethical teachings, known as that of the *Hasidei Ashkenaz, headed by Yehuda ben Shemu’el he-Hasid of Regensburg and his disciple El‘azar ben Yehuda of Worms, developed in Germany during the second half of the twelfth century. The most comprehensive work of this school is Sefer Hasidim, which clearly addresses a distinct society of pietists who perceive their teachings as a spiritual preparation for the Crusader massacres. While the rationalist philosophers viewed ethics as an autonomous expression of the human capacity for good, the Hasidei Ashkenaz saw religion and ethics as divinely imposed demands that contradict human nature and test human devotion to God; every performance of a religious or ethical precept is a test, preparing one for the ultimate sacrifice, martyrdom. In the first half of the thirteenth century, another school of ethics emerged in northern Spain. Although Yitshaq Saggi Nahor refused to allow his disciples to publish their kabbalistic teachings because he insisted that the *Kabbalah was strictly esoteric, his disciples produced a body of ethical work that included halfhidden kabbalistic messages and that presented an alternative to rationalist ethics. Nahmanides wrote several ethical treatises and homilies, as did Asher ben

David. Among the most important works of this school were Ya‘aqgov ben Sheshet Gerondi’s Ha-’Emunah veha-Bittahon and Yonah ben Avraham Gerondi’s Sha‘arei Teshuvah, which became very popular and was the precursor for a whole genre of penitential literature. At the same time in Italy a non-kabbalistic ethical work

based

on traditional

sources,

Ma‘alot

ha-Middot, was written by Yehi’el ben Yequti’el Anav in Rome.

The expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 and the resulting spiritual upheaval opened the way for the sixteenth-century kabbalists of Safed, whose work combined traditional ethics, philosophical ideas, the teachings of the Hasidei Ashkenaz, and kabbalistic concepts. Among the most important works of this new and vigorous ethical literature were Tomer Devorah

by Moshe

Hokhmah by El‘azar

ben Ya‘agov

by Eliyyahu ben

Moshe

de

Cordovero,

Vidas,

Azikri,

Sefer

Sha‘arei

Re’shit

Haredim Qedushah

by Hayyim Vital, and Shenei Luhot ha-Berit by Yesha‘yahu Horowitz. Despite the great differences between them, all described the achievement of ethical

perfection in the context of kabbalistic symbolism.

ETHICS

255

In some respects these works can be compared to Christian and Sufi treatises on preparations for the mystical life, which emphasize individual spiritual perfection. Kabbalistic ethical literature became increasingly popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Many Shabbatean works were written in a similar style, including Shevet Musar, by Eliyyahu ha-Kohen of Smyrna, and the great collection of homilies, Hemdat Yamim, written by a group of Shabbateans in Turkey at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Modern Hasidic literature, which is largely composed in the form of ethical and homiletical treatises, is based on kabbalistic symbolism. In the nineteenth century, the *Musar movement developed out of the conviction that the legal and ritualistic aspects of halakhah were overshadowing the ethical elements, almost to their exclusion. Meeting to study ethical texts and engage in selfcriticism, followers of the Musar movement succeeded in introducing the study of ethics into the great European yeshivot. A late classic of Musar literature was Mesillat Yesharim by Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto. In the twentieth century Yisra’el Me’ir ha-Kohen’s Hafets Hayyim, on the laws of talebearing and slander, achieved widespread popularity. Emancipation raised ethical issues that had been irrelevant in the world of the ghetto. Today the study of Jewish ethics has been expanded to include such subjects as business ethics and *medical ethics. See also DEREKH ERETS. ¢ S. Daniel Breslauer, Contemporary Jewish Ethics: A Bibliographical Survey (Westport, Conn., 1985). Joseph Dan, Jewish Mysticism and Jewish Ethics (Seattle, 1987). Joseph Dan, Sifrut ha-Musar veha-Deruskh (Jerusalem, 1975).

Marvin Fox, ed., Modern Jewish Ethics: Theory and Practice (Columbus, Ohio, 1975). Menachem Marc Kellner, Contemporary Jewish Ethics (New York, 1978). Isaak Heinemann, Ta’amei ha-Mitsvot be-Sifrut Yisra’el (Jerusalem,

1956). Max Kadushin, Worship and Ethics: A Study in Rabbinic Judaism (Evanston, Ill., 1964). Moritz Lazarus, The Ethics of Judaism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1900-1901). Shalom Rosenberg in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, edited by Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (New York, 1987), pp. 195-202. Daniel J. Silver, ed., Judaism and Ethics (New York, 1970). Shubert Spero, Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition

(New

York,

1983).

Isaiah

Tishby

and Joseph

Dan,

ha-Musar (Jerusalem, 1970).

ETHICS

—-JOSEPH

OF THE FATHERS.

ETHIOPIAN

JEWS.

eds., Mivhar Sifrut DAN

See Avot.

See BETA ISRAEL.

EULOGY

emissaries to purchase etrogim. At times, prices were

so high that a single etrog was made to serve an entire community (or even a number of communities). Until

the late nineteenth century, when they began to be cultivated in Erets Yisra’el (where they had grown in ancient times), the main

source

of etrogim was the

Greek island of Corfu. The etrog featured widely as a Jewish symbol in classical times. ¢ Harry Abramowitz, “Some Retouched Dies of the Bar Kokhba Coinage,” Israel Numismatic Journal 5 (1981): 38-43. Yehiel M. Stern, Kashrut Arba‘at

ha-Minim (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 8-72, 178-199. Eliyahu Weisfisch, Sefer Arba‘at ha-Minim ha-Shalem (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 51-93. Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible (Cambridge, 1982), p. 123.

ETTLINGER, YA‘AQOV (1798-1871), Talmudist and halakhic authority; pioneer of *Neo-Orthodoxy. One of the earliest Orthodox rabbis to attend university and preach in the vernacular, he served as rabbi and head of the yeshivah in Mannheim and, from

1836, as chief rabbi of Altona. A prolific

author, Ettlinger was a staunch traditionalist and opponent of the Reform movement, and he founded pioneering Orthodox periodicals. He was also an activist supporter of the settlement of Erets Yisra’el. Through his own writings and those of his disciples, Samson Raphael Hirsch and Ezriel Hildesheimer, he exerted great influence on Orthodox Judaism in Germany. His major works are ‘Arukh la-Ner (Talmudic novellae): on Yevamot (Altona, 1850), on Makkot and Keritot (Altona, 1855), on Sukkah (Altona, 1858), on Niddah (Altona, 1864), on Ro’sh ha-Shanah and Sanhedrin (Warsaw, 1873); Bikkurei Ya‘agov (laws of Sukkot; Altona, 1836); Binyan Tsiyyon (responsa;

Altona,

1868)

(Vilna,

1874);

1874).

and and

Binyan Minhat

Tsiyyon ‘Ani

ha-Hadashot

(homilies;

Altona,

e Akiba Posner and Ernest Freiman, “Rabbi Jacob Ettlinger,” in Guardians of Our Heritage, edited by Leo Jung (New York, 1958), pp. 231-243. -JUDITH BLEICH

EULOGY

(Heb. hesped). Eulogies are of ancient origin. Biblical examples include David’s elegies for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sm. 1.17-27) and Abner (2 Sm. 3.33-34), and several eulogies, couched in a very distinctive style, are recorded in the Talmud. The Talmud refers to professional eulogizers and addresses the question of whether eulogies are in honor of the dead or to honor the mourners, deciding

ETIQUETTE.

See DEREKH ERETS.

ETROG (317958, citron), one of the *four species carried and shaken in the *Sukkot synagogue service. The custom,

which was

well established in Second

Temple times, is based on Leviticus 23.40, where the

“fruit of a goodly tree” was traditionally interpreted as referring to the citron (in the lemon family); the rabbis proffer Midrashic explanations for that choice. The rabbis ruled that it had to be in perfect condition; therefore, to make sure that it was not damaged, it was

usually wrapped in flax or cotton wool and kept in a special box (often the object of artistic decoration). In the Diaspora, societies were organized to send

that they are for the sake of the dead (San. 46b). If a pious person before death asks not to be eulogized, the request is respected only in the home; however, there is a eulogy in the synagogue and at the cemetery. It was customary on 7 Adar, the traditional anniversary of Moses’ death, to eulogize distinguished individuals who had died during the preceding year. On Sabbaths and during certain festival periods, eulogies are not permitted. In Sephardi communities, it became customary to deliver a eulogy in the form of a Talmudic discourse after the sheloshim (the thirtyday period of mourning). The rabbis warned against exaggeration in funeral addresses but said that the dead person’s piety should be emphasized, both to

EVEL RABBATI

256

EULOGY comfort the mourners and to encourage those present to follow a virtuous path (Ber. 62a; San. 46b-47a). It

is forbidden to eulogize those who have committed suicide or those who have been excommunicated. ¢ David N. Freedman, “On the Death of Abner,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East, edited by John Marks and R. Good (Guildford, Conn., 1987), pp. 125-127. Elliot Horowitz, “Speaking of the Dead: The Emergence of Eulogy among Italian Jewry of the Sixteenth Century,” in Preachers of the Italian Ghetto, edited by David Ruderman (Berkeley, 1992),

°

J. David Bleich, “The Quinlan Case: A Jewish Perspective,” in Jewish

Bioethics, edited by Fred Rosner and J. David Bleich (New York, 1979), pp. 266-277. Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer, eds., Death and Euthanasia in Jewish Law: Essays and Responsa (Pittsburgh, 1995). Immanuel Jakobovits,

Jewish Medical Ethics (New York, 1959), pp. 119-125. Daniel Sinclair, “Assisted Death: A Jewish Perspective,” in Must We Suffer Our Way to Death? Cultural and Theological Perspectives on Death by Choice, edited by Ronald Hamel and Edwin Dubose (Dallas, 1996), pp. 141-173. Daniel B. Sinclair, Tradition and the Biological Revolution: The Application of Jewish Law to the Treatment ofthe Critically Ill (Edinburgh, 1989), pp. 9-16. —DANIEL

pp. 129-162.

EVE EUNUCH.

See CASTRATION.

EUTHANASIA. Mercy killing is forbidden under Jewish law, and the killer of a dying individual is treated in exactly the same fashion as any other killer. Indeed, the Talmudic principle governing the dying is that individuals are treated as “living beings in all respects,” and their legal capacity is not impaired by their physical state (minor tractate Semahot 1.1). The treatment of the dying is, however, governed by a distinction between precipitating death and removing an impediment to it. This distinction is articulated in early halakhic sources in the context of removing a pillow from under the head of a dying person, versus the prevention of a noise, which was thought to disturb the dying process and impede death. According to R. Moshe Isserles (Shulhan

‘Arukh,

Yoreh

De‘ah

339.1,

gloss), pillow

removal is forbidden because it precipitates death, whereas, noise prevention is permitted on the grounds that it is an indirect act, the only effect of which is to remove an impediment to the demise of the moribund person (Yoreh De‘ah 339.1). The consensus among contemporary halakhic authorities is that futile medical treatment constitutes an impediment;

hence, it may be withheld or even withdrawn. The maintenance of a patient’s basic biological processes, that is, respiration, nutrition, and hydration, must, according to some Orthodox rabbis, be continued until the establishment of death. Most rabbis, how-

ever, including those within the Conservative and Reform movements, would permit the withholding or withdrawal of machines and medications that are artificially keeping the patient alive, and some would permit the withholding or withdrawing of artificial nutrition and hydration as well. Halakhah, in any case, does permit praying for the death of a suffering individual. Jewish criminal law provides that the killer of a person suffering from a fatal organic defect is not liable for the death penalty for homicide. Maimonides defines a fatal organic defect in terms of medical evidence as to the certainty of death within one year (Hilkhot Rotseah 2.8). This provision has been used by some authorities to justify the choosing of one life over another in cases where only one person can be saved, and it may be applicable to some of the situations that face medical staff in emergency-ward triage. While this subject continues to be an issue of discussion in Reform Judaism, the movement allows for passive euthanasia.

(Heb.

Havvah),

the

first

SINCLAIR

created

woman.

Rabbinic opinion is divided on whether Eve was created simultaneously with or subsequent to *Adam, reflecting differences in the narratives in Genesis 1.27 and 5.1—2 on the one hand (where God creates human

beings male and female), and Genesis 2.18-22 on the other (where God creates Eve from the rib (or side)

of Adam

to be a “fitting helper for him”).

Adam

called Eve woman (ishah [Gn. 2.23]; a play on the word ’iysh [man], although actually from two different

roots), and gave her the name Eve “because she was the mother

of all the living”

(Gn.

3.20). Eve

was

persuaded by the serpent to eat the fruit of the *Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, forbidden by divine command,

and, she then gave some

to Adam

(who

had apparently been absent to this point) and he also ate. This disobedience resulted in the couple’s expulsion from the garden of Eden, as well as divine judgments resulting in Eve’s pain in childbearing, subordination to her husband (yimshol-bakh), and perpetual mortal antipathy between her offspring and the serpent (Gn. 3.15-16). Eve subsequently gave birth to Cain, Abel, and Seth (Gn. 4.1-2, 25), but there is no

further biblical mention of her. The derivation

of her name,

Havvah,

is uncertain

and controversial. The narrative in Genesis associates the word with the root h y h “to live” (cf. Gn. 3.20: “the mother of all living”; cf. also the Septuagintal rendering for Eve: Zdé “life”). Rabbinical exegesis linked the name with the Aramaic word for serpent (hivya’; cf. Gn. Rab. 20.11). Other scholars have combined these two ideas by proposing a hypothetical root h w y that combined the notions of life and serpent. Eve is the subject of many legends in the *pseudepigrapha and in rabbinical *aggadah. She is also prominent in Jewish feminist writing because of both the patriarchal approach to the story and what are seen as the positive aspects of her rebelliousness. ¢ Anne Lapidus Lerner, Eternally Eve: Images of Eve in the Hebrew Bible, Midrash, and Modern Jewish Poetry (Waltham, ‘Mass., 2007). Ilana Pardes,

Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), pp. 13-59. Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 32 (Atlanta, 1985), pp. 147-161. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis, 1984), pp. 178-278. -MICHAEL JAMES WILLIAMS

EVEL

RABBATI,

minor tractate, appended to stan-

dard editions of the Talmud Bavli at the conclusion of tractate ‘Avodah Zarah, dealing with laws concerning death and mourning. It is euphemistically referred to as Semahot (Joys) instead of Evel,‘“Mourning.” Some

scholars accept the view of certain ge’onim that Evel Rabbati is tannaitic. Other scholars, while recognizing

EVEL RABBATI

257

JaWANE 118)

the inclusion in Evel Rabbati of substantial bodies of original tannatic material, some of it unattested elsewhere, nonetheless date the final redaction of Evel Rabbati to the geonic period. There is evidence that an alternative version of this tractate existed and was utilized by several medieval scholars. A critical edition was published by Michael Higger (1931) and an annotated English translation with critical text by

be joined to that of another of whom he is unaware, or his evidence might be sufficiently compelling to force the one testified against to substantiate his plea by oath (see Vows AND OATHS). The inadequacy of a single witness extends only to the legal status of persons or property, but in deciding the ritual status of an object, his testimony is decisive. His evidence is also extremely important in the case of

Dov Zlotnick (1966).

an *‘agunah

-~AVRAHAM WALFISH

EVEL

ZUTARTI, minor tractate dealing with laws, teachings, and parables related to death, euphemistically called Semahot de-Rabbi Hiyya’. Inasmuch as it was never printed together with the Talmud Bavli, it was relatively neglected, although it was known and cited by several medieval scholars. Evel Zutarti, unlike *Evel Rabbati, contains primarily—although not exclusively—aggadic material, yet evidence indicates that these two works originally were both part of a single tractate. ¢ Michael Higger, Massekhet Semahot (Jerusalem, 1970). —-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

(a deserted woman

or a woman

whose

husband is suspected dead). The evidence of two witnesses bears the same weight as a hundred. When two witnesses are contradicted (hakhhashah) by two others, the case is decided as if no witnesses were available for either side. Procedurally, the court is first addressed on the gravity of bearing “false witness, and then witnesses are cross-examined in order to ascertain their reliability and trustworthiness. Two types of cross-examination are added in criminal cases: haqirah, to establish the exact time and place of the criminal act; and bedigah, to ascertain the exact

nature of the crime. Once the testimony is recorded in court, it cannot be retracted. The litigant may, however, enter new evidence, in which event the court

EVEN

HA-‘EZER.

See SHULHAN ‘ARUKH.

must retry the action. Persons who are known to earn their livelihood by gambling, who have no regard for

EVEN HA-SHETIYYAH (7°nU7 ]38, the foundation rock), a tannaitic term understood in two ways in Talmudic times: “the rock from which the world was woven,” and “the foundation rock.” Both meanings are

based on the belief that the world was created from

the rock located in the Holy of Holies of the Temple in Jerusalem, and thus the center of the world. This concept is closely related to the image of Jerusalem and the Temple as located at the “navel of the world.” The Holy Ark was placed on this rock, and during the Second Temple period, the high priest, upon entering the Holy of Holies on *Yom Kippur, placed the firepan on it. Muslim tradition identifies the rock, over which was built the Dome of the Rock, with the even ha-shetiyyah. ¢ Judah David Eisenstein, comp., Otsar Midrashim (1915; New York, 1988), p. 70a. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends ofthe Jews, vol. 5 (Philadelphia, 1925), pp. 14-16. Saul Lieberman, Tosefta’ke-Feshutah, vol. 4, Seder Mo‘ed (1962; Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 772-773. Daniel Sperber, Midrash Yerushalem (Jerusalem,

1982), pp. 63-67.

—-DANIEL

SPERBER

the law, who are related to one of the litigants, who have some interest in the case, or, in most instances,

who are women are invalidated from giving testimony in traditional Jewish law. Self-incrimination, except for admission of monetary liabilities, does not form valid ground for conviction since in Jewish law nobody can testify against himself. Circumstantial evidence (even

of the most

convincing

nature),

hearsay,

or

anything not actually heard or seen by the witness is invalid and inadmissable as evidence. ¢

Boaz Cohen, Evidence in Jewish Law (Brussels, 1965). Menachem

Elon,

Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, 4 vols. (Philadelphia, 1994).

EVIL.

See GooD AND EVIL.

EVIL EYE (Heb. “ayin ha-ra‘ or ‘ein ha-ra‘), in popular folklore, the power, held by particular individuals, to harm others (humans, animals, plants) by looking at them. People with eyes that are unusual in color, size, shape, or have some defect, are suspected of having

EVENING

SERVICE.

this power. Envy is the motivation usually attributed to the use of the evil eye, which has the effect of drying

See Ma‘ariv.

EVIDENCE, testimony received in legal proceedings in proof or disproof of the facts under inquiry. Whoever is in possession of direct knowledge of such facts is obliged (Lv. 5.1) to state them in testimony, and it became customary to issue a herem against people who refused to testify. However, no legal decision can be arrived at in capital or civil cases in matters of atonement,

sacrifices, those involving flagellation,

or those relating to the promotion or demotion in the priesthood on the evidence of a single *witness (Dt. 19.15 and Sifrei). But while a single witness is insufficient,

he must,

nonetheless,

attend

court

to

testify, since in many instances his testimony may

the liquids that are essential for life (water, blood, milk, etc.). Young children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable. Belief in the evil eye existed in many ancient cultures, and its popularity still persists. Protective measures against the evil eye include the use of salt, *amulets, the colors red or blue, specific

hand gestures, the verbal expression of the opposite of a positive personal attribute (for example, saying a person is ugly or unsuccessful, etc.), or the number five, which is believed to have holy qualities. If one is struck by the evil eye, special rituals conducted by professional healers can remove its influence. The evil eye can be either inherited or

developed as a skill. There are people considered naturally blessed and always protected from the effects of the evil eye, such as the biblical Joseph and all his descendants and, among animals, the fish.

The evil eye is mentioned in classic Jewish sources, including

the Mishnah,

the Talmud

and

Midrash,

the Zohar, and Sefer Hasidim. References to the evil eye are found in all Jewish communities, despite condemnation

by Maimonides

(Hilkhot ‘Akkum

11)

and other authorities. e Alan Dundes, ed., The Evil Eye: A Folklore Casebook (New York, 1982). Edward S. Gifford, The Evil Eye: Studies in the Folklore of Vision (New York, 1958). Siegfried N. Seligmann, Die Zauberkraft des Auges und das Berufen (Hamburg, 1922). Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (New York, 1974). -TAMAR ALEXANDER

EVIL INCLINATION.

See YETSER HA-RA‘S AND YETSER

HA-TOV.

EVIL SPIRITS.

EVYATAR

See DEMONs.

BEN

ELIYYAHU

HA-KOHEN

(c.1040-1110), one of the last heads of the Palestinian academy (which had moved from Jerusalem to Tyre).

He succeeded his father, Eliyyahu ben Shelomo (whose family originated in Morocco) as *ga’on in the year 1081. He was involved in a bitter struggle aimed at maintaining some vestiges of autonomy and

communal authority for the Palestinian academy. His antagonist was the political head of Egyptian Jewry, David ben Daniyye’l ben ‘Azaryah, who was descended from the Babylonian dynasty of the *exilarchs and whose father had headed the Palestinian academy between 1052 and 1062. David denied the traditional authority of the Palestinian academy, not wishing it to be seen as the leading institution of the Jewish community in the Fatimid empire; he was ultimately rebuffed by Evyatar and his

allies,

but

their

triumph

was

short-lived;

the

Palestinian academy relocated in 1127 to Al-Fustat and was absorbed into the Jewish community of Egypt. Evyatar’s account of his struggle against David ben Daniyye’l is contained in Megillat Evyatar (published by Solomon Schechter in the Jewish Quarterly

Review

[1901-1902]),

noteworthy

for its

evocation of the traditional stature and prerogatives of the Palestinian center and its academy; the onesided picture presented by this source has now been supplemented by numerous documents from the period found in the Cairo *Genizah. ¢ Moshe Gil, Erets-Yisra’el bi-Tequfat ha-Muslamit ha-Ri'shonah, 634-1099 (Tel Aviv, 1983). Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099, translated from the Hebrew by Ethel Broido (New York, 1992), Solomon Schechter,

Sa‘adyana: Genizah Fragments of Writings of R. Sa'adyah Ga‘on and Others (Cambridge,

EXCOMMUNICATION

258

EVID EYE

1903).

—-ROBERT

BRODY

EXCOMMUNICATION, the exclusion of a person from membership in the *community and from its rights and privileges, issued by a *beit din (religious court). It is mentioned in the Bible as a punishment imposed by Ezra (Ezr. 10.8). Excommunication is

employed either as a punishment for transgressions or

as a sanction to ensure obedience to communal enactments. The regulations governing excommunication are carefully detailed in the Talmud, and various

safeguards were instituted periodically to prevent its abuse. Excommunication

took three forms, of increasing

severity. The mildest was nezifah (rebuke), lasting for only one day in Babylonia and seven in Erets Yisra’el. The offender had to retire to his house and refrain from social intercourse. On expressing regret at his conduct, he was allowed to resume

his

normal life. A stronger form of excommunication was niddui (banishment), imposed for a fixed period of seven days in the Diaspora and usually of thirty days in Erets Yisra’el, with the possibility of prolongation if the person would not change his conduct. During the period, the person excommunicated was regarded as a pariah. He was ostracized, except by the immediate members of his own family, and had to fulfill all the regulations appertaining to a mourner. His children could be denied circumcision, tuition, or attendance

at worship. Should these measures itence

or

conformity,

fail to bring him to pen-

the

most

extreme

form

of

excommunication—the herem (ban)—was imposed with solemn ceremonial. (The term herem actually refers in its primary sense to property that must be forfeited, either for sacred purposes [Lv. 27.28] or

because

biblical

law

disallows

contact

with

it;

for example, idolatrous appurtenances from which no benefit may be derived. Thus, in Israel’s “Holy Wars”

[Dt. 7.23-26], no booty could be taken since

it was herem and had to be destroyed. Ezra uses the term in the sense: of confiscation of property [Ezr.

10.8]. In the Talmud

and

subsequent

Jewish

literature, herem refers to complete ostracism from the community.) This ban lasted for an indefinite period, and the banned person was denied every amenity of social and religious life apart from the barest necessities. During the Middle Ages, when Jews

had no other legal means for enforcing conformity, the herem became a powerful weapon. Thus, the phrase “herem of Rabbenu Gershom,’—as applied to the famous enactments of Rabbenu Gershom ben Yehuda, including those outlawing polygamy and divorcing a wife without her consent—meant that these

enactments

contained

the provision

that,

if

compliance could not be compelled by other means, a person transgressing them would be placed in herem. Such sanction proved sufficient to ensure adherence and could be canceled after a few days, with the transgressor expressing repentance and submission. Two notable examples of the invocation of the herem by the Sephardi community of seventeenth-century Amsterdam concerned Uriel *Acosta and Baruch “Spinoza. Another was the imposition of the herem on Hasidim by R. Eliyyahu ben Shelomo Zalman of Vilna. In the eighteenth century, excommunication began to lose its significance as a result of its overuse by rabbis

EXCOMMUNICATION

259

BXIEE

and the disintegration of the self-enclosed medieval Jewish community.

EXILE (Heb. Galut, golah), the enforced dwelling of the Israelites (Jews) outside the Holy Land; often

* Yosef Kaplan, “Deviance and Excommunication in the Eighteenth Century: A Chapter in the Social History of the Sephardi Community of Amsterdam,” in Dutch Jewish History, edited by Jozeph Michman, vol. 3 (Jerusalem and Assen/Maastricht, 1993), pp. 103-116.

concommitant with foreign rule over Erets Yisra’el. Two major exiles took place: the *Babylonian exile after 586 BcE, and the exile following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 cg, which lasted until the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 (although individual Jews lived in Erets Yisra’el during those periods). There was also an earlier Egyptian

EXECUTION.

See Capita PUNISHMENT.

EXECUTION, CIVIL, the process in Jewish law by which debts and other moneys owed by one party to another are recovered. Essentially Jewish law recognizes that debts normally create two types of obligations, personal and property; thus any debt may be recovered from the property of the debtor. Biblical verses

(Ex. 22.2426),

however,

prevent the

creditor from depriving the debtor of basic necessities or personal freedom. Involuntary slavery is limited to cases of theft. While there were a small number of medieval authorities who permitted the imposition of forced labor to repay certain debts, normative Jewish law rejected that ruling and prohibited such conduct. Jewish law also had an established procedure for addressing priorities of claim, preferential rights, and insolvency. ¢

Menachem

Elon, “Execution,” in Principles of Jewish Law (Jerusalem,

1975), pp. 621-633.

EXEGESIS.

—-MICHAEL

BROYDE

See Bist ExEGEsIs; HERMENEUTICS.

EXILARCH

(Aram. resh galuta’ [head of the exile]),

title of the of exilarch Jehoiachin, The purpose

head of Babylonian Jewry. The office was hereditary, originating with King who was exiled to Babylon in 597 BcE. of the exilarchate was to maintain the

continuity

of Davidic

rule; the importance

of the

position increased after the failure of the Bar Kokhba’ Revolt (135 cE; see BAR KOKHBa’, SHIM‘ON), when the exilarch rivaled and eventually surpassed the authority of the parallel Erets Yisra’el institution of the *nasi’. The exilarch was responsible for the administration of justice in both civil and criminal cases in the Jewish community, necessitating close collaboration with the rabbis in both tannaitic and amoraic times, and he was responsible for the appointment of judges and of market overseers. He was treated with great honor by the caliph and in the Jewish community. A man called to the Torah reading in the synagogue would come to the platform on which the Torah was placed; when the exilarch was called, the Torah scroll was carried to him (Y., Sot. 22a). Under the ge’onim (see Ga’on), the influence of the religious authorities grew, and new

exilarchs had to receive the approval of the heads of academies before their appointment was submitted to the caliph for approval. The Ashkenazi Sabbath morning-prayer ritual to this day carries a petition for the welfare of the resh galuta’ in the *Yequm Purqan. ¢ Moshe Beer, Ra'shut ha-Golah be-Bavel bi-Yemei ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud (Tel Aviv, 1970). Avraham Grossman, Ra'shut ha-Golah be-Bavel bi-Tequfat ha-Ge'onim (Jerusalem, 1984). Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia,

in Sasanian Md., 1986).

5 vols.

(Leiden,

Iran: Jewish

1965-1970).

Self-Government

Jacob

Neusner,

in Talmudic

Israel's

Times

Politics

(Lanham,

exile

from

the time

of Jacob

to the Exodus,

and

the northern kingdom of Israel was exiled to Assyria in 722 BCE (see ASSYRIAN EXILE). From at least the time of the Babylonian exile there was continuity and development of Jewish life in the Diaspora (Greek for “dispersion”; i.e., Jewish residence outside Erets Yisra’el).

The two major exiles have decisively influenced Jewish religious and social development, and the seeds of many of the features characteristic of the second exile can already be detected in the brief first exile in Babylonia. Ezekiel’s prophecies were uttered in Babylonia (cf. Ez. 1.1-2) and exhibit important effects of that exile: insistence on the need for personal, as distinct from national, righteousness (cf. Ez. 14); intimations of the foundation of the

*synagogue, which as a “minor sanctuary” (Bz. 11.16) was subsequently to become a substitute for the “major sanctuary,” the Temple; and the formulation of the motif of hope for an eventual return to Zion and the rebuilding of the Temple (Ez. 37). The rabbis noted other effects of the cultural contacts and influences to which Israel was exposed during the Babylonian exile, such as the adoption of the square or “Aramaic” script (ketav Ashuri) in place of the earlier Phoenician script (ketav ‘Ivri), the adoption of Babylonian names for the Hebrew months, and the development of angelology. They interpreted the verse “So they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8.8) as referring to the translation of the Hebrew text into Aramaic, thereby drawing attention to the adoption by the exiles of the vernacular of their country of exile. During the second exile, which lasted almost nineteen centuries, there was a vast extension of these

developments. worship, and transferred to originally had 4.1-3,

Suk.

The synagogue became the center of R. Yohanan ben Zakk’ai deliberately it many of the rites and ceremonies that belonged to the Temple (cf. R. ha-Sh.

3.12). Morning

and

afternoon

services

took the place of the daily sacrifices while the *Musaf service commemorated the additional sacrifices on the days on which these used to be offered. The scriptural verses pertaining to the sacrifices for that particular day were combined with a fervent prayer for the restoration of Israel to its land and the rebuilding of the Temple. The synagogue *liturgy thus also served to keep alive the faith in the ultimate return.

A great variety of external influences penetrated and enriched Jewish culture during the second exile.

The adoption of the prevailing systems of Greek philosophy as preserved and developed by the Arabs, and the introduction of Arabic rhyme and meter by the medieval Hebrew poets, are among the outstanding examples. The use of the vernacular for literary purposes was particularly marked in the Muslim world, where Arabic was used by leading Jewish writers and thinkers. In Christian countries that particular influence was less marked, and rabbinic Hebrew remained the medium of religious literature. Life in the Diaspora profoundly affected ritual and civil law. With the destruction of the Temple, large areas of Jewish law, such as that pertaining to sacrifices, local and national government, and the agricultural laws that obtained only in Erets Yisra’el, became inoperative and subjects for study only, although this was passionately pursued with the double object of maintaining the belief in the restoration and of acquiring merit through study for its own sake. The area of practical Jewish law became correspondingly circumscribed. Until

EXISTENTIALISM

260

EXILE

the

advent

of the

modern

era,

exile

was

regarded variously as an unmitigated evil, a curse, a punishment for Israel’s sins, and a redemptive suffering; in all cases as a provisional form of existence, which would be terminated by the ingathering of the exiles and messianic redemption. The latter either had to be patiently awaited or actively prepared for by piety and penitence. In early rabbinic and later mystical theology the notion of Israel’s exile was complemented by that of God’s own exile (galut ha-shekhinah—the exile of the divine presence). This doctrine implied both that God himself shared Israel’s sufferings, and that, even in exile, Israel’s communion with God was

unbroken. Under the influence either of kabbalistic thought or of modern existentialist philosophy, exile has also been understood as a metaphor for alienation, the healing of which is a messianic Utopia. Under the impact of the Enlightenment, influenced by the thinking of Baruch *Spinoza and Moses *Mendelssohn, certain circles—including nineteenth century Reform—universalized the concept of exile and identified as exile any imperfection in the human condition. The Jewish mission was defined as correcting these imperfections anywhere in the world; the Jews would not be redeemed solely through the achievement of Emancipation or through a return to Erets Yisra’el. Modern *Zionism, however, continued the traditional attitude that exile was an evil to be overcome by the return to Erets Yisra’el. The Orthodox view of Zionism (see RELIGIOUS ZIONISM) was articulated by R. Avraham Yitshag Kook and his successor R. Isaac Herzog, who saw in statehood the

beginning of redemption. With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and the partial ingathering of the exiles, the problem of the historical, political, and social definition of exile came to the fore. Now that every Jew has the option to return to Israel, there is

discussion as to whether the Diaspora Jewries should consider themselves as living in exile or not, with many

maintaining that they are living in the Diaspora but not in exile. ° Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (Philadelphia, 1968). Yitshaq Baer, Galut, translated by Robert Warshow

(New York,

1947). Shaye J. D. Cohen, ed., Diasporas

in Antiquity (Atlanta, 1993). Benzion Dinur, Israel and the Diaspora (Philadelphia, 1969). Arnold Eisen, Galut: Modern Jewish Reflection on Homelessness and Homecoming (Bloomington, Ind., 1986). Sidra DeKoven

Ezrahi, Booking

Passage: Exile and Homecoming

in the Modern

Jewish

Imagination (Berkeley, 2000). Yehezq’el Kaufmann, Golah ve-Nekhar (Tel Aviv, 1962). Etan Levine, ed., Diaspora: Exile and the Contemporary Jewish Condition (New York, 1986). James M. Scott, ed. Exile. Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. (Leiden and New York, 1997). James M. Scott, ed., Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Leiden, 2001). Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (Minneapolis, 2002).

EXILE, ASSYRIAN.

See AssyRIAN EXILE.

EXILE, BABYLONIAN.

See BaBYLONIAN EXILE.

EXILES, INGATHERING OF THE, biblical concept, first expressed in Deuteronomy 30.3-5, that God will bring back to Erets Yisra’el his people who are scattered throughout other lands. According to the prophets, exile was a punishment for the people’s sinfulness. When Ezekiel prophesied the eventual return of the Babylonian exiles to their native land,

he addressed himself first to the Judean exiles and then extended his prophecy to include the exiles of the northern kingdom (the ten tribes) who had been dispersed over a century earlier (Ez. 37.16-28). So, too,

Jeremiah included the exiled northern kingdom in his vision of the return. Although there is disagreement in the Mishnah (San. 10.3) about whether the ten tribes are destined to return, the prevailing view is that the ultimate restoration will include them

(see

TRIBES OF ISRAEL). This belief explains the phrase qibbuts galuyyot (ingathering of the exiles), that is, the exiles of both Judah and Israel; the word exile refers

to the condition, not the persons. According to the rabbis, the ingathering of the exiles was as significant as the creation of heaven and earth (Pes. 88a). Whenever the liturgy incorporates prayers for the ingathering of the exiles (in the Ahavah Rabbah, the tenth blessing of the ‘Amidah, the Birkat ha-Hodesh) the words “from the four corners of the earth” (cf. Dt. 30.4-5) are added, and the reference is to the

messianic future. The ingathering of the exiles became a basic concept of modern *Zionism (rejected by some Orthodox, who believed it had to be effected not by human initiative but by divine intervention), and after

1948 the term was applied to the mass immigration to the State of Israel of Jews from over one hundred countries in the Diaspora. This return was regarded by religious Zionists as the beginning of the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of redemption. ¢ James M. Scott, ed., Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Leiden, 2001).

EXISTENTIALISM, a modern movement in philosophy concerned with the understanding of human existence in its concreteness rather than as an object of understanding or theoretical abstraction. In spite of certain existentialist features of early

EXISTENTIALISM

261

philosophy (as in Socrates, Pascal), existentialism proper begins with the nineteenth-century Danish Protestant thinker Soren Kierkegaard. A basic attitude toward philosophy rather than a well-defined doctrine, existentialism encompasses atheistic thinkers (Heidegger, Sartre) as well as religious ones (e.g., Marcel). Franz *Rosenzweig, one of the greatest modern Jewish thinkers, was one of the founders of the existentialist philosophy. Many modern thinkers believe that existentialism provides better tools than classical philosophy for interpreting the significance of religion. Martin *Buber’s “I and Thou” philosophy and his interpretations of the Bible have exerted wide influence as major expressions of a religious existentialism that sees in religion no objective system of doctrine or law but rather a relationship and mode of being realized in actual existence. ¢ William E. Kaufman, Contemporary Jewish Philosophies (New York, 1976).

EXODUS (Heb. yetsi‘at Mitsrayim), the departure of the Israelites from their enslavement to Pharaoh in Egypt. The Bible relates this event as an act of God’s intervention on his people’s behalf. It is one of the two outstanding acts of God for which he is known and revered, the first being his creation of the world. In the first words of the *Ten Commandments, God presents himself as “YHVH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Ex. 20.2). According to the Bible, God told Abraham that his descendants would be enslaved in a foreign land, and only afterwards would they be set free in order to take possession of the land of Canaan, which he had promised them (Gn.

15.13-16). Later, as a result of

the famine in the time of Joseph, the entire Israelite clan took up residence in Egypt, where they became

EXODUS as they could (Ex. 12); yet, when he realized what he

had done, he pursued them with full military force. The climax of the story is the episode at the Red Sea; God miraculously split the sea in two, enabling the multitude of fleeing slaves to pass through on dry land, after which he reunited the waters, drowning Pharaoh and all his army. God then led his people safely through the Sinai Peninsula until they eventually reached Canaan (Ex. 14-15).

In biblical tradition, the Exodus marks the birth of the Israelite nation. It is an act of undeserved grace: it is not a reward for Israel’s righteousness; rather, it is

purely the fulfillment of a sovereign promise made by God. It thus serves to place Israel permanently in God’s debt, since it owes its very existence to him. God’s demand that Israel serve and obey him is founded on this (Ex. 19.1-6); compliance with his commands due because of this act of salvation (Dt. 6.20-25).

is

The Exodus is also the source of Israel’s love and gratitude to God; it is called a “redemption.” God is pictured as Israel’s close kinsman, showing familial concern for his kinfolk and relieving them from their hopelessness. The Exodus is the archetype of divine lovingkindness, the type of behavior Israel is expected to emulate. Over and over again, Israel is enjoined to recall its former condition of need; to be kind to the poor, the orphan, and the widow; and not to mistreat

slaves or those without property. Numerous biblical passages recall and celebrate various miraculous facets of the Exodus; it would seem that in biblical times the retelling and embellishing of the tale had already become an accepted form of exhortation, chastisement, and praise (Jos 24.5-7; Jgs. 2.12, 6.8-13; Ez. 20.5-10; Neh. 9.9-12; Ps. 74.12-15, 78, 81.6-7, 104.34-39, 106, 114, 136.10-16; Jer. 11.1-8).

divine promise (Gn. 12.2, 15.5). Astounded by Israel’s numbers, a “new king” of Egypt commandeered them

Although the appropriate historical context for the Exodus can probably be identified (the building projects of Ramses II, a generation or so before the

into

known

a numerous

teams

people

of forced

(Gn.

42-46),

laborers,

also part of the

setting

over

them

period

of Israel’s

invasion

of Canaan)

and

cruel taskmasters and putting them to work on his construction projects. When this failed to weaken them, he decreed that all newborn Israelite males were to be cast into the Nile. Aroused by his people’s suffering, God resolved that

historical data from the mid-thirteenth century BCE can be adduced, outside of the Bible no corroboration for the actual events has been found. However, in view of the antiquity, weight, and quantity of biblical

the time had come to keep his promise. Meanwhile,

of historical truth. Evidently a group of Israelite herdsmen were pressed into corvée by an Egyptian pharaoh, a bondage so traumatically different from their traditional way of life that it was never forgotten, and their eventual release from it was naturally attributed to the merciful aid of their ancestral

Moses, a Levite who was cleverly saved from the order of extermination, grew up, discovered his Israelite identity,

and

fled to Midian

(Ex.

2). There,

God

appointed him, along with his brother Aaron, as the leaders who would demand of Pharaoh that he set the Israelites free. Moses was warned that strategems, and ultimately force, would be necessary in order to get Pharaoh to comply (Ex. 3-7). The mission to Pharaoh met with the expected refusal. The contest between God and Pharaoh ensued, plagues

taking the form of a series of miraculous (Ex. 7-11; see PLAGUES OF EGypT), at the

culmination of which Pharaoh was forced to admit the superior might of God. In his suffering, Pharaoh begged the Israelites to leave his country as quickly

evidence, scholars tend to attach to the story a kernel

God. Biblical tradition, here as elsewhere, would thus preserve an authentic, indelible memory, though

many of the details may be gradual embellishments. First

among

commemorative

rituals,

the

annual

*Pesah offering was instituted to recall the Exodus each year on the date of its occurrence. In postTemple times, this was replaced by the Pesah *Seder. In both rituals, the liturgical retelling of the story of the Exodus figures prominently (see HAGGADAH OF PESAH), taking literally the instruction “You shall tell your son

on that day: ‘This is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out Egypt” (Ex. 13.8). e Samuel E. Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (Jerusalem, 1992). Benjamin Mazar, The World History of the Jewish People, 1st ser., vol. 3, Judges (London, 1971), pp. 69-93. Nahum Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1991). Yair Zakovitch, “And You Shall Tell Your Son ...”: The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible (Jerusalem, 1991). —~BARUCH J. SCHWARTZ

EXODUS, the Names

BOOK OF (Heb. Shemot; [These Are] [of]), the second book of the *Torah,

whose Hebrew title is from the opening phrase of the book. The name Exodus (from Gr. exodos), referring

to Israel’s departure from Egypt, also appears rabbinic literature. After a brief recapitulation

in of

the Israelites’

is

arrival

in Egypt,

divided into forty chapters,

the book,

narrates

which

the Israelites’

bondage to *Pharaoh (chap. 1); the birth and early years of *Moses (chap. 2); Moses’ mission to Pharaoh

(chaps. 3-6); the *plagues of Egypt and the *Pesah sacrifice (chaps. 7-13); the departure from Egypt (see Exopus) and the miraculous crossing of the sea (chaps. 14-15); and the first portion of the journey to Canaan, until the arrival at *Sinai (chaps. 16-18).

The remainder of the narrative takes place while the Israelites are camped at Sinai: the theophany and giving of the *Ten Commandments (chaps. 19-20); the laws given to Moses and the *covenant made over

EYBESCHUETZ, YONATAN

262

EXODUS

them

(chaps.

21-24);

and

the worship

of the

*golden calf, the renewal of the covenant, and the two sets of tablets (chaps. 32-34). Interspersed with the final portion is the account of how Moses received and carried out the detailed instructions for the building of the *Tabernacle (chaps. 25-30, 35-40); the narrative ends when, a year after the Exodus, the Tabernacle is completed. Thus, following two introductory chapters in which the Israelites develop

in 1878).

Written

almost

entirely in Hebrew,

it is

a composite work. The first part, Exodus Rabbah

1

(sections 1-14), covers chapters one through ten of the Book of Exodus; the second part, Exodus Rabbah

2 (sections 15-52), is a midrash covering chapters twelve to the end. While Exodus Rabbah 2 is an edition of the *Tanhuma’-Yelammedenu midrash to Exodus and is thus an example of a homiletical midrash, Exodus Rabbah 1 is an exegetical midrash, containing Midrashic comments on almost every verse. Each section (parashah) begins with one or more petihot (see PETIHAH), almost all of them anonymous. Exodus Rabbah 1 is a relatively late redaction (c.10th cent.)

of Midrashic material found mostly in the Midrash Tanhuma’ to Exodus, including several sections from the Talmud Bavli and perhaps material originating with the redactor himself. It is first cited by Spanish authors from the thirteenth century. It has been posited that the redactor of Exodus Rabbah 1 was interested in creating an exegetical midrash that would bridge the gap between Genesis Rabbah and the tannaitic midrash to Exodus

(Mekhilta’ de-Rabbi

Yishma‘el), which begins only at Exodus chapter 12; this part was then supplemented by an edition of the Tanhuma’-Yelammedenu midrash to the remaining chapters of Exodus. Midrash Rabbah: Exodus (edited by H. Freedman and M. Simon, 3d ed. [London,

1961]) is an English

translation of Exodus Rabbah. A critique of Exodus Rabbah 1 was published in Jerusalem in 1984 (Midrash Shemot Rabbah: Chapters 1-14). ¢ Saul Lieberman, ed., Midrash Devarim Rabbah, 3d ed. (Jerusalem, 1974). Avigdor Shin’an, ed., Midrash Shemot Rabbah: Derashot I-14 (Tel Aviv, 1984). Leopold Zunz, Ha-Derashot be-Yisra'el ve-Hishtalshelutan ha-Historit, edited

by Chanoch Albeck (1892; Jerusalem, 1974).

MANDEL

into anumerous people, most of the book covers a time

EXORCISM,

span of two crucial years in Israel’s history in which its central formative events take place: its redemption

have possessed an individual. Mention of exorcism is rare in early Jewish literature. In the Bible, the only clear examples are the possession of Saul by an evil spirit and its exorcism by David’s playing the harp (J Sm. 16.14-23) and in the Apocrypha in the Book of Tobit. The New Testament refers to the casting out of “unclean spirits.” References in the Talmud

from

slavery,

its covenant

with

God

at Sinai,

and

the establishment of its central cultic institution. In Jewish tradition, the Book of Exodus—like

all books

of the Torah—was written by Moses under divine inspiration. Bible critics detect at least three distinct narrative sources

(J, E, and P) running through the

book and assign to each of them a section of the legal material. The Book of Exodus consists of eleven weekly portions, read in the synagogue on successive Sabbaths during the winter months. See also GIVING OF THE TORAH; PILLAR OF CLOUD AND FIRE; TABLETS OF THE LAw. ¢

Umberto

Cassuto,

A Commentary

on the Book of Exodus,

translated

by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1967). Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, 1974). Moshe Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York, 1969). Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1991). Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1986).

—-BARUCH

J. SCHWARTZ

the expulsion

—-PAUL

of foreign spirits that

are sparse. With the spread of Kabbalah and its doctrine of the *transmigration of souls, especially the variety defined as “ibbur (the impregnation of a living person or soul by another soul or spirit), the belief in exorcism became powerfully reinforced, notably in eastern Europe. A particular form of exorcism was the expulsion of a *dybbuk. :

Gedalyah

in Jewish

Nigal, Magic,

Thought,

pp. 112-133.

translated

Mysticism

and Hasidism:

by Edward

Levin

The Supernatural

(Northvale,

N.J.,

1994),

-SHIFRA EPSTEIN

EYBESCHUETZ, YONATAN (c.1690-1764), and kabbalist. Born in Krakow, Eybeschuetz was recognized as a Talmudic prodigy (‘illuy). A student of R. Me’ir Eisenstadt, he attained

Talmudist

EXODUS RABBAH, aggadic midrash on the Book of Exodus, included in the compilation commonly referred to as *Midrash Rabbah (the main edition of which, with commentaries, was published in Vilna

prominence as a scholar, community rabbi, and yeshivah head in Prague in 1715, where he came

EYBESCHUETZ,

YONATAN

263

into contact and conflict with R. David ben Abraham Oppenheim, the leading rabbinic figure of that city. From Prague, Eybeschuetz moved on to Metz in 1741 and Altona in 1750. Eybeschuetz was instrumental in persuading the Christian authorities to allow the printing of the Talmud in Prague (1728-1739). This edition, from which all potentially anti-Christian passages were censored, aroused strong opposition from Oppenheim and other Talmudists, who decried it as a distortion of the true text and feared that its circulation would influence future printings of the Talmud. Ultimately, the edition’s opponents succeeded in persuading the emperor to prohibit its further publication. These events are indicative of the controversies that filled Eybeschuetz’s public life. On the one hand, he was respected as a brilliant Talmudic scholar. His Urim ve-Tummim, a two-part commentary on the Hoshen Mishpat section of the Shulhan ‘Arukh, and his Kereti u-Feleti, a commentary on the Yoreh De‘ah section of the Arba‘ah Turim, are regarded as classics of halakhic literature and are still widely published. He was also a popular preacher, whose sermons are collected in Ya‘arot Devash and other works. He enjoyed widespread popularity in the communities in which he served. On the other hand, many rabbis suspected that Eybeschuetz was a follower of Shabbetai Tsevi. A kabbalistic text published in 1724, Ve-’Avo’ ha-Yom

el ha-‘Ayin, was

recognized by rabbinic

as a Shabbatean

work; the book bears striking sim-

consensus

ilarities to Eybeschuetz’s Shem ‘Olam. According to Eybeschuetz’s leading opponent, R. Ya‘aqov *Emden, amulets by Eybeschuetz that were opened in 1751 were found to contain Shabbatean mystical formulas. Though exonerated by Polish Jewry’s Council of the Four

Lands

in 1753,

Eybeschuetz

remained

a

controversial figure. Modern scholars tend to accept as true the claims of his opponents that he was, in fact,

a Shabbatean.

¢ Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies (New York, 1990). Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1949), vol. 5, pp. 246-271. Moses Perlmuter, R. Yehonatan Aybeshits ve-Yahaso el ha-Shabta’ut (Jerusalem, 1947). Raphael N. Rabinowitz, Ma‘amar ‘al Hadpasat ha-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1951), pp. 112-113.

EZEKIEL

-MARK

WASHOFSKY

(Heb. Yehezgel; 6th cent. BCE), prophet

in the *Babylonian

exile;

son

of Buzi,

a member

of the priestly house of Zadok. His prophecies are contained in the biblical book bearing his name. He was deported along with King Jehoiachin of Judah and a large group of Jerusalemites in 597 BCE to Babylon by the invading forces of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs. 24.8-16;

Ez.

1.1-3). The exiles were

settled

at Tel-abib on the river Chebar; there they were joined by later waves of deportees. Eventually they received the news of the siege and final destruction of Jerusalem (586). Ezekiel’s call to prophesy came in July 593, and all of his preaching took place among the deported Jerusalemites. From July 593 until January 585, he spoke only of the impending downfall; these

EZEKIEL

oracles were probably uttered in the privacy of his home.

Once

news

of the fall arrived, Ezekiel spoke

openly, primarily of the future restoration of Israel’s land and Temple cult. He continued to prophesy until

571.

Due

to his background,

Ezekiel’s

style

and vocabulary are highly influenced by the Torah, particularly the Priestly tradition. His prophecy is rich in visionary experiences and symbolic actions, and his highly sophisticated, often daring, and always forceful use of language indicates that he composed his prophecies not only as orations but as literary works. The inescapable nature of God’s punitive justice and overriding concern for divine sovereignty are the hallmarks of his message; they are probably also a reflection of his own pessimism and uncompromising integrity.

The Book of Ezekiel is the third book of the *Latter Prophets. It opens with the appearance of the divine chariot

(chap. 1), a portent that God is about to abandon his Temple and city to destruction, and the call to prophesy (2.1-3.15), in which Ezekiel is warned that his pronouncements of doom will not change the people’s behavior since they, like all previous generations, are incorrigible. In the prophecy of Ezekiel 3.16-21 (repeated in 33.1-9), God compares Ezekiel’s task to that of a watchman;

he is morally

bound to sound the alarm whether the people listen or not. This is followed by the oracles of judgment (chaps. 4-24). The climax of this section is Ezekiel’s visionary excursion

to Jerusalem

(chaps.

8-11),

where—six

full years before the city was actually destroyed— he witnesses the abominations of the Jerusalemites,

their slaughter by divine messengers, the burning of the city, and God’s departure. The historical surveys (chaps.

16, 20, 23)

emphasize

that

God

has

lost

patience with his people’s uninterrupted sinfulness; the allegorical portrayal of the wanton Jerusalem (chap. 16) is the most outspoken. The prophet stresses that guilt is not passed from generation to generation (18.1-20); his intent is to show that although Israel’s

imminent punishment is not a case of inherited guilt, all generations have been equally sinful (chap. 20). When God informs Ezekiel that the siege of the city has begun, this period in Ezekiel’s ministry ends (chap. 24). A series of oracles against foreign nations follows (chaps. 25-32). Then the news of the actual fall arrives in Babylon, vindicating Ezekiel (33.21-22). In the oracles that follow, Ezekiel announces God’s intention

to return Israel from captivity, reunite and resettle the tribes, reestablish the monarchy, and rebuild the Temple. All this, God will do not out of compassion or because Israel deserves it, but for the sake of his own

holy name, which Israel has desecrated. God desires to rehabilitate his reputation, which has been tarnished by Israel’s exile, in the sight of other nations. The exiles doubt they will ever be returned home, and this despair prompts the vision of chapter 37.1-14, in which a massive heap of dry bones comes back to life—affirming that the ingathering of the exiles, however unimaginable, will indeed take place. In the

concluding vision (chaps. 40-48), Ezekiel is again transported to Jerusalem, where he is given a preview of the rebuilt Temple and the return of the divine presence to dwell in his city, now renamed Shammah (the LORD is there; 48.35).

YHVH

Ezekiel’s descriptions of the divine chariot became the basis for an entire branch of Jewish mysticism (see MA‘ASEH

MERKAVAH);

the rabbis of the Talmud

forbade untutored lay persons to delve too deeply into the study of these portions (Hag. 2.1). The vision of the dry bones (37.1-14) was taken by later

Jewish

EZRA-NEHEMIAH,

264

[e/Ael NEIL

sources

as a scriptural basis for the belief

in *resurrection (San. 92b). Since a number of legal

provisions of the restored Temple cult contradict the Torah, some of the sages, though not doubting the book’s authenticity or its sanctity, advocated removing it from circulation (Shab. 13b). The contradictions were resolved, however, and the book continued to

be read. Though some of its harsher sections were not permitted to be read in the synagogue, a number of haftarot are taken from Ezekiel. The chariot vision is read on Shavu‘ot to complement the theophany at Sinai, and the vision of the dry bones is read on Pesah, a promise of a new exodus from exile. * Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 29 (Waco,

BOOK OF

also ascribes to him the introduction of the square Hebrew script. It says that he promulgated ten decrees including the Torah reading on the Sabbath *Minhah service and in *Shaharit on Mondays and Thursdays (Meg. 31b). The Book ofEzra (partly in Aramaic) appears tenth in the Writings and is regarded as a single unit with

the Book

Book oF). The

of Nehemiah narrative

(see

centers

EZzRA-NEHEMIAH,

on

the vicissitudes

of the rebuilders of the Second Temple and is written from a priestly viewpoint. The relation of Ezra’s activity to that of Nehemiah, as well as their respective dates, are a matter of controversy among modern biblical scholars. Rabbinic evaluation of Ezra’s initiative during the critical period of transition from the prophetic to the Pharisaic era can be gathered from the Talmudic

observation that, had not Moses

preceded, God would have given the Torah through Ezra (San. 21b). Various traditions relate to his burial site, but the one most generally accepted places it near Basra, Iraq, which became a site of pilgrimage. ¢ J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, 1988). Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel: Vol. IV, From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy (New York, 1977), pp. 324-358. H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 16 (Waco, Tex., 1985).

-DAVID

A. GLATT-GILAD

Tex., 1990). Ellen Frances Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the

Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy, Bible and Literature Series 21, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 78 (Sheffield, UK, 1989). Julie Galumbush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, Dissertation Series (Society of Biblical Literature), no. 130 (Atlanta, 1992). Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, The Anchor Bible 22 (Garden City, N.Y., 1983); Ezekiel 21-37, The Anchor Bible 22A (New York, 1997). Moshe

Greenberg, Prolegomenon to Charles Cutler Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (repr. New York, 1970), pp. XI-XXXV.

Paul Joyce, Divine

Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 59 (Sheffield, UK, 1989). Interpretation, vol. 38, no. 2 (1984): 117-208 (various articles). Jon Douglas Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48, Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 10 (Missoula, Mont., 1976). J. Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book (Leuven, 1986). Baruch J. Schwartz, “Repentance and Determinism in Ezekiel,” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress ofJewish Studies (1994), pp. 123-130. Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel, translated by Ronald E. Clements, edited by Frank Moore Cross and Klaus Baltzer, Hermeneia, vols. 1 and 2 (Philadelphia,

EZRA

1979 and 1983).

-BARUCH

J. SCHWARTZ

(5th cent. BCE), priest and *scribe (descendant

of *Zadok), who was primarily responsible for a series of religious reforms laying the spiritual foundations of the new Judean commonwealth after the Babylonian exile. According to the traditional account (Ezr. 7-8), he returned to Jerusalem at the head of a group of exiles, with full powers from the Persian king Artaxerxes I to impose the law of the Torah on the community there (458 BcE) and, bearing the sacred vessels of the *Temple, set about effecting reforms in the religious as well as civic conditions then prevailing in Judah. Mixed marriages with heathen wives were annulled (probably completing the breach with the nascent *Samaritans; Ezr. 10.18-44) and a vigorous program was launched for observing the Sabbath and sabbatical year and expounding the Torah to the common people. Ezra also revived the practice of the thanksgiving Sukkah (Neh. 8.13-18). As the traditional founder of the *Keneset

ha-Gedolah,

basis for the future form of Judaism.

Ezra laid the

The Talmud

EZRA-NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF (Heb. ‘EzraNehemyah), the penultimate book in the Writings section of the Hebrew Bible, originally referred to by the name Ezra alone. The first reference to the division of this book into separate books of Ezra and Nehemiah was made by the church father Origen (3d cent. CE). Ezra-Nehemiah is set in the period of Persian rule over Erets Yisra’el. The Book’s three major sections are Ezra 1-6, which covers the period from Cyrus’s proclamation permitting Jews to return from exile in Babylonia to Jerusalem in order to rebuild the Temple (538 BcE), through the successful completion of the rebuilding project in the sixth year of Darius I (516); Ezra 7-10, which describes Ezra’s mission and activities (beginning in 458); and Nehemiah 1-13,

which describes Nehemiah’s career (445-c.432). Ezra-Nehemiah brings together many diverse source materials. These include Aramaic documents, such as

Tattenai’s letter to Darius questioning the Jews’ right to rebuild the Temple (Ezr. 5.6-17) and Artaxerxes’ letter of commission to Ezra (Ezr. 7.12-26); selections

from Ezra’s autobiography (Ezr. 7.27-28, 8-9); and selections from Nehemiah’s autobiography (most of Neh. 1.1-7.5, 12.27-13.31). The finished literary product reflects a carefully planned portrayal of the restoration process marked by a particular ideology. Each step of the process is supported by the reigning Persian king, whose favorable attitude toward the Jews, despite vehement opposition from local enemies, is a sign of divine providence (Ezr. 1.1-3, 6.14, 7.6, 7.27-28; Neh. 2.4-8). The ultimate goal of the restoration is the creation of a community that lives by the commandments of the Torah (Neh. 8.1-8, 10.29-30).

EZRA-NEHEMIAH,

BOOK OF

265

¢ Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (London, 1989). Tamara C, Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, no. 36 (Atlanta, 1988). Ralph W. Klein, “Ezra and Nehemiah in Recent

Studies,” in Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, edited by F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, P. D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, N-Y., 1976), pp. 361-376. Hugh G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 16 (Waco, Tex., 1985). Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The NehemiahMemoir and Its Earliest Readers (Berlin, 2004). -DAVID

A, GLATT-GILAD

“EZRAT NASHIM

‘EZRAT NASHIM (0°U) 71Y; women’s courtyard), originally, a separate uncovered courtyard in the eastern sector of the Temple in Jerusalem, into which both women and men were permitted to go. Women were not permitted to go beyond the ‘ezrat nashim into the main courtyard. The term was later used for the separate women’s section of the synagogue, either a balcony or a section on the same level as, or

slightly above, the men’s section, partitioned off from (died c.1240), one of the earliest

the men’s section by a *mehitsah (divider). There is

and most important kabbalists, who established the center for Kabbalah in the town of Gerona in Catalonia. He was the disciple of R. Yitshaq Saggi Nahor, the leader of the kabbalists in Provence. Ezra is one of the first writers to quote Sefer ha-Bahir, the earliest work of medieval Kabbalah. Together with his

no evidence of such a division in early synagogues, but it was well established in the medieval period. In the synagogues of Provence in the late Middle Ages, women were in a room under the synagogue with a grille in the ceiling through which they could hear the service. In Nurnberg, women had their own synagogue. In Poland, women were provided with an annex and a separate entrance. In some places, women had their own prayer leader in the ‘ezrat nashim, who also preached on occasion. In some

EZRA OF GERONA

relative R. ‘Azri’el of Gerona (with whom he was often

confused), he developed the main genres of kabbalistic creativity in the thirteenth century: commentaries on the aggadot in the Talmud, on the exegesis of biblical books (especially the Song of Songs), and on Sefer Yetsirah. He influenced considerably the kabbalistic works of Nahmanides, the leader of the Gerona kabbalists, and of other writers in that center. Rabbi Ya‘aqov ben Sheshet, another kabbalist of Gerona,

presented arguments against some of his ideas. Ezra was quoted by later kabbalists, like R. Bahya ben Asher at the end of the thirteenth century, and some of his ideas found their place in the Zohar. ¢ Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah (Princeton, 1987), pp. 370-378. Georges Vajda, Le Commentaire d'Ezra de Gérone sur le Cantique des Cantiques (Paris, 1969). -JOSEPH DAN

Muslim lands, there was no provision for women; they

would sit outside the synagogue window and listen to the service. Abolishing separate seating for men and women was one of the earliest changes introduced by the *Reform movement into the synagogue service. At present, most non-Orthodox synagogues have mixed seating. e Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, New York, and Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 357-358. Leopold Low, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4 (Szegedin, 1898), pp. 72-92.

-SHMUEL

HIMELSTEIN

FACKENHEIM, EMIL (1916-2003), theologian, rabbi. Fackenheim is widely regarded as the preeminent theologian among a group of Jewish thinkers whose thought has been defined primarily by the

philosophical level, the more serious problem was that of faith versus reason. Most philosophers after *Sa‘adyah ben Yosef Ga’on agreed that certain tenets and even commandments were evident truths of

Holocaust. He was by far the best-trained philosopher in this group, and his reflections on the Holocaust are therefore unparalleled in their philosophical subtlety and sophistication. He also outstripped his rivals in the sheer quantity of material he produced on the Holocaust.

reason,

Fackenheim

was

born

in

Halle,

Germany,

Moses

realm. It represents,

proof,

whereas

others

*Maimonides,

in

his

commentary

on

the

faith that ...”); in this form, they found their way

was

into some versions of the *prayer book. Maimonides’ list was criticized by other philosophers, including Hasda’i ben Avraham

*Crescas, Shim‘on Duran (see

DuRAN FamiLy), Yosef *Albo, and Yitshaq Abravanel (see ABRAVANEL FAMILY), but there is little doubt that

the discussion contributed greatly to the clarification of theological reflection. Faith as an expression of Jewish historical experience rather than rational philosophizing was propounded by *Yehuda ha-Levi. The view that Judaism was concerned primarily with conduct (praxis) was reformulated in the eighteenth century, in terms of universalist *Enlightenment rationalism, by Moses *Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn argued

that religious truths were universal; the specificity of the “Mosaic Law” was in its commanding the Israelites what to do, or refrain from doing, rather than

in the divine

in effect, a response

of rational

Mishnah (San. 11.1), enumerated *thirteen principles (Sigqgarim) of faith, which were subsequently reformulated in the form of a *creed (“I believe with perfect

ordained as a Reform rabbi, and spent a brief period in a Nazi forced labor camp before escaping to Canada shortly before World War II. For several decades he served as professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. He emigrated to Israel in 1983 and taught at the Hebrew University. He died in Jerusalem in 2003. At the center of Fackenheim’s thought is the question of whether the Jewish belief in God’s presence in history is still possible after the Holocaust. Fackenheim responds to this challenge by arguing that there is one element in Jewish experience in the post-Holocaust era that provides clear proof of an ongoing access to God: the determination of the Jewish people to survive and endure. Fackenheim believes that this defiance cannot be explained by pride, nostalgia, or tribal instinct; it must have its source

capable

had to be accepted on the authority of *revelation.

what to believe. Mendelssohn himself preferred to translate the opening phrase of the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides with “I am firmly convinced.” *Reform Judaism sought to uncover a new basis of faith to replace the traditional observances and ritual laws that it regarded as no longer binding. Internal religious

to a divine

command, even if the response is, for most Jews, unconscious. In his famous formulation, Fackenheim

identifies this commandment to endure as Judaism’s “614th commandment.” -ROBERT EISEN FAITH. The Hebrew term emunah, derived from a root meaning “firm” or “steadfast,” denotes, in a

polemics between orthodox and rationalists, that is,

religious context, unwavering trust and confidence in God rather than assent to theological propositions. Isaiah 7.9 uses the verb for a punning double-entendre: “if you will not have faith [in the sense of total trust] you will not be established.” The word *amen derives from the same root. There is considerable overlap with the concept of *bittahon.

facts (e.g., the Mosaic origin of the Torah, the account of Creation in Gn. 1). The nature of faith itself (i.e., the act of faith and the nature of the “man of faith”) rather than its contents, or, faith as a mode of life rather than as a matter of “I believe that...,” has become

Over time, however, and in response to a variety of cultural influences, a more self-conscious awareness

Dov Soloveichik [see SOLOVEICHIK FaMILy]), especially under the impact of existentialist philosophy on the one hand and the Holocaust on the other.

progressives, tended to turn on questions of alleged

an increasingly central concern of modern thinkers (e.g., Martin *Buber, Abraham Joshua *Heschel, Yosef

of faith as belief in the truth of certain ideas and propositions developed. The Talmud shows an

e

Eliezer

Berkovits,

God,

Man

and

History

(New

York,

1959).

Martin

awareness that the Torah or, conversely, idolatry could be affirmed or denied (cf. Sifrei on Dt. 28),

Faith (London,

and that holding certain views rendered an individual a kofer ba‘iggar (one who denied the very essence).

Jacobs, Faith (New York, 1968). Louis Jacobs, Principles of the Jewish Faith

Buber, Two Types of Faith (New York, 1951). Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Jewish 1993). Isidore Epstein, Faith of Judaism

(London,

1954).

Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man Is Not Alone (New York, 1955). Abraham Joshua Heschel, Man Is Not Alone (New York, 1951), Louis (New York, 1964). Norbert M. Samuelson, Jewish Faith and Modern Science:

The Mishnah (San. 11.1) lists doctrines whose denial

On the Death and Rebirth of Jewish

causes a person to forfeit a share in “the world to come.” In the Middle Ages the encounter with two rival monotheistic religions, which themselves had felt challenged by rationalist philosophies inherited from Greece, demanded a “defense of the faith.” On the

Joseph Dov Soloveichik, The Halakhic Mind (New York, 1986), Joseph Dov

266

Philosophy

(Landham,

Md., 2009).

Soloveichik, The Lonely Man of Faith (New York, 1992). Milton Steinberg, Anatomy of Faith (New York, 1960) .

FAITH, ARTICLES OF. See THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES OF FAITH.

FALAQUERA,

SHEM TOV BEN YOSEF

267

FALAQUERA, SHEM TOV BEN YOSEF (c.12251295), philosopher and poet in Spain or southern France; author of many books aimed at reconciling Judaism with philosophy. His best-known work, Moreh ha-Moreh (1837), is a commentary on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, which quotes extensively from Arab and Jewish philosophers. Falaquera wrote Sefer ha-Ma‘alot (1557) and Iggeret ha-Vikkuah (1875), a dialogue between a Talmudic scholar and a philosopher about the various degrees of intellectual perfection. His biblical commentary and an exegesis of the aggadot of the Talmud have been lost. His most important work, De‘ot ha-Filosofim remains in manuscript. His work on psychology, Sefer ha-Nefesh, was published in 1978 by Raphael Jospe in a critical edition with an annotated translation in English. ¢ Steven Harvey, Falaquera’s Epistle of the Debate: An Introduction to Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass., 1987). Raphael Jospe, Tora and Sophia: The Life and Thought of Shem Tov ibn Falaquera (Cincinnati, 1988). —FRANCISCO

FALASHAS.

MORENO

CARVALHO

See BETA ISRAEL.

FALK, YASAQOV YEHOSHUSA (1680-1756), Polish-born rabbi. He studied in various yeshivot before embarking on a career in trade. Personal tragedy (the death of his wife and daughter) led him to resume full-time study and a rabbinical career. He served in Lemberg (Lwow) and the surrounding region

before becoming

rabbi of Berlin in 1730, Metz

in

1734, and Frankfurt am Main in 1741. He was bitterly

opposed to Shabbateanism, excommunicating its adherents in Lemberg in 1722. He supported Ya‘aqov *Emden against Yonatan *Eybeschuetz, issuing a ban against him—a stand that led to Falk’s resignation from the Frankfurt rabbinate in 1751. Falk’s fame rested

on

his volumes

of novellae

on

the Talmud,

Penei Yehoshu‘a (published separately, 1730-1780; together, in Lemberg, 1809), distinguished from a work of the same name written by his grandfather by the subtitle Appei Zutrei. His aim was to resolve the problems raised by the tosafists in their commentary on Rashi. ¢ Hayyim Nathan Dembitzer, Sefer Qelilat Yofi (Jerusalem, 1988-1989); repr. of Krakéw, 1892-1893), vol. 1, pp. 108-115. Bernhard Wachstein, “Seridim mi-Pingaso shel Rabbi Ya‘aqov Yehoshu‘a Ba‘al Penei Yehoshu‘a,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects in Memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus (New York, 1929), pp. 15-31. -ADAM TELLER

FALK,

YEHOSHU‘A

KOHEN

(c.1555-1614),

the acronym

BEN

ALEKSANDER

Polish halakhist

known

HAby

Sma‘ from the title of his best-known

FAMILY

His famous Sefer Me’irat “Einayim is a commentary on the *Shulhan ‘Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, today printed in all editions of the Shulhan ‘Arukh. This work is the fourth part of a larger commentary on the Shulhan ‘Arukh and the Arba‘ah Turim, the other three parts of which are called Perishah, Derishah, and Be’urim.

Most of his work (including the first three parts of his commentary) remains in manuscript, though some of his responsa have been published. ¢ Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Hagut ve-Hanhagah (Jerusalem, 1959). Yosef Buksboim, ed., Sefer ha-Zikkaron: Li-Khevodo ule-Zikhro shel-Maran Rabbi Ya‘aqov Betsalel Zolti... (Jerusalem, 1986-1987), pp. 297-320. Jacob Elbaum,

Petihut ve-Histagrut: Ha-Yetsirah ha-Ruhanit ha-Sifrutit be-Polin uve-‘Artsot Ashkenaz be-Shilhe ha-Me’ah ha-Shesh-‘Esreh (Jerusalem, 1990). -ADAM

FALLEN ANGELS.

TELLER

See ANGELS.

FALSE WITNESS. The prohibition “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Ex. 20.13; Dt. 5.17) embraces all forms of slander, defamation,

and misrepresentation, whether of an individual or a group, but is primarily directed against the giving of false testimony in court. The biblical injunction to do to the false witness as he had proposed to do to the accused (Dt. 19.19) applies, in rabbinic law, only if a second pair of witnesses state in court, “How can you testify? You were with us that day in another place.” The punishment is, however, only carried out if the false testimony of the witness is proven prior to the execution of the sentence. See also EVIDENCE; WITNESS. ¢

Menachem

Elon,

Jewish

Law:

History,

Sources,

Principles,

4 vols.

(Philadelphia, 1994). Charles M. Swezey, “Exodus 20:16—‘Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor,” Interpretation 34 (1980): 405-410.

FAMILY.

In

biblical

times,

the

family

unit

that

provided the basis for social structure was the “father’s household,” which included a husband, his wives and concubines, and their children, as well as slaves and

boarders. Reference is also made on occasion to the “mother’s household,” especially in the case of the family of Rebekah (e.g., Gn. 24.28). Larger social groups,

including clans and tribes, also understood

themselves as family units and emphasized their descent from common ancestors. The Bible inculcates respect for *parents (Ex. 20.12) and protection of *inheritance

rights (e.g., Dt.

18.8, 21.15-17),

so as

to keep the patrimony within the possession of the family. Land that had been sold reverted to the family in the jubilee year (see YOVEL). The execution of justice was also often entrusted to the family in early society,

Falk

and in the event of a murder, for example, the next

studied under Moshe Isserles and Shelomo Luria. Declining to accept rabbinical posts, he settled in

of kin was obligated to seek revenge on the murderer

work,

Sefer Me’irat

Lemberg

(Lwow),

‘Einayim.

where,

Born

with

the

in Lublin,

assistance

of

his wealthy father-in-law, he established a private yeshivah. He was a leading rabbinic authority and participated in the Polish Jewish autonomous body, the Council of the Four Lands, drawing up its regulations concerning credit and interest—Hetter ‘Isqga’ (published as Qunteres ‘al ha-Ribbit [1962]).

(see BLOoD AVENGER). Wisdom literature abounds with advice on familial happiness (e.g., Prv. 13.1, 15.5, 19.13), where the *mother, no less than the *father, is the source of instruction (see WOMEN).

The rabbis interpreted the Bible’s first commandment, “Be fruitful and multiply,’ to mean that all Jewish men (but not women) were obligated to father

and raise children. Monogamy became commonplace

within Judaism, first among

Western, and later also

Eastern, Jewry. The Talmudic concept of the family set the tone for the rich Jewish family experience of the Middle Ages, when Jewish life, to a large extent, centered on the home, especially on Sabbaths and festivals. *Children were expected to honor (Ex. 20.12)

and revere (Lv. 19.3) their parents, while the parents had obligations to rear and educate their children. Marital relations were strictly regulated by halakhah, and great stress was laid on taharat ha-mishpahah (family purity; see PURITY AND ImpuRITy, RITUAL), which included avoiding forbidden relationships and observing the relevant laws of ritual purity. Families were proud of their illustrious descent (yizus), originally from the line of David or the priests and later from distinguished

scholars.

See also FATHER;

MARRIAGE;

PURITY AND IMPURITY, RITUAL; SHELOM BayiIT. ¢ Miriam Adahan, The Family Connection: Understanding Your Loved Ones (Southfield, Mich., 1995). Steven Bayme and Gladys Rosen, The Jewish Family and Jewish Continuity (Hoboken, N.J., 1994). Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Jewish Family in Antiquity, Brown Judaic Studies 289 (Atlanta, 1993). Steven M. Cohen and Paula E. Hyman, eds., The Jewish Family: Myths and Reality (New York, 1986). Leora W. Isaacs, Jewish Family Matters: A Leader's Guide (New York, 1994). Michael Kaufman, Love, Marriage, and Family in Jewish Law and Tradition (Northvale, N.J., 1992). Leo G. Perdue et al, eds., Families in Ancient Israel (Louisville, 1997).

FAMILY

FASTS

268

FAMILY

PURITY.

See Purity AND Impurity, RITUAL.

FANO, MENAHEM ‘AZARYAH DA (1548-1620), Italian rabbi and kabbalist. He lived in various Italian cities and as a wealthy man was a patron of scholarship. His influence on medieval Jewish thought was largely through his work on Kabbalah, “Asarah Ma’amarot

(first three parts [Venice,

1597]).

One hundred thirty of his responsa were published in Venice in 1600. In his Gilgulei Neshamot (Prague, 1688) he described many figures in Jewish intellectual history. He thought the problem of evil would be solved when Satan made atonement and became a holy angel. His mystical thought influenced scholars in Safed and also in eastern Europe. His Sefer Sefat Emet (Lubaczéw, 1898) was a noted source for the symbols of Jewish mysticism. He held that God has no name or attributes, and nothing can be said of him

fasting and is the basis of the Talmudic word ta‘anit (in preference to the biblical word

tsom).

Physical

abstention is regarded not as an end in itself but as a means to spiritual self-abasement, as eloquently expressed in the portrayal of the true fast in /saiah 58. This passage was adopted as the prophetic reading for Yom Kippur and was probably read on the occasion of each public fast. The regulation of Yom Kippur specifically mentions that it shall be observed “from evening to evening” (Lv. 23.32), namely, for twenty-

four hours. The only other twenty-four hour fast is *Tish‘ah be-’Av, commemorating the destruction of the Temple. All other fasts last from daybreak until nightfall. All statutory fasts, apart from Yom Kippur, are days of mourning in commemoration of tragic events in Jewish history. Four of them date back to the period of the First Temple or immediately after its destruction,

as is evidenced

by the reference

to

“the fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth”

(Zec. 8.19). These

fasts, all commemorating

stages in the fall of Judah and the destruction of the first Temple, are 17 Tammuz (see SHIV‘AH “ASAR BETAMMUzZ), 9 Av (see TISH‘AH BE- AV), 3 Tishrei (see TSOM GEDALYAH), and 10 Tevet (see ‘ASARAH BE-TEVET). To these was later added 13 Adar (see TA‘ANIT ESTER).

All fasts falling on the Sabbath, except Yom Kippur, are observed on another day (generally the following Sunday). In addition to these statutory fasts, public and private (individual) fasts were also instituted. Public fasts were to ward off threatened calamities, most frequently severe drought; almost the entire tractate *Ta‘anit is devoted to the regulation of these fasts—which are days of supplication and a call to penitence in the hope that “repentance will nullify the evil decree.” The purpose is conveyed in the standard words of admonition recited by the head of the elders on these occasions: “Brothers, it is not written of the men of Nineveh that God saw their sackcloth and their fasting, but that God saw their works that they turned from their evil ways [Jon. 3.10]; and the prophet Joel

says [2.13] ‘Rend your hearts and not your garments”

except that he exists. But his divinity is absolute, and

(Ta‘an. 2.1). Other common fasts were the firstborn fast on 14 Nisan (see Ta‘aNir BEKHORIM); the fast

he is the *Ein Sof who is beyond the imagination and thought.

observed by the bride and groom on their wedding

* Yosef Avivi, in Sefunot, new series, 4.19 (1989): 347-376, for a bibliography of Fano’s writings. Moshe Idel, “Major Currents in Italian Kabbalah between 1560-1660,”

in Essential

Papers

on

Jewish

Baroque Italy, edited by David B. Ruderman

368.

S. Rosenberg,

in Erets

Culture

in Renaissance

(New York,

and

1992), pp. 345-

Yisra’el be-Hagut ha-Yehudit

bi-Yemei

ha-

Beinayim, edited by Moshe Halamish and Aviezer Ravitzky (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 183-192. Y. L. Vidislavski, Toledot Rabbenu: Menahem ‘Azaryah mi-Fano (Peterkov, 1903).

-SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

FASTS, periods of abstention from food as a sign of mourning or in expiation of sins. On a major fast one abstains from eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, and

the wearing of leather footwear. The only fast in the Torah is *Yom Kippur, which concludes the ten-day period of repentance on 10 Tishrei. The phrase “you shall afflict your souls” (Lv. 23.27) was taken to mean

day; the fast observed in certain kabbalistic circles on the eve of the new moon (see YOM KIPPuR QaTAN); and fasts on a *yahrzeit. In the thirteenth century, some

pietists fasted on the first Monday and Thursday of the month of Heshvan and Iyyar to atone for possible overjoyful indulgences during the festivals of Peasah and Sukkot. (For another set of fasts inaugurated after the 1492 expulsions from Spain, see SHOVAVIM Tat). Some sages condemned excessive fasting, and *Levi Yitshaq of Berdichev complained that the evil inclination encouraged fasting to deflect from genuine worship. Individual fasts were undertaken mostly as a result of evil *dreams. Some extremely pious Jews fast every Monday and Thursday (see SHENI vA-HAMISHI). According to halakhah, fasting is obligatory for males

FASTS

269

over thirteen and girls over twelve. Exceptions are made for the sick or when health might be endangered. ¢ Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, New York, and Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 106-108. Isaac Klein, A Guide for Jewish Practice (New York, 1992), Peter Knobel, ed., Gates of the Season (New York, 1983). S. Z. Leiman, “The Scroll of Fasts: The Ninth of Tebet,” Jewish Quarterly Review 74 (1983): 174-195.

FAT. See HELEV. FATALISM, the belief in the inexorable operation of fate, to which everything is subject. Fate can be conceived of as impersonal (e.g., a cosmic law to which even the gods are subject, the rule or influence of the stars [see ASTROLOGY], natural causality, etc.) or as per-

sonal. In the latter case it might be interpreted as the will of an omnipotent God. A certain tension between fatalism and indeterminacy owed to the freedom of action of humans and/or God exists in monotheistic religions (see DETERMINISM; FREE WILL). Generally speaking, Jewish theological tradition emphasizes the element of freedom: everything—or at least Israel— is directly subject to God’s will, but God permits himself to be influenced by prayer, repentance, and good works. Other tendencies are also in evidence, but

full-fledged fatalism could not develop in the religious climate of Judaism.

FEAR OF GOD

sons

and

daughters

in their childhood

(Ket.

50a).

The second-century synod of Usha’ made it obligatory upon a father to maintain his children during their minority (Ket. 49b). Only when parents order a child to transgress the precepts of Judaism must a child defy them. Later authorities ruled that a child could defy his or her father’s objections to choice of a bride or groom (after the child has reached majority). Paternity requires no proof, and it is assumed that the husband of a married woman is the father of her child. In all cases, if a man says “this is my child,” he is believed. In the case of the child of a Jew and a non-Jew, the child’s Jewishness is determined by the status of the mother. In Jewish marriages, the child’s communal standing is modeled after the father’s; that is, the son

of a priest is a priest regardless of whether the mother belongs to a priestly family or not (Qid. 3.12). A father can punish his children only while they are minors (Mo‘ed Q. 17a). His legal responsibility toward them generally ends upon their attaining their majority (see ADULT), which is the basis of the blessing uttered by

the father at the bar mitsvah of his son: “Blessed be he who has relieved me of the responsibility for him.” The use of “father” as a title of honor is rare in Judaism. It is said that only the three *patriarchs may be called

© David B. Burrell, Freedom and Creation in the Three Traditions (Notre Dame, 1993). Joseph Wochenmark, The Concept of Fatalism in Judaism, translated by Arnold W. Marque and edited by Seymour Cohen (Berkeley, 1977).

father (Ber. 15b); in rabbinical literature Hillel and Shamm’ai (‘“Eduy. 1.4) and R. Yishma‘ell (Y., R. ha-Sh. 56a) are referred to as “the fathers of the world.” On

FATE.

the other hand, during the tannaitic period a number of rabbis were given the honorific title (as distinct from

See PROVIDENCE.

a cognomen,

FATHER

(Heb. av; Aram.

abba’). In the Bible, the

term is used for a biological father as well as for a leader or founder of a group (Gn. 4.20; 2 Kgs. 2.12) and for the patriarchs or ancestors. The basic family unit is called beit av, “house of the father” (Gn. 24-38). The biological father was the head of the household,

with authority over its members and the protector of their interests in society. Both fathers and mothers are to enjoy honor and respect from their children, as specified in the Fifth Commandment. A person without a father was an *orphan, even if the mother

was alive. In earliest times the father may have had total authority over his household but Deuteronomy limits that authority. “To sleep with one’s fathers” or “to be gathered to one’s fathers” refers to burial in a family burial plot and/or to be joined with deceased ancestors. In Jewish law, the rights of the father over his *children, as long as they are minors, are unbounded. The father, on his part, has definite legal obligations

toward his children, which are codified in the saying that “the father is obliged to circumcise his son, teach him Torah, teach him a trade, and marry him off”

(Qid. 29b). There was originally no legal obligation on the father to provide for his children’s material

common in amoraic times) of *abba’, generally those who maintained a particularly high standard of saintliness and purity in their lives. The second in rank in the *Sanhedrin, after the nasi’, was given the title of av beit din (father of the court; Hag. 16b). The word is also applied to a teacher, and the Talmud regarded the father and son of the Book of Proverbs as teacher and disciple (Hul. 6a). God is called a father in the liturgy (our father, merciful father, etc.). See also FAMILY; INHERITANCE; MOTHER; PARENTS; PATRILINEAL DESCENT. ¢ James Barr, “Abba Isn't ‘Daddy,”’ Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 28-47. Gordon E. Pruett, As a Father Loves His Children: The Image of God as Loving Father in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (San Francisco,

1994).

Devorah Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Louisville, 1995).

FEAR

OF GOD, or awe, is regarded as the basis of

Jewish religious awareness and is repeatedly exhorted in the Torah,

for example,

“And

now,

Israel, what

does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord” (Dt. 10.12). Fear of God is the “beginning (or first principle) of knowledge” (Prv. 1.7; cf. Prv. 10.10). In biblical language the terms “fear” and “love” are close to each other in meaning. According to the Talmud the person who “possesses knowledge without fear of heaven is like a treasurer who possesses

needs (instead, this was regarded as a moral duty);

the

hence, the rabbinical application of the verse “Happy are they that keep justice, that do righteousness at

Talmudic literature uses the alternative phrase “fear of heaven” [yir'at shamayim]). The purity of motive that is demanded in the service of God is emphasized

all times” (Ps. 106.3) to the man

who maintains his

outer

keys

but

not

the

inner’

(Shab.

31a-b;

FEMINISM

270

FEAR OF GOD by Antigonus of Sokho who states that one should serve God without any thought of reward but “let the fear of heaven be upon you” (Avot 1.3). The rabbinic

published several volumes

hiddushim

of Talmudic

(novellae) and discourses under the title of Dibberot Moshe (11 vols. [1946-1984]). These works serve as

ben El‘azar, “Greater is he who acts from love than he who acts from fear” (Sot. 31a). Fear of heaven

a major source for understanding twentieth-century Orthodox Jewry’s encounter with modern science, technology, and politics.

is entirely in humankind’s hands, and the statement “everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear

* Daniel Eidensohn, Yad Moshe: Index to the Igros Moshe of Rav Moshe Feinstein (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1987). Shimon Finkelman, with Nosson Scherman, Reb Moshe: The Life and Ideals of ha Gaon Rabbi Moshe

attitude is expressed in the statement of R. Shim‘on

of heaven” (Ber. 33b) is a key to the rabbinic doctrine of

*free will. Fear of God is to be distinguished from fear of divine punishment, for as “fear and trembling” arise out of an awareness of the awesome and numinous quality of the divine majesty, it is closely allied to the complementary attitude of love of God. Impressive formulations of the sense of numinous awe in the presence of God are found in the liturgy for Ro’sh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur (the first and last of the “Days of Awe,” see YAMIM

NoraiM).

Among

the

medieval philosophers, *Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’ sees fear of God as an essential prerequisite to the love of God. He also distinguishes between two grades of fear of God: the lower being fear of punishment for sin, the higher being awe of God (Hovot ha-Levavot 10; a similar distinction is made

in the *Zohar and

Feinstein (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1986). Ira Robinson, “Because of Our Many Sins:

The Contemporary Jewish World as Reflected in the Responsa of Moses Feinstein,” Judaism 35 (1986): 35-46. Nosson Scherman, “Rabbi Moses Feinstein: An Appreciation,” Jewish Observer (October 1986): 8-31. -JEFFREY

S. GUROCK

FEMINISM. Jewish women have played active roles in feminist movements for social change since the nineteenth century. Beginning in the early 1970s, thousands of Jewish women who already had made commitments to enhancing women’s roles and status in society began to direct their energies, and their feminist

critiques,

more

directly

toward

a

trans-

formation of Judaism and the American Jewish community. With the exception of the short-lived Jewish Feminist Organization (1972-1974) and, more recently, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance,

by the eighteenth-century moralist Moshe Hayyim *Luzzatto). *Maimonides suggests that fear of God leads to moral action and love of God leads to right thinking (Guide of the Perplexed 3.52).

feminist efforts to transform Jewish society have tended to be made largely through communal and denominational efforts; the growing visibility of

¢ Adolf Biichler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature ofthe

scholarship including studies of the Bible, Talmud, and Jewish history and literature; the proliferation

First Century (London,

1928). Louis Jacobs, Jewish Values (London,

1960),

pp. 31-50. Byron L. Sherwin, “Fear of God,” in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, edited by Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes Flohr (New York, 1987),

pp. 245-254. Efraim Elimelech Urbach, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 400-419.

FEAST.

See Haccim; SE‘UDAH.

women

in Jewish

leadership roles; feminist critical

of conferences, classes, and lecture series on Jewish feminism and issues related to gender; and such

magazines as Lilith: The Independent Jewish Women’s Magazine (1976-present) and Bridges: A Journal for Jewish Feminists and Our Friends (1991- present).

FEINSTEIN, MOSHE (1895-1986), Orthodox rabbi generally acknowledged as one of the outstanding Orthodox legal adjudicators of the twentieth century. Born in Uzda, Belorussia, Feinstein studied in yeshivot in Slutsk, Shklov, and Arntsishaw before being named rabbi of Luban, Belorussia. He remained in that post

for sixteen years before fleeing Soviet oppression and emigrating to the United States in 1936. Settling on the Lower East Side of New York City, he was appointed ro’sh yeshivah (dean) of the Mesivta Tifereth Yerushalayim, a position he maintained until his death fifty years later. He was president of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada and chaired the American section of Agudat Israel’s

Since the early 1990s, the Israel Women’s Network has initiated and actively supported feminist efforts in Israel and has facilitated communication and coordinated action among Jewish feminists throughout the world.

Outside

of North

America

and

Israel,

Great Britain, with a Jewish population of over three hundred thousand, can claim the only other Jewish community in which feminist issues have consistently been placed on the communal agenda. Given their many religious and cultural differences, Jewish feminists do not all share a common agenda. Some feminists have called for greater participation by women within religious life, though not necessarily equal access. Many of them, Orthodox or traditional Conservative,

have attempted

to create or facilitate

took a leadership role in the independent Orthodox

public religious opportunities for girls and women from which traditionally they were exempt if not

educational system in Israel, Hinnukh ‘Atsma’i.

excluded; other

Feinstein’s greatest renown stemmed from a lifetime of responding to religious questions posed by Orthodox Jews in America and worldwide. His thousands

to all aspects of Jewish life, including those rights and responsibilities (such as rabbinic ordination and

rabbinical council, Mo‘etset Gedolei ha-Torah. He also

of responsa,

which

deal with

the widest

range

of

human experiences and Jewish ritual problems and observances, have been compiled in his seven-volume Iggerot

Moshe’

(New

York,

1959-1986).

He

also

Jewish feminists call for equal access

cantorial investiture) formerly reserved for men, and the integration of women’s experiences into Jewish life leading toward Judaism’s eventual transformation. Still others are working toward a feminist Judaism, in

which concepts of God, Torah, and Jewish peoplehood

FEMINISM

271

are reevaluated

and re-created.

See also EDUCATION.

FINKEL, NATAN TSEVI

WOMEN’s; RABBI AND RABBINATE, WOMEN: WOMEN.

Festival prayers are printed in a special volume, the *Mahaczor.

* Rachel Adler, Engendering Judaism: An Inclusive Theology and Ethics (Boston, 1998), Marcia Falk, The Book of Blessings (Boston, 1999), Sylvia Barack Fishman, A Breath of Life: Feminism in the American Jewish

¢ Abraham P. Bloch, The Biblical and Historical Background of the Jewish Holy Days (New York, 1978). Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia,

Community

(New

York,

1993).

Blu Greenberg,

On

Women

and Judaism:

A View from Tradition (Philadelphia, 1981). Tova Hartman, Feminism Encounters Traditional Judaism: Resistance and Accommodation (Waltham,

Mass., 2007). Susannah Heschel, ed., On Being a Jewish Feminist: (1983; New

York,

1994). Haviva

Ner-David,

A Reader

Life on the Fringes: A Feminist

Journey Toward Traditional Rabbinic Ordination (Needham, Mass., 2000). Judith Plaskow, Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism froma Feminist Perspective (San Francisco, 1990). Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Deborah, Golda, and Me: Being Female and Jewish in America (New York, 1991). Danya Ruttenberg, Yentl's Revenge: The Next Wave of Jewish Feminism (Seattle, 2001), Barbara Swirski and Marilyn Safir, eds., Calling the Equality Bluff; Women in Israel (New York, 1991). Ellen M. Umansky and Dianne Ashton, eds., Four Centuries of Jewish Women's Spirituality: A Sourcebook (Boston, 1992), includes rituals,

blessings, essays, and prayers by many contemporary Jewish feminists. -ELLEN

FENCE

AROUND

THE

LAW.

M. UMANSKY

See SeEyac LA-TorRAH.

FESTIVAL PRAYERS. In their basic structure, festival prayers do not differ greatly from the daily prayers (see Ma‘artv; MINHAH; SHAHARIT) or the Sabbath liturgy (see SABBATH PRAYERS); however, they are distinguished in four areas: scriptural readings; changes in number and content of obligatory prayers and additions;

poetic embellishments

(see Pryyut);

and musical aspects of the congregational service. The Torah and prophetic readings are taken from passages concerning the festival or containing a special theological message associated with the festival by the sages. The Five Scrolls (see HAMESH

MEGILLOT)

are read on relevant occasions: Song of Songs on the Sabbath during the week of Pesah; Ruth on Shavu‘ot; Lamentations on Tish‘ah be-’Av; Ecclesiastes

on Sukkot; and Esther on Purim. On festivals the number of services is increased from three to four with the addition of the *Musaf service and even a fifth, concluding

service on Yom

Kippur (*Ne‘ilah);

the intermediary blessings of the daily *‘Amidah are replaced by one blessing dedicated to the specific “holiness of the day,” reducing the total number of blessings to seven; and special additions are made to

the

‘Amidah,

such

as

those

in the

Ro’sh

ha-

Shanah Musaf service (*Malkhuyyot, *Zikhronot, and *Shofarot) or the addition of the *confession in the

Yom Kippur ‘Amidah prayers (see ‘AL HET’; ASHAMNU). The other sections of the liturgy for festivals do not differ essentially from the weekday version. *Pesuqei de-Zimra’ is enlarged and followed by *Birkat haShir,

as

on

the

Sabbath.

*Hallel

is recited

after

the morning service on the Shalosh Regalim, Ro’sh Hodesh,

Hanukkah,

and

Yom

ha-‘Atsma'ut;

*Kol

Nidrei is recited at the solemn opening of Yom Kippur. Although the festival prayers have been elaborated with piyyutim, in recent times the tendency has been to reduce or omit them. Special cantillations for the reading of sections of the Torah (for example, the reading of the Ten Commandments on Shavu‘ot) or special melodies for piyyutim or prayers also contribute to the special character of Jewish holy days.

1993),

pp. 91-184.

Abraham

Z. Idelsohn, Jewish

Development (New York, 1929),

FESTIVALS.

Music:

-PETER

Its Historical LENHARDT

See Haccim.

FIFTEENTH OF AV. See Tu BE-’Av. FIFTEENTH

OF SHEVAT.

FINDING OF PROPERTY. FINES

See Tu BI-SHEvatT. See Lost Property.

(Heb. genasot). While any court can render

a decision involving monetary statutes, the authority to levy a fine as a punishment for wrongdoing, such as is explicitly stated in the Bible (for example, “He whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor”; Ex. 22.8), rests only with those judges who have received ordination in Erets Yisra’el from teachers themselves so ordained. Fines can be imposed only on the evidence of two witnesses; the admission of the defendant is insufficient (Ket. 42b43a). In practice, certain categories of fines are levied by rabbinical courts up to the present, despite the fact that ordination has long ceased to exist. Generally the amount of the fine is fixed by the court, although in

some cases it is fixed by law. Fines for which one can only become

liable on conviction

in court, but not

when one freely admits to wrongdoing, are payable to the injured party and not to the court or the state. Later rabbinical courts, however, ruled that fines should be

paid to the communal fund in the case of certain public misdemeanors. Fines could also be imposed for failure to observe public obligations (e.g., refusal to accept communal office). ¢ Menachem Elon, Jewish (Philadelphia, 1994).

FINIALS.

Law:

History,

Sources,

Principles,

4 vols.

See ToRAH ORNAMENTS.

FINKEL, NATAN TSEVI (1849-1927), Talmudic scholar and leader of the *Musar movement. He was born in Raseiniai, Lithuania, and was a disciple of Simhah Zissel Broida, who was one of the outstanding students of Yisra’el *Salanter, founder of the Musar

movement. Finkel devoted his life to the dissemination of Musar literature, stressing the importance of ethical behavior and the ability of human individuals to elevate themselves to greater heights. In 1882 he established a Musar yeshivah in *Slobodka, Lithuania, where hundreds of Talmudic scholars were educated.

In 1924 he opened a branch in Hebron and moved there himself in 1925. His students called him the Sabba’ (Grandad) of Slobodka. Finkel left no published works, but a number of his discourses were collected by students in Or ha-Tsafun (Jerusalem, 1959) and Sihot ha-Sabba’ mi-Slobodka (Tel Aviv,

1955).

FIRSTBORN

P57(04

FINKEL, NATAN TSEVI

Conservative

FIRKOWITSCH, AVRAHAM (1785-1874), Karaite scholar. Born in Lutsk, Poland, Firkowitsch was a controversial figure in eastern European Jewish culture in the nineteenth century. He began to publish the writings of the early Karaite scholars, which he edited, sometimes changing or omitting sections in order to strengthen the Karaite position. He attempted to prove that it was the Karaites who had converted the Khazars to Judaism. His contempt for Talmudic Judaism is evident in his work Massah

rabbi, educator, and scholar. He earned his doctorate

u-Merivah (1838). His views led to bitter disputes with

at Columbia University in 1918 and received his rabbinical ordination one year later from the Jewish Theological Seminary. He taught at the seminary and served as provost in 1937, president in 1940,

rabbinical authorities, and he angered many Jews by seeking to curry favor with the Russian government, suggesting that the Jews should be encouraged to enter agriculture and should be removed from the areas near the western border in order to prevent smuggling. He was commissioned by the governor-general of Crimea and the Historical Society of Odessa in 1839 to undertake expeditions in the Caucasus in order to uncover the origins of the Karaites. He acquired many

e

Lucy S. Dawidowicz,

ed., The Golden

Tradition (1967; repr. Northvale,

N.J., 1989), pp. 179-185. Dov Katz, Tenu‘at Ha-Musar, vol. 3 (Tel Aviv, 1974), repr. in English as The Musar Movement, translated by Leonard Oschry -ADAM

(Jerusalem, 1982).

FINKELSTEIN,

(1895-1991),

LOUIS

MINTZ

scholar

of

rabbinical thought and chancellor of the *Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York. Born to

an

gained

Orthodox

his

family

reputation

and chancellor

in

as

Cincinnati,

a leading

Finkelstein

in 1951, raising the seminary

to an

international center for Jewish studies. He guided the Conservative movement to a preeminent role in Jewish religious life in the United States in the postWorld War II years. He wrote and edited many books and articles exploring historical and sociological understandings of rabbinic Judaism. In his pioneering Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages (1924), Finkelstein traced the development of European rabbinical authority and the structuring of medieval Jewish life through synods and tagqanot. His other works include The Pharisees (2 vols. [1938 and 1966]) and Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr (1936). ¢ A Bibliography of the Writings ofLouis Finkelstein (New York, 1977). Moshe Davis, The Emergence of Conservative Judaism (Philadelphia, 1963). Herbert Parzen, Architects of Conservative Judaism (New York, 1964). Neil Gillman, Conservative Judaism: The New Century (New York, 1993). -EUGENE

R. SHEPPARD

FIRE (Heb. esh). Fire was associated with the revelation of God to Abraham (Gn. 15.17) and Moses (Ex. 3.2 [the *burning bush] and Ex. 19.18 [the revelation at Sinai]). At the time of the Exodus and

in the wilderness, God appeared in a pillar of fire (Ex. 31.13-22). In ritual practice, its use was limited to the fire on the altar for the burnt offering (Lv. 6.5) and

the eternal light (*ner tamid) that burned in the Temple (Ex. 27.20; Lv. 24.2). Both had to remain permanently alight. The lamp is regarded as the symbol of God’s presence among his people (Shab. 22b), and most synagogues have a ner tamid for that symbolic reason. Aaron’s two sons forfeited their lives for offering up on the altar “strange fire which he had not commanded them”; as a result “fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed

them”

(Lv. 10.1-2). Kindling a

fire is singled out as a Sabbath prohibition (Ex. 35.3). While the rabbis ruled that a fire kindled before the Sabbath was permitted, the Sadducees and Karaites forbade even the existence of a fire on the Sabbath. The blessing over the *Havdalah candle praises God “who creates the lights of fire’ (Ber. 52a) through which man becomes culturally creative during the six workdays. The use of Sabbath and Havdalah candles is not connected with the ritual use offire in the Temple. See also CANDLES; MENORAH; OIL; SABBATH. ¢ Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (Cleveland, 1961).

valuable

documents

from

the genizot (storehouses)

of Jewish communities and sought to prove that the Karaites were descendants of the ten lost tribes, who

had lived in Crimea from antiquity and could not be accused of any connection with the crucifixion of Jesus. Firkowitsch describes his discoveries and travels in his main work, Avnei Zikkaron (1872). The authenticity of much of Firkowitsch’s material has been questioned; some documents were forged. However, he succeeded in stimulating interest in

Karaite and Jewish history and literature and saved a large number of Karaite manuscripts in the east that would have been lost without his initiative. Most of them were gathered in Erets Yisra’el, Syria, and Egypt in 1843. He sold many of these manuscripts to the Saint Petersburg library. ¢ Adolf Jellinek, Abraham Firkowitsch ...(Vienna, 1875). Hermann L. Strack, A. Firkowitsch und seine Entdeckungen (Leipzig, 1876). _-ADAM RUBIN

FIRMAMENT.

FIRSTBORN

See CosMOLOoGy AND CREATION.

(Heb.

bekhor),

a

designation

that

applies to a father’s firstborn male child, regardless of whether the child is his mother’s firstborn. The Bible allots the firstborn a double portion of the inheritance from his father’s estate (Dt. 21.17). This right does

not apply to that which accrues posthumously to the estate. Since in Jewish law it is not the testator’s will that determines to whom the *inheritance should go, a father cannot deprive his firstborn of his inheritance right. A father may, however, divide his property during his lifetime, thus equalizing his children’s shares; the property is then a gift bestowed during the lifetime of the owner and does not infringe upon the laws of inheritance. According to some authorities, however, a father violates a religious precept if he does not make provision for his firstborn son to enjoy his *birthright, although the firstborn may voluntarily renounce his birthright (B. B. 124a). A child born after his father’s death, although an inheritor, does

FIRSTBORN

2i3

not enjoy the right of primogeniture, and a child delivered by Caesarean section is likewise excluded (Bekh. 8:2). On receiving his double inheritance, the firstborn takes on double the obligations affecting the estate; thus, he is obligated to pay a double share in settling his father’s outstanding debts. Kingship and other hereditary offices pass to the firstborn, provided he is suited for the tasks of office. See also BIRTHRIGHT; FIRSTBORN, REDEMPTION OF THE; TASANIT BEKHORIM. ¢

Barry J. Beitzel, “The Right of the Firstborn (P? Shnayim) in the Old

Testament

(Deut. 21:15-17),” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, edited by W.

Kaise and R. Youngblood (Chicago, 1986), pp. 179-190. Nathan Gottlieb, A Jewish Child Is Born: The History and Ritual of Circumcision, Redemption of the Firstborn Son, Adoption, Conversion and Choosing and Giving of Names (New York, 1960).

FIRSTBORN,

FAST

OF _ THE.

See

TA‘ANIT

BEKHORIM.

FIRST FRUITS

redeemed or destroyed. Since the destruction of the Temple, the firstlings of animals are given to a priest and left to pasture. They may not be used nor may benefit be derived from them unless a blemish occurs that would

animals (Ex. 13.1-16).

The redemption of a firstborn son is effected at a short religious ceremony on the thirty-first day after a child’s birth (if that falls on a Sabbath or festival, the

ceremony is postponed until the eve of the following day), and the occasion is a festive one. The ceremony was finalized in the geonic period. The father quotes Numbers 18.16 and Exodus 13.1, assures the priest that he prefers to give the priest money rather than his firstborn son, and recites two appropriate blessings. The ceremony is usually followed by a festive repast. Prior to the construction of the Tabernacle, the firstborn male in each family was consecrated to the service of God, thus forming a priesthood of the firstborn,

Hebrew when

in return

for the deliverance

of the

firstborns during the night of the Exodus, Egyptian

Rabbinic tradition firstborns indeed completion of the exchanged for the

firstborns

were slain (Nm. 8.17). asserts (Zev. 112b) that the Israelite served in the priesthood until the Tabernacle, whereupon they were tribe of Levi (Nm. 3.12-13). Priests

and Levites are exempt from the obligation to redeem their firstborn since they are, in fact, consecrated to the service of God (Nm. 3.6-10). The firstborn sons of the

daughters of priests or Levites are also not redeemed. The obligation of redemption does not apply in the case of a child who was preceded by a miscarriage or a stillbirth, or who was delivered by Caesarean section,

since in these instances the child does not in fact “open the womb” of its mother. The firstling of pure

animals

(that is, those from

which sacrifices can be brought) are automatically consecrated at birth and, in Temple times, were to be sacrificed as peace offerings (Nm. 18.15-18;

Dt. 15.19-23). The firstling of an ass is to be either

invalidated

them

for sacrifice,

in

¢ Me’ir Kohen, Sefer Milah u-fidyon ka-halakhah: kolel dinim u-minhagim shel milah u-fidyon ba-devarim ha-nog‘im halakhah le-ma‘aseh, be-tosefet be'urim u-te‘amim la-halakhot Vela-minhagim lefi minhage ha-Sefaradim Va-‘adot haMizrah (Ashdod, 1998). Gedaly Oberlander, Sefer Pidyon ha-Ben ke-Hilkhato (Jerusalem, 1992), Yosef David Weisberg, Sefer Otsar Pidyon ha-Ben, 2 vols. (Jerusalem,

FIRSTBORN, REDEMPTION OF THE (Heb. pidyon ha-ben), a father’s obligation to redeem his firstborn son from a priest by payment of a ransom of five shekels (Ni. 3.44-51) or its equivalent in goods. The commandment to redeem the firstborn applies to the firstborn male of the mother—“whatsoever opens the womb’”— and applies to both humans and

have

which case they may be slaughtered for food. The laws of the firstborn are found in tractate *Bekhorot. Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism generally do not perform this ceremony as it is considered archaic and inconsistent with egalitarian values; however, some families still choose to observe the ceremony or to change the ritual to one more compatible with egalitarian principles.

1993).

FIRST FRUITS (Heb. bikkurim). The biblical precept to bring the first ripe fruits, cultivated or wild, to the Temple (Ex. 23.19, 34.26; Dt. 26) applied, according to the Talmud, only in Temple times (since the first fruits, which had the sacred status of the *terumah, were to be placed “before the altar of the

Lord”) and affected only the produce of Erets Yisra’el, in which the rabbis included Transjordan and Syria. First fruits could be brought only from the seven kinds of produce for which the Land of Israel was praised: wheat, barley, figs, vines, pomegranates, olives, and honey (Dt. 8.8). When the first fruits appeared in the field, they were to be tied with a marker and

left to grow and ripen. They were then cut and brought with great ceremony to the Temple court. Psalms were chanted throughout the journey, which was made by as large a group of people as possible. The

streets

of Jerusalem

were

adorned,

and

those

bringing the first fruits were profusely welcomed. The main occasion for bringing the fruits was the feast of *Shavu‘ot (called the Festival of the First Fruits), but

they could be brought until the following Hanukkah. Placed in a basket (Dt. 26.2), the copiously decorated fruit was presented to the priest, while the donor recited the confession prescribed in Deuteronomy 26.5-10, thereby expressing his faith in God, the owner of the land, and thanksgiving for allowing him to hold it in trust. The priest then touched the basket, and the fruit became his property. The entire ceremony was accompanied by the singing of Psalm 30 by the Levitical choir and followed by the peace offerings. After the destruction of the Temple, when first fruits could no longer be brought, the rabbis regarded acts of charity as a substitute (Lv. Rab. 24), especially those for the support of scholars (Ket. 106a). The relevant legislation is discussed in the Talmudic tractate *Bikkurim. A modern celebration of the bringing of the first fruits has been introduced in some Israeli kibbutsim. ¢ Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Laws of Orlah and First Fruits in the Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum ps-Jonathan,” Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987):

195-202. John C. Reeves, “The Feast of First Fruits of

Wine and the Ancient Canaanite Calendar,” Vetus Testamentum

42 (1992):

350-361.

FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES. FIVE SCROLLS.

See BIBLE; TORAH.

See HAMESH MEGILLOT.

FLAGELLATION.

re-created. Subsequently, God vowed never to repeat this punishment and proclaimed the *rainbow as a sign of his covenant (Gn. 9.12-17). Flood legends are known from many parts of the world. The biblical

See JosEPHUS FLAVIUS.

FLESH (Heb. basar). The word is used in the Bible for the body as a whole; as a collective noun for humankind (Js. 66.16); figuratively, as the impressionable side of hurnan nature (Ez. 35.26) or weakness (/s. 31.3); and as a type of food (Dn.

7.5). Originally forbidden to humans as food (Gn. 1.29-30), it was later permitted with qualifications (see MEAT). The dualistic opposition of flesh and spirit taught by some Jewish groups (such as the *Qumran community) and adopted by the *New Testament was not favored by rabbinic Judaism, which encouraged neither the mortification of flesh nor the ascription to it of inherent sinfulness. Although recognizing that human frailties stem from the nature of the *body and the temptations to which it is subject, the consensus of Jewish precept and teaching, far from negating the flesh, is directed to uplifting and sanctifying it. * Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley, 1993). William D. Davies, “The Old Enemy: The Flesh and Sin,” in Paul and

Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (New York, 1967). Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, ed., People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective (Albany, 1992).

FLOGGING (Heb. malqot), punishment by the infliction of lashes as provided for in Deuteronomy 25.1-3. Although the Bible prescribes a maximum of forty lashes, the rabbis interpreted this as a maximum of thirty-nine, one-third being administered on the chest

and two-thirds upon the back. The number of lashes was determined by the beit din in accordance with the gravity of the offense. Flogging was the normal punishment for the active infringement of negative commandments for which no specific mention was made of a death penalty. It was also considered to be sufficient punishment for severe violations of commandments for which the punishment was traditionally decreed as *karet (cutting off). Although there was no physical punishment for the failure to carry out a positive commandment, the rabbinical authorities administered such punishment for the general welfare of the community in all cases where they saw fit. Flogging has not been applied in modern times, and in the State of Israel corporal punishment was forbidden in 1950. The subject is fully discussed in the Talmudic tractate *Makkot. Formerly, symbolic lashes were administered in synagogues to male congregants on the eve of Yom Kippur as an indication of contrition. Menachem

(Philadelphia,

Elon, 1994),

Jewish

Law:

History,

Sources,

FLOOD. The biblical account of the flood that God visited upon the earth because of human wickedness is told in Genesis 6.5-9.17. Only the righteous *Noah, his family, and representatives of the animal kingdom were allowed to escape in a floating ark. The Flood is described as a release of the primeval waters of chaos that had been restrained by the act of creation. After the Flood, the world was, as it were,

See FLOGGING.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS.

¢

FOLKLORE

274

FIRST FRUITS

Principles,

4 vols.

similarities to the Sumerianis in Tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic. Bible scholars maintain that Genesis 6-9 weaves two originally distinct versions into a single story, in which the ancient Near Eastern material was refashioned into a narrative expressing a monotheistic and universalist conception of history. The Midrash develops this view by describing in detail the sinfulness of antediluvian humanity and Noah’s attempts to make them repent. account

shows

many

Babylonian versions; the best known

e¢

Norman

Cohn, Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western

Thought

(New Haven, 1996). Chaim Cohen and Elisha Qimron, “Mabbul,” in ‘Olam ha-Tanakh: Be-Re’shit (Tel Aviv, 1982), p. 59. Jack P. Lewis, “Flood,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2 (New York, 1992), pp. 798-803. S. Loewenstamm, “Mabbul,” in Entsiglopedyah Migqra’it, vol. 4 (Jerusalem,

1962). Abraham Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (Oxford,

1989),p.33.

FOLKLORE, popular traditions, including beliefs, customs, ritual practices, music, songs, dances, legends, and tales, originally oral but no longer exclusively so since the spread of literacy. Jewish folklore comprises traditions that are specifically cultivated and practiced by Jews. Ina community spread around the world, these traditions also inevitably reflect the influence of the respective environments. The bearers of so-called “high” culture, whether literary, philosophical, theological, or halakhic, have tended to regard folklore as a debased or lower form of culture, often associated with magic, superstition, and

non-Jewish and pagan traditions. Hence the term is sometimes used with a pejorative connotation, and many beliefs and minhagim (e.g., *Lag ba-‘Omer, *kapparot, *pilgrimages to tombs of holy rabbis, *dybbuk, *golem) were at first disapproved. Today, folklore is understood as a legitimate form of culture, and an increasing number of monographs, journals, and archival collections are devoted to the study of all aspects of Jewish folklore. * Tamar Alexander and Galit Hasan-Rokem, eds., Mehgerei Yerushalayim beFolglor Yehudi (Jerusalem, 1981-1996). Tamar Alexander-Frizer, The Pious Sinner: Ethics and Aesthetics in the Medieval Hasidic Narrative, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 5 (Tiibingen, 1991). Haya Bar-Itzhak, Jewish Poland: Legends of Origin: Ethnopoetics and Legendary Chronicles

(Detroit,

2001).

Micah

Joseph

Berdichevsky,

Mimekor

Yisrael:

Selected Classical Jewish Folktales, collected by Micha Joseph bin Gorion; edited by Emanuel bin Gorion; translated by I. M. Lask; prepared, with an introduction

and headnotes,

by Dan

Ben-Amos

(Bloomington,

1998).

Galit Hasan-Rokem, “Proverbs in Israeli Folk Narratives: A Structural Semantic Analysis,” FF Communications 232 (Helsinki, 1982). Dov Noy,

ed., Mehgerei ha-Merkaz le-Heger ha-Folglor, 7 vols. (Jerusalem, 1970-1995). Dov Noy, ed., Studies in Jewish

Folklore (Cambridge,

Mass.,

1980). Haim

Schwarzbaum, Jewish Folklore Between East and West: Collected Papers (Beersheba, 1989). Kay Kaufman Shelemay, Let Jasmine Rain Down: Song

FOLKLORE

275

and Remembrance among Syrian Jews (Chicago, 1998). Aliza Shenhar-Alroy, Jewish and Israeli Folklore (New Delhi, 1987). Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (New York, 1974; 2004). Eli Yassif, Sippur ha-“Am ha-‘Ivri: Toledotav, Sugav, u-Mashma‘uto (Jerusalem, 1994),

FOOD CUSTOMS. Jewish culinary traditions date back three thousand years. They are based on the *dietary laws and on ingredients available in the countries in which Jews lived. Considerable differences emerged between Ashkenazi and Sephardi traditions and nomenclatures. Ceremonial foods in ancient Israel served as a means of expressing the relationship between humans and God and between the priestly tribe of Levi and the rest of the Israelite people. To some extent, meals are patterned on the sacrificial practices of ancient Israel, with the main components being bread, meat, and *wine. Meat (including chicken) and wine are served at festive meals and are absent during periods of public mourning such as the days preceding *Tish‘ah B’Av (see BEIN HA-METSARIM). Sabbaths and festivals are marked by the eating of */allah (two loaves of bread often baked in a braided or twisted form) and the drinking of wine. Many food customs evolved in connection with holidays. The celebration of *Ro’sh ha-Shanah includes partaking of honey and a fruit not previously eaten in that season to symbolize the hope for a sweet year ahead. Foods like lekah (honey cake), teyglakh (boiled dough dipped in honey) and carrot fsimmes are also eaten. By placing the head of a fish on the table, Sephardim express the hope of being like the head and not the tail. During

*Sukkot,

the fall harvest

festival, families

dine in a specially constructed booth (see SUKKAH) and traditionally eat stuffed vegetables, as a symbol of plenty, such as yaprak (stuffed grape leaves), or holishkes

or praches

(stuffed

cabbage).

In Yemen,

families would consume a sheep or an ox. During *Hanukkah, latkes (potato pancakes fried in oil) are eaten by most American Jews, while Sephardi Jews eat

sweets fried in oil and dipped in honey, and Israelis eat sufganiyyot (jelly doughnuts), symbolic of the oil of the Hanukkah miracle. On *Purim, the last festival before

*Pesah, when the yearly store of flour must be used up, hamantashen (triangular-shaped pastries filled with poppy seeds or fruit, traditionally believed to be in the shape of *Haman’s hat) are eaten. For seven days (eight in the Diaspora) during Pesah, dishes prepared with

*matsah

(unleavened

bread),

symbolizing

the

Exodus from Egypt, and eggs, abundant in the spring and symbolic of fertility, are eaten. Various symbolic dishes are part of the *Seder ceremony. Ashkenazim eat knaidlach, a matsah dumpling made with eggs and fat, in chicken soup. During Pesah, Ashkenazim, but not Sephardim, refrain from eating rice and legumes (see QiTNIvyoT). On *Shavu‘ot, the

feast of the first fruits and the time of the receiving of the Torah, dairy foods such as cheesecake and blintzes

FORGIVENESS

(thin pancakes, an Ashkenazi dish) filled with cheese are served. Traditional Sabbath meals among Ashkenazim often include gefilte fish, prepared from a mixture of ground fish, bread or matsah crumbs, eggs, and seasonings simmered in a fish stock; chopped liver; and kugel (baked sweet or savory pudding made from noodles, potatoes, or bread). Since cooking is not allowed on the Sabbath, all cooked foods must be prepared before the Sabbath. Slow-cooking dishes, started before the Sabbath and kept cooking during the Sabbath—like and the eastern European *cholent, Moroccan adafina, and Iraqi hamim (all Sabbath stews of slow-baked meat, vegetables, and sometimes rice or barley)—were devised by different communities. Many Moroccan communities start each of the Sabbath meals with fish, and there was a popular saying “Whoever eats fish will be saved from the judgment of Gehenna’” (see GEIHINNOM). See also FASTS. e¢ John Cooper, Eat and Be Satisfied: A Social History of Jewish Food (Northvale, N.J., 1993), includes bibliography. Hasia R. Diner, Hungering for America: Italian, Irish, and Jewish Foodways in the Age of Migration (Cambridge,

Mass.,

2001).

Anita

Hirsch,

Our Food:

The Kosher Kitchen

Updated (New York, 1992). Joan Nathan, Jewish Cooking in America (New York, 1994). Batia Ploch and Patricia Cobe, The International Kosher Cookbook (New York, 1992). Claudia Roden, The Book of Jewish Food (New York, 1997). Devorah Wigoder, The Garden of Eden Cookbook: Recipes in the Biblical Tradition (New York, 1998). -JOAN NATHAN

FORBIDDEN

FOODS.

See

CLEAN

AND

UNCLEAN

ANIMALS; DIETARY LAws.

FORCED

CONVERSION.

See CONVERSION, FORCED.

FORGERY, any alteration in the text of a document, such as an erasure or the insertion of words between lines; this renders the document invalid. In order to detect possible

changes

in documents,

rabbinic

legislation established the type of paper, ink, and so forth that was to be used for certain documents (Git. 19a, 22-23; B. B. 162-167). In order to remove

complications stemming from charges that an entire document has been forged, any document could be submitted to a rabbinic court for certification. Although forgery is considered a sin, it is not a criminal offense, and there is no prescribed punishment for it, although if a forged document is used as an instrument to commit *fraud, the perpetrator can be punished under that charge. At most, a person convicted of forgery is disbarred from serving as a witness. ¢

Menachem

Elon,

Jewish

Law:

History,

Sources,

Principles,

4 vols.

(Philadelphia, 1994), Ira Robinson, “Literary Forgery and Hasidic Judaism: The Case of Rabbi

Yudel

Rosenberg,” Judaism

40 (Winter

1991): 61-78.

Norman Roth, “Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme in Muslim and Christian Polemic in Spain,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 54 (1987): 203-236. Elliot Wolfson, “Hai Gaon’s Letter and Commentary on Aleynu: Further Evidence of Moses de Leén’s Pseudepigraphic Activity,” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1991): 365-409.

FORGIVENESS. iniquity,

God is proclaimed

transgression,

and

sin”

(Ex.

as “forgiving 34.6-7),

and

the sixth of the ‘Amidah blessings is a prayer for such forgiveness. The conditions for forgiveness are confession, repentance, and the resolution to abstain

from repeating the transgression. Since the individual should imitate the attributes of God, forgiveness for injuries or offenses should be freely given by the injured party, but human forgiveness involves the added need for rectifying any wrong and appeasing the person injured. See also ATONEMENT; REPENTANCE. e Elliot N. Dorff, “Individual and Communal Forgiveness,” in Autonomy and Judaism: The Individual and the Community in Jewish Philosophical Thought, edited by Daniel H. Frank (Albany, 1992). Leonard S. Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky, The Journey of the Soul: Traditional Sources on Teshuvah (Northvale, N.J., 1995). Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man (Northvale, N.J., 1987).

FORMER

PROPHETS

(Heb.

nevi’im

ri’shonim),

originally the biblical term used in postexilic biblical works (Zec. 1.4, 7.7) to refer to the prophets who prophesied before the Babylonian exile. Later, however, Former Prophets became a designation for the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings,

which were placed at the beginning of the Prophets, the second division of the Bible. See also BIBLE; LATTER PROPHETS. -BARUCH J. SCHWARTZ

FORMSTECHER, SALOMON (1808-1889), German Reform rabbi and religious philosopher. In his main

work, Die Religion

des Geistes

(1841),

he

developed a systematic philosophy in support of Jewish religious reform and integration into modern culture and society. Recasting the principles of Hegel and Schelling, he argued that Judaism is governed by an overarching idea—which affirms God to be a transcendent, pure moral being—whose extensive meaning is progressively revealed in time to all of humanity. In this process the pagan elements of human and culture sensibility, grounded in a “religion of nature,” are gradually eliminated. Until such time that paganism is finally overcome, Judaism is to persist as a distinct entity so that it may secure the idea of the Religion of Spirit. Nonetheless, parallel to the progressive universalization of its animating idea, Judaism should undergo progressive change toward its ultimate union with the rest of humanity. ¢ Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism (Garden City, N.Y., 1966), pp. 308-313. Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York, 1988), pp. 70-72. Nathan Rotenstreich, Jewish Philosophy in Modern Times (New York, 1968), pp. 16-20.

—-PAUL

FORNICATION.

FOUND

MENDES-FLOHR

See ADULTERY; SEXUALITY.

PROPERTY.

See Lost PRoprErty.

FOUR CAPTIVES, the story of four famous rabbis who set sail from Bari in Italy during the tenth century, were captured by Muslims, and were ransomed by Jewish communities, where they established eminent

rabbinic

academies—Shemaryah

ben

Elhanan

in

Alexandria, *Hushi’el ben Elhanan in Kairouan, and

*Moshe Moshe)

ben Hanokh in Cordova

FOUR SPECIES

276

FORGIVENESS

(with his son

*Hanokh

ben

(the identity of the fourth rabbi

is not known). The story, which first appeared in Avraham *ibn Daud’s Sefer ha-Qabbalah, is not believed to be true, but offered consolation for the

declining authority of the Babylonian academies and the rising primacy of academies in North Africa and Spain. e Abraham ben David, ha-Levi, ibn Daud, Sefer ha-Qabbalah: The Book of

Tradition, critical edition with translation and notes by Gerson

D. Cohen

(Philadelphia, 1967).

FOUR CUPS (Heb. arba‘ kosot), the four cups of wine obligatorily consumed during the Pesah *Seder service. Midrashic explanations variously link the four cups to four references to redemption in Exodus 6.6-7 or to four references to Pharaoh’s cup in Genesis 40, to the four times the word cup is applied to punishments traditionally to be meted out to the nations of the world, and to the four times the word is used in connection with the consolations that Israel will eventually receive (Y., Pes. 10). The four cups are drunk after the sanctification (Qiddush), after the conclusion of the first part of the Seder, after *Birkat ha-Mazon, and following the conclusion of the second part of the service (see HAGGADAH OF PESAH). e “Arba Kosot,” in Entsiglopedyah Talmudit, vol.2 (Jerusalem, 1949), pp. 159-163. Baruch Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism, (Berkeley, 1984), pp. 62-65.

FOUR

QUESTIONS.

See MaH NISHTANNAH.

FOUR SPECIES (Heb. arba‘ah minim), the four plants taken and waved during the morning service on *Sukkot. The Bible decrees: “you shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook

and rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Lv. 23.40). The Bible does not explain the injunction, although from Nehemiah 8.15-16, it appears that Nehemiah (and later the Sadducees and Karaites) interpreted the verse to refer to the species used in building the *sukkah. Rabbinic tradition identified the “fruit of goodly trees” with the myrtle (hadas; Suk. 32b-33a). The four species are traditionally made up of one palm branch (*ulav), one *etrog, three sprigs of myrtle, and two *willow twigs. The Midrash offers a wealth of allegorical interpretations (for example, the qualities of the four species correspond to four types of Jews who make up the community, or the shapes of these species correspond to the organs of the human body—the heart, eye, lip, and spine). Modern scholars regard the four species as part of the ancient ritual of prayer for rain (see TEFILLAT GESHEM); rabbinic tradition also confirms that one of the main concerns of Sukkot was rain for the coming season. In the morning service, the /ulav is held in the right hand and the etrog in the left (Suk. 37b). After reciting the appropriate blessing (“to take the lulav”) during the *Hallel prayer on each day of the festival, the four species are waved in the four directions of the compass, as well as upward and downward, and a circuit is made with them around the synagogue (in Temple times, around the altar). In Temple times the waving was done on each day of the festival in the Temple but only on the first day elsewhere. After the

FOUR SPECIES

PATS

destruction of the Temple it was ordained that the four species would be waved everywhere on all days of the festival, except the Sabbath (Suk. 3.12). On *Hosha‘na’

Rabbah seven circuits are made. ¢ Yehiel M. Stern, Kashrut Arba‘at ha-Minim (Jerusalem, 1992), Eliyahu Weisfisch, Sefer Arba‘at ha-Minim ha-Shalem (Jerusalem, 1975).

FRAUD

1984). Arthur Mandel, The Militant Messiah: Or, the Flight from the Ghetto: The Story of Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1979),

FRANKEL, ZACHARIAS (1801-1875), rabbinical scholar; founder of the *Historical movement, which

developed FRANCKEL,

DAVID

(1707-1782),

rabbi and com-

mentator on the Talmud Yerushalmi. Franckel was born in Berlin and was rabbi in Dessau until he was appointed chief rabbi of Berlin in 1743. Moses *Mendelssohn was Franckel’s student, following him from Dessau to Berlin and eventually supporting him there. Franckel’s commentary to the Talmud Yerushalmi, one of the two standard commentaries printed with it, is his most significant literary achievement. The commentary consists of two parts: the Qorban ha-‘Edah, which is modeled after Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud Bavli and explains the plain meaning of the text; and Shirei Qorban, which is modeled after the tosafistic commentaries, examines contradictions in the text, and offers novellae. . Alexander Altmann, (Philadelphia, 1973).

Moses

Mendelssohn:

A

Biographical

Study

-JOEL HECKER

FRANK, YASAQOV (1726-1791), last of the pseudoMessiahs who emerged in the wake of the messianic movement initiated in 1665 by followers of *Shabbetai Tsevi.

Even

after

Shabbetai

Tsevi’s

death,

various

groups of believers persisted, including the *Dénmeh in Turkey and secret societies in Poland and Galicia. Many of these groups embraced sexual license as part of a perverse mystical faith in the Messiah. Frank, who was born in Podolia, was brought up in one of these sects, became its leader, and eventually claimed to be the successor of Shabbetai Tsevi. He preached an antinomian doctrine and advocated a rapprochement with the Catholic church similar to the adoption of Islam by Shabbetai Tsevi and the Donmeh (with whom Frank had personal contacts). After various disputations with the rabbis, in which Frank repudiated the Talmud, confessed a Trinitarian Judaism, and even repeated the blood libel, his followers, known as Frankists, took the decisive step

of baptism in Lemberg (Lw6w) in 1759. Frank himself insisted on being baptized in the Warsaw Cathedral with great pomp, having chosen Emperor Augustus IIT as his godfather. Accused of heresy against the church a year later, Frank was

incarcerated

and remained

in prison for thirteen years, during which time he became known as the “suffering messiah” among his followers. In 1786 he settled in Offenbach near Frankfurt, where he and his daughter Eve presided over the secret headquarters of the sect and indulged in orgiastic rituals. After Frank’s death, the sect ceased to exist, and the baptized Frankists completely merged with Polish society. ¢

Majer Balaban, Le-Toledot ha-Tenu‘ah ha-Frangqit (Tel Aviv, 1934-1935).

Heinrich Graetz, Frank und die Frankisten: Eine Sekten-Geschichte aus der letzten Halfte des vorigen Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1868). Alexander Kraushar,

Frank i frankisei polscy, 1726-1816, 2 vols. (Krakéw, 1895). Hillel Levine, ed., Ha-“Kronigah”: Te‘udah le-Toledot Ya‘aqov Frang u-Tenu‘ato (Jerusalem,

Prague,

into

*Conservative

he served as rabbi

Judaism.

Born

in

in Teplitz (Teplice) and

Dresden until his election in 1854 to the post of director of the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary, which he headed until his death. He was the author of many basic *Wissenschaft des Judentums works, notably Darkhei ha-Mishnah, a history of halakhah (which

argued that the oral law derived from the rabbis and not from Sinai, causing an outcry among the Orthodox), and Mavo’ ha-Yerushalmi, an introduction

to the Talmud Yerushalmi. He established and edited the Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, which remained the central German

journal of Jewish scholarship until the Nazi era. While Frankel felt the need to introduce changes in Judaism, he was unsympathetic to the extreme measures adopted by Reform Judaism in his time, especially the replacement of Hebrew with German as the language of prayer (he withdrew from the 1845 Reform synod over this issue) and the omission of references to sacrifices and the return to Zion. At the same time, he advocated liturgical changes and the modernization of Jewish education. Frankel saw the Jewish people as the source of law and tradition,

and his study of the development of halakhah was guided by his search for the elements that had promoted the Jewish people’s vitality and those that had lost their relevance and should therefore be discarded. He regarded Hebrew and messianism as two of the main eternal elements in Judaism. He maintained the Sinaitic revelation but held that this had been supplemented by the oral Torah, which originates in the will of the people. Since it is of human

origin,

the

oral

Torah

is not

immutable;

therefore, the sanctity of the Sabbath and the dietary laws repose not on their Sinaitic origin but on their expression over thousands of years in Jewish souls. His ethnic approach contrasted with the ethical emphasis of the reformers. These ideas formed the basis of the Positive

Historical

school

of Judaism,

which accepted adaptation to modernism, but only if rooted in tradition. Frankel’s school did not become a movement in Germany, but his middle course between

Orthodoxy and Reform provided the ideological underpinning for the Conservative movement when it emerged in the United States. ¢ Saul Phinehas Rabinowitz, R. Zekharyah Frankel (Warsaw, 1898), in Hebrew. Louis Ginzberg, “Zechariah Frankel,” in Students, Scholars, and Saints (Philadelphia, 1928), pp. 195-216. David Rudavsky, Modern Jewish Religious Movements (New York, 1979), pp. 192-215.

FRANKISTS.

See FRANK, YA‘AQOV.

FRAUD. Jewish law strongly condemns all forms of fraud and legislates appropriate punishments.

A judgment of fraud annuls a contract, and the injured party is entitled to damages. The Bible strictly prohibits the use of false weights and measures (Lv. 19.35— 36). The rabbis call fraudulent representation and unfair profit ona’ah (oppression). They apply the biblical prohibition “You shall not wrong one another” (Lv. 25.14) to transactions in which the profit obtained

is so great that the overcharge is tantamount to fraud. Overcharging by the seller or underpayment by the purchaser by one-sixth of the market value constitutes grounds for canceling a transaction. This formula applies to transactions involving movable goods; the rule was not generally applied to real estate transactions, where the overcharge had to exceed 50

percent in order for the agreement to be annulled. A deal is regarded as fraudulent only when the seller conceals the profit margin. An individual selling personal property, because of the sentimental value attached to it, may sell it at any price (B. M. 51a). If an article for sale is defective, the purchaser must be informed prior to the sale, otherwise the transaction

is considered fraudulent; any false description gives the buyer the right to have the contract annulled and the purchase money refunded. The term ona’ah was also applied to hurting another’s feelings with words, considered to be a worse offense than monetary imposition (B.M. 58b), since with the latter there is a

possibility of restitution, whereas the former offense cannot be completely nullified. The term ona’ah is also used, for example, of asking the price of an object with no intention of buying it, or taunting sinners with their misdeeds or converts with their idolatrous past. ¢ Leo Jung, Business Ethics in Jewish Law (New York, 1987). Saul Wagschal, Torah Guide for the Businessman (Jerusalem and New York, 1990), pp. 3-26. -SHMUEL

FREEDOM.

FREE WILL

278

FRAUD

HIMELSTEIN

Leviticus 25.10 mandates the proclama-

tion of freedom, or release (Heb. deror), for slaves and

land in the Jubilee year (see YOVEL). This term is also used by the prophets, and in /saiah 61.1 it designates prisoners to be rescued. National independence is symbolized by the *Exodus from slavery in Egypt (Pesah is referred to as the feast of freedom), although the term deror is not employed in this context. The gift of national freedom through the Exodus, meant to turn the Israelites from the slaves of Pharaoh into a nation of servants

of God, served as a paradigm

for all liturgical and spiritual evocations, such as the dictum of *Yehuda ha-Levi, “The servants of time are

servants of servants; only the servant of God is truly free,” as well as subsequent theoretical discussions of freedom, including such issues as *free will versus *predestination, divine foreknowledge, and causality. * David B. Burrell, Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions (Notre Dame,

1993). Robert Gordis, Judaism and Religious Liberty (Los Angeles, 1964). Emmanuel Levinas, Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism (London, 1990).

FREEHOF, SOLOMON BENNETT (1892-1990), American Reform rabbi and scholar. Born in London, he came to the United States in 1903. In 1915 he began

teaching liturgy at Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, where he had been ordained. He then became rabbi of Congregation Kehillath Anshe Maarav in Chicago (1924-1934) and in 1934 rabbi of Rodef Shalom

in

Pittsburgh. He was the outstanding American Reform authority on Jewish law and headed the Responsa Committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR). His volumes of responsa guided the American Reform movement and linked its practices to the historic teachings of Jewish law. His many volumes of responsa include The Responsa Literature and Treasury of Responsa (repr. New York, 1973), Reform Responsa and Recent Reform Responsa (repr. New York, 1973), Current Reform Responsa (Cincinnati, 1969), Modern Reform Responsa (Cincinnati,

1971), Contemporary

Reform Responsa

(Cincinnati,

1974) and New Reform Responsa (Cincinnati,

1980).

As chairman of the CCAR Committee on Liturgy, he was influential in the publication of the standard Reform prayer books, the Union Prayer Book (19401945) and the Union Home Prayer Book (1951). His writings on the Bible include commentaries on Psalms (1938), Job (1958) and Isaiah (1972). He was president

of the World Union for Progressive Judaism from 1959 to 1964. ¢ Rodef Shalom Congregation (Pittsburgh), Essays in Honor of Solomon B. Freehof (Pittsburgh, 1964).

FREE

WILL, the

notion

that

men

and

women

determine their own actions and are therefore morally responsible for them. Free will becomes a religious and philosophical problem in the light of the belief in divine omniscience or predestination of *providence (see DETERMINISM; FATALISM). Although the contradiction is often transcended in actual religious experience (cf. Jer. 4.3ff.), it remained a serious problem for reflective thought. Attempts to solve it often tended to curtail either one’s free will or God’s omniscience and omnipotence. The former solution not only outrages one’s moral sense, but also calls in question the justice of God in rewarding virtue and punishing sin. The limitation of God’s sovereignty also entails serious theological difficulties. Philosophical discussions of free will oscillate between these two poles, one side maintaining that every being, including God, is determined by the necessity of its own being and cannot voluntarily do anything or leave it undone, and the other side asserting that God is not bound by necessity external to himself. Freedom of choice seems to be presupposed in the Bible (cf. Dt. 30.19) and, in particular, in prophetic preaching. According to Josephus, the *Sadducees denied the existence of divine providence and attributed everything to chance; the *Essenes,

however,

were

absolute

determinists

and attributed everything to predestination and the will of God (see QUMRAN CoMMUNITY); the *Pharisees

asserted both the sovereignty of God and the freedom of the individual, holding that not all things are predestined and that in certain matters humans have

FREE WILL

279

freedom. Indeterminism and freedom in one’s religious choice are asserted in such rabbinic statements as, “Everything is in the hands of God except the fear of God” (Ber. 33b) or “The eye, ear, and nostrils are not in man’s power, but the mouth, hand, and feet are” (Tanhuma’, Toledot), meaning that external impressions are involuntary but actions, steps, and words arise from an individual’s own volition. The Jewish philosophers generally follow the Pharisaic tradition, defending free will either at the price of limiting the scope of God’s foreknowledge or by arguing that divine omniscience does not impinge on a person's free will. *Philo departed from Stoic thought and held that free will is a divine part of divine knowledge in such a way that it does not impinge on one’s freedom. *Sa‘adyah ben Yosef Ga’on and *Yehuda ha-Levi held that God’s knowledge of human actions, past and future, did not prejudge or determine them in any way. *Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’ saw free will as limited to the mental acts of decision and choice; external acts, however, he claimed, were determined. Hasda’i ben Avraham *Crescas alone among the Jewish philosophers, although aware of the demoralizing effect of his doctrine, denied free will in the interests of proving the sovereignty of God and his infinite attributes. ¢ Alexander Altmann, “The Religion of the Thinkers: Free Will and Predestination in Saadia, Bahya and Maimonides,” in Religion in a Religious Age, edited by S. D. Goitein (Cambridge, Mass., 1974). David Winston in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, edited by Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (New York, 1987), pp. 269-274.

FREE-WILL OFFERING (Heb. nedavah), one of the *sacrifices made by an individual as an act of spontaneous

devotion

(as distinct from

one

that is

required in expiation for sin or impurity, in visiting

the Temple on festival days, in payment of a vow, or in thanksgiving for some form of salvation). Freewill offerings could take two forms: the animal could be offered in its entirety, or it could be eaten as a sacred meal in celebration of God’s lovingkindness. Thus, it is a subcategory of both the *burnt offering and the *peace offering. In the latter case, it was the least-sacred type of offering; not only could it be eaten over a two-day period (Lv. 7.16-17), but also certain imperfections in the animal were allowed (Lv. 22.23)—

the only exception to the rule that sacrificial animals had to be without blemish. ¢ Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 15-17, 42-47. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, 1-16, The Anchor Bible (New York, 1991), pp. 202-225, 419-420.

FRIEDLANDER,

—-BARUCH

J. SCHWARTZ

DAVID (1750-1834), communal

leader and educator. Born into the wealthiest Jewish family in Konigsberg, David Friedlander received a thorough Jewish and secular education. Soon after moving to Berlin, he married a banker’s daughter in

1722 and established himself as a partner in a silk factory in 1776. His early reputation in the textile industry propelled him into a position of influence. A disciple of Moses Mendelssohn, Friedlander argued

FUNERAL SERVICE

for emancipation through reform. Friedlander helped to establish the Free School in 1778, which he directed

for twenty years, along with an adjacent Hebrew press and bookstore. He prepared numerous textbooks and translations. Frederick William II invited him to present the grievances of the Jewish community in 1787. In 1799 Friedlander, representing “some Jewish householders,” penned an open letter to a prominent theologian,

Wilhelm

Abraham

Teller,

in which

he

offered to convert to Christianity so long as he and those he represented would not be expected to accept the dogmas of the church. Teller rejected Friedlander’s conditions. ¢ Steven Lowenstein, The Jewishness of David Friedliinder and the Crisis of Berlin Jewry (Ramat Gan, 1994). Michael A. Meyer, The Origins of the Modern Jew: Jewish Identity and European Culture in Germany, 1749- 1824 (Detroit, 1967), pp. 57-84.

FRINGES.

-KERRY

M. OLITZKY

See TALLIT; TsitTsiT.

FUGITIVES.

See AsyLumM.

FUNERAL

ORATION.

See Eutocy.

FUNERAL

SERVICE. While there is no prescribed

form for funerals (see BuRIAL), the various branches

of Judaism have delineated basic structures. The funeral service usually includes the recitation of psalms and passages from the Bible or rabbinic literature, a *eulogy, and the memorial prayer *El Male’ Rahamim. The funeral is most often conducted in a special funeral chapel, in the synagogue, and/or at the graveside; some still follow the older practice of conducting funerals at the home of the deceased. Immediate burial is preferred in Judaism as a way of honoring the deceased. However, a funeral service

may be delayed to allow a mourner to arrive. At the graveside the coffin is borne by designated pallbearers, who stop seven times before reaching the grave while Psalm 91 is recited. (In Reform Judaism the practice of stopping seven times has been eliminated.) The coffin is then placed in the grave. Some follow the custom of covering the coffin with earth before the service continues. The prayer *Tsidduq ha-Din, which is an acclamation of God’s justice, is recited (in some rites, it is said before the

burial), followed by the recitation of the *Kaddish by the next of kin. Filling the grave is a mitsvah, and those present often participate. After the service at the graveside is concluded, the people in attendance form two rows through which the mourners pass and offer condolence with the words “May God comfort you among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.” It is customary to wash one’s hands and to pluck some blades of grass before leaving the cemetery. Traditionally, Orthodox Jews did not place flowers on the grave, but in modern times this has become a frequent practice.

FUNERAL SERVICE ¢

Hayyim Halevy Donin, To Be a Jew (New York, 1991). Hyman Goldin,

Hamadrikh: The Rabbi’s Guide (New York, 1956). Jules Harlow, ed., Ligqutei Teffillah: A Rabbi's Manual (New York, 1965). Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish

Religious Practice (New York, 1992). Peter Knobel, “Rites of Passage,” in Judaism: A People and Its History, edited by Robert Seltzer (New York, 1989). Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning (New York, 1969).

280

FUNERAL SERVICE

Simeon Maslin, ed., Gates of Mitzvah: Shaarei Mitzvah, a Guide to the Jewish Life Cycle (New York, 1979). David Polish, ed., Maglei Tsedek: A Rabbi's Manual, with notes by W. Gunther Plaut (New York, 1988). Tzvi

Rabinowicz, A Guide to Life: Jewish Laws and Customs of Mourning (London, 1964). —-PETER

KNOBEL

G GABBA’I (822; a collector, tax gatherer), a synagogue warden or treasurer. In Talmudic times, when it referred to tax gatherers, the term was one of opprobrium, as in Hagigah 3.6, “If gabba’im entered a house, the house is unclean.” Similarly, the Talmud (San. 25b) states that gabba’im are disqualified from giving evidence, the reason being that, as tax collectors, the gabba’im collect more than the amount permitted them by law. Gabba'ei tsedaqah, on the other hand, collected and often distributed money for charitable causes, a position offered only to those of the highest probity. Family members of gabba’ei tsedaqah were able to marry into priestly families without the check into genealogy required of others (Qid. 4.5). The Talmud

nevertheless

required

gabba’ei tsedaqah to collect and disburse funds in pairs to avoid even the faintest hint of suspicion. In the Middle Ages that rule was applied to administrators of the various societies of the *community (for example, the societies for caring for the dead, visiting the sick, charitable funds); administrators for the largest funds

rotated office every month. In Erets Yisra’el there were gabba’im who headed each *Kolel, and there were also women with the title who cared for poor women and instructed women in ritual. Among the Hasidim, the term is applied to the person in charge of the court of the *rebbi. Eventually, the term evolved to mean the synagogue treasurer and then to refer to the synagogue

¢ Nahum Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989), p. 208. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36, translated by John J. Scullion (Minneapolis,

1985), p. 475.

PAUL

GALANTE FAMILY, family of rabbis and scholars originating in Spain, who settled in Italy, Turkey, Syria, and Erets Yisra’el.

Moshe bar Mordekhai Galante (1540-1608), born in Rome and a pupil of Yosef Karo in Safed. He was one of the outstanding posegim in Safed, where he served as av beit din. He wrote responsa; Mafteah ha-Zohar

(Venice,

1566), an index to Bible

verses interpreted in the Zohar; and Qohelet Ya‘aqov (Safed, 1578),

a commentary on Ecclesiastes. Moshe ben Yehonatan Galante (1620-1689), grandson of Moshe bar Mordekhai; representative of the Jerusalem Jewish community before the Ottoman authorities and distinguished head of the Beit Ya‘aqov Yeshivah. He played a leading role in making Jerusalem a rabbinical center and traveled extensively throughout the Ottoman empire on behalf of the Jerusalem community. He was known as haMagen (The Defender) after his (unpublished) book of a thousand responsa, Elef ha-Magen. His published works

included

Zevah

ha-Shelamim

(Amsterdam,

1708), a commentary on the Torah. ¢ Abraham Elmaleh, ““Ha-Ri’shon le-Tsiyyon’ ha-Ri’shon,” in Ha-Ri’shonim le-Tsiyyon (Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 55-69. David Goldstein, “A Possible Autograph of Moses ben Mordecai Galante,” Studies in Bibliography and Booklore 13 (1980): 17-19.

warden, even though the latter function often involves

-SHALOM

-SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

no financial aspect. See also PARNAS. ¢ Shlomo Eidelberg, R. Yuzpa, Shammash di-Kehillat Varmaisa: “Olam Yehudeyah ba-Me‘ah ha-17 (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 31-33. Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, New York, and Jerusalem, 1993), p. 370. -SHMUEL

GABIROL.

See IBN GaBIROL, SHELOMO.

GABRIEL.

See ANGELS.

GAD, the name

GALUT.

See EXiILe.

GAMBLING.

There are no references to games in

the Bible, although lots were cast to make decisions,

HIMELSTEIN

of two biblical figures. The earlier

Gad was the seventh son of Jacob; son of Zilpah, the

hand-maiden of Jacob’s wife Leah. One of the twelve tribes is descended from him. The original meaning of the word gad (good fortune, deity of luck) appears in the account of his naming (Gn. 30.11). Members of the tribe of Gad, most of whom were shepherds, dwelt east of the Jordan River in Jazer and Gilead,

regions known for their livestock. They were required to be among the first to arm themselves and cross the Jordan in the conquest of Canaan (Nm. 32.1-33) as a

condition of their land allotment. They subsequently constructed an alter near the Jordan as a sign of their allegiance to the worship of God (Jos. 22.26-34). The later Gad was a prophet at David’s court who advised David to return to Judah and to build the altar on the threshing floor of Araunah (/ Sm. 22.1-5; 2 Sm. 24.18).

281

and on this basis Ya’ir Hayyim *Bacharach permitted raffles (Havvot Yair 61). It seems that only under Greek and Roman influence were games such as dice playing (qubyah) adopted by Jews. The rabbis were strongly opposed to all forms of gambling, which although not classed as actual robbery (since appropriation against the will of the owner is an essential legal requirement for proving robbery in Jewish law) was considered closely akin to it; gambling debts could not be legally claimed. Although the general tendency of rabbinic law is to forbid all manner of gambling, careful distinction is made between those who indulge in it as a pastime and those for whom it is a profession (San. 24b). Professional gamblers were considered untrustworthy and invalid as witnesses, for “they waste their time in idleness and are not interested in the welfare of humanity” (R. ha-Sh. 1.8; San. 3.3). The Shulhan ‘Arukh permits gambling (Hoshen Mishpat 207.13, 370). The numerous communal enactments against gambling found in the medieval records of European Jewry show that gambling was fairly widely indulged in, and several instances of addiction are recorded

GANZFRIED, SHELOMO

282

GAMBLING (including Leone *Modena, despite the fact that in his

Many important ordinances were issued in his name fixing the liturgy (i.e., determination of the Pesah

Rashba’ 7, 445), and addicted gamblers were excluded

incorporating elements reminiscent of the Temple ritual. He instituted a prayer against sectarians

youth he wrote an antigambling treatise). Gambling debts could not be recovered in a beit din (Resp.

from community activities. The custom of playing cards on Hanukkah and other fesiive occasions was fairly widespread among Orthodox Jews in eastern Europe. In modern

times, rabbis have discussed the

morality of using synagogue premises for games of chance; this has usually been approved if charity or the synagogue benefits from the proceedings. *

Alfred Cohen,

“Gambling

in the Synagogue,”

Tradition

18.4 (1980):

319-326.

GAMLI EL. Rabbinic sources mention two men named Gamli’el and it is often uncertain which is meant. The name can appear with no further qualifiers; sometimes the title “the Elder” is used for Rabban

Gamli’el

I, who was

active during the time

of the Second Temple. Some of the tosafists rely on this distinction and assume that when the name Gamli’el appears alone it is a reference to Gamli’el II of Yavneh;

however,

parallel texts exist in which

“the Elder’ appears in one version only. Historians, therefore, add another criterion: if the incident clearly occurred before the destruction of the Second Temple,

the reference is to *Gamli’el the Elder. An additional difficulty is the confusion in texts between Gamli’el and *Shim‘on ben Gamili’el, the latter name referring to one of two separate patriarchs. There are more than twenty-five such variants in Mishnah manuscripts alone. Gamli’el II of Yavneh was the son of the nasi’ R. Shim‘on ben Gamli’el and grandson of Gamli’el the Elder. He was born about twenty years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 cE. Most of his public activities took place after the destruction. He succeeded R. Yohanan ben Zakk’ai at Yavneh in about 80 cE. Since he was a nasi’, he should have assumed

the patriarchate at Yavneh immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. He may have been kept out of office by the Romans and perhaps even hunted down by them in an attempt to eradicate all descendants of the ruling family; his father, Shim‘on, in all probability was killed during the Great Revolt. It is possible that Gamli’el was in hiding for a number ofyears. No source records Gamli’el’s participation in the academy at Yavneh with R. Yohanan, and only one source links them as teacher

and disciple. When Gamli’el succeeded Yohanan at Yavneh, Yohanan retired to Beror Hayil.

Seder

service

[Pes.

10.5] and three

daily prayers),

(*Birkat ha-Minim), to be recited in the daily !3; Render Susceptible [to Ritual Impurity]), tractate in Mishnah order Tohorot, with related material in the Tosefta’. There is no gemara’ in either Talmud. According to biblical law, foods are rendered susceptible to ritual contamination only after coming into contact with water (Lv. 11.34, 38). The laws governing the role of liquids in transmission of impurity were a major point of sectarian

contention

during

Second

Temple

times,

which helps to explain why the Mishnah devoted an entire tractate of six chapters to this subject. The opening and closing laws of the tractate highlight its dominant conceptual theme: intention. The opening law establishes intention as an essential component of the contact made between the liquid and the food. A discussion of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity closes Makhshirin. The focus on intention is characteristic of Pharisaic halakhah and is absent from the halakhic traditions of other sects, which tended to be much stricter in defining the laws of impurity. Much of the tractate is

MAKKOT

devoted to defining the boundaries between intended and unintended contact between food and liquid. In a series of disputes between *Beit Hillel and Beit Shamm/’ai, Beit Hillel leniently requires a higher degree of intention than does Beit Shamm/ai in order to render food susceptible to impurity. An English translation of the Mishnah tractate is in Herbert Danby’s The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933). * Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem, 1958). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Taharoth (Gateshead, 1973). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992),

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

MAKKOT (ni>?3; Flogging), tractate consisting of three chapters in Mishnah order *Nezigin, with related material in the Tosefta’ and in both Talmuds. Makkot, which was originally the end of tractate *Sanhedrin, concludes Sanhedrin’s discussion of the

laws of *capital punishment by dealing with several ancillary topics: the laws of false witnesses (Dt. 19.15-21), who are sometimes put to death; the exile

of unintentional murderers to cities of refuge (Nm. 35.9-28; Dt. 19.1-10); and *flogging (Dr. 25.1-3), from which the tractate’s name is derived. The biblical provision that a false witness be punished “as he intended to do to his friend” (Dt. 19.19) served as a major point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees (Mak. 1.6, 5b), especially regarding capital cases. According to Pharisaic law, followed by Makkot, false witnesses are punished after their testimony has led to conviction of the defendant and prior to his actual execution. False testimony thus emerges as a unique case in Jewish law, in which a transgressor is punished for criminal intent, although the crime was not successfully executed. Makkot discusses the conditions for punishing false witnesses and the manner of punishment of witnesses to whom the principle of an “eye for an eye” (Dt. 19.21) is inapplicable. The laws regarding the exile of murderers to cities of refuge focus on the legal determination of different levels of intent and of negligence as well as on the manner and conditions of the penalty of exile. Makkot’s discussion reflects the dual character of exile as protection of the person who has committed manslaughter from the blood avenger (Nm. 35.26-27; Mak. 2.7) and as atonement for criminal negligence (Mak. 2b). Makkot lists transgressions for which flogging is prescribed and describes how the flogging is carried out, stressing the care that must

be taken to avoid

the criminal’s accidental death. The sages’ aversion to carrying out capital punishment is underscored by Makkot’s characterization of any court that executed more

than

one

criminal

every

seven

(and,

in one

tradition, seventy) years as a “destructive court” (Mak. 1.10). The redactor of Makkot emphasizes the merciful and affirmative thrust of Jewish law (Mak. 1.7, 3.15) by concluding the Mishnaic

discussion of

punishments with the declaration that the plenitude

of commandments stems from God’s desire “to benefit Israel” (Mak. 3.16). The Talmud Bavli tractate was translated into English by H. M. Lazarus in the Soncino Talmud (London,

MALBIM, ME'IR LEIBUSH

468

MAKKOT

Malachi, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 52 (Leiden, 1994). Julia M.

O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi, Dissertation Series (Society of Biblical Literature) no. 121 (Atlanta, 1990). Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, Word

Biblical Commentary, vol. 32 (Waco, Tex., 1984). Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minn., 2000). -MARVIN

A. SWEENEY

1935).

¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Nezikin 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1956). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 4, Order Nezikin (Gateshead, 1973). Pinhas Kehati, ed., Mishnah: A New Translation with a Commentary, Seder Nezikin, vol. 3, Makkot, Shevuot, Eduyot (Jerusalem, 1988). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

1992).

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

MALACHI (Heb. Mal’akhi), postexilic prophet in the kingdom of Judah whose oracles appear in the biblical book bearing his name. The existence of a prophet by this name is disputed because the name literally means “my messenger” and may be derived from the statement in Malachi 3.1, “Behold,

I send my messenger to prepare the way before me.” Furthermore, Malachi 2.7 identifies the priest as “the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.” The Talmud as well as the Aramaic Targum Jonathan consider Malachi a proper name (Meg. 15a) and identify him with Ezra the scribe (R. ha-Sh.

19b). The message of the

prophet presupposes the destruction of Edom and the rebuilding of the Temple in the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE. He portrays a period of decline in the Jewish community in which intermarriage and lax Temple observance are prevalent. He exhorts the priests and the people to maintain the Torah and covenant with God, comparing that with marriage and marital fidelity. Just as he rejects divorce, so he rejects infidelity to the covenant. He foresees the “Day of the Lord,” preceded by the appearance of the prophet Elijah, when God will punish the wicked and restore the righteous (KJV, Mal. 4.5-6). The Book of Malachi is the twelfth and last book of the Minor Prophets. A characteristic stylistic feature of Malachi’s prophecies is the use of disputation speeches. The book consists of the preamble (1.1-5), in which God assures the people of his permanent relationship with them; a rebuke of the priests for treating the Temple disrespectfully (1.6-2.9); a denunciation of mixed marriages and divorce (2.10-16); a

promise of divine retribution for those who engage in sorcery, adultery, perjury, and exploitation of the weaker classes (2.17—-3.5); an accusation against the people for defrauding God of the payment of tithes (3.6-12); a condemnation of those who charge that the wicked and arrogant are not punished (3.13-4.3); and an exhortation to the people to be mindful of the Torah of Moses (4.4-6), for the prophet Elijah is about to come and herald the final “Day of the Lord.” The closing verses of Malachi have also been interpreted as the conclusion of the entire prophetic section of the Bible. The book is commonly dated to the mid-fifth century BCE. * R.J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield, UK, 1987). Beth Glazier-MacDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, Dissertation Series (Society of Biblical Literature) no. 98 (Atlanta, 1987), Gordon Paul Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of

MALAKH, HAYYIM (c.1655-1717), radical Shabbatean kabbalist. Born in Poland, he adhered to Shab-

bateanism under the influence Heshel *Tsoref of Vilna. In to Italy, where he associated Shabbatean activists Avraham

of mystic Yehoshu‘a 1690 Malakh moved with the clandestine Rovigo and Binyamin

ha-Kohen,

received

from

whom

he

the

esoteric

writings of Natan of Gaza. In Poland, Malakh spread Shabbatean ideas and later stayed in Adrianople with Shabbetai Tsevi’s secretary Shemu’el Primo. In 1700 Malakh joined *Yehuda Hasid ha-Levi’s group, which went to Jerusalem in expectation of the imminent advent of the Messiah. After Yehuda’s sudden death, Malakh led the group but was expelled from Jerusalem by the rabbis. He moved to Salonika where he maintained contacts with the apostates of the *Doénmeh

sect.

In Podolia,

Poland,

he led the

radical Shabbatean sect from which the Frankist movement emanated. None of his writings survived. He was strongly opposed by Avraham Miguel Cardoso (see CARDOSO

FAMILy), the Shabbatean

thinker, who

rejected the radical Shabbateans’ antinomianism and belief in the apotheosis of the Messiah. ¢ Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies (New York, 1990). David Kohn, Toledot ha-Mequbbalim,

ha-Shabbeta'‘im veha-Hasidim, vol. 2 (Odessa, 1913), pp. 175-180. -NISSIM

MAL’AKH

HA-MAVET.

YOSHA

See ANGEL oF DEATH.

MALBIM, ME’IR LEIBUSH (1809-1879), rabbi, preacher, and biblical commentator. Malbim was born in Volochisk, Volhynia. He studied in Warsaw,

and eventually became the rabbi of Bucharest and then the chief rabbi of Romania

in 1858, where he

was involved in the battles over religious reform. His strong anti-Reform stand led to his dismissal from that position. Malbim’s biblical commentaries on Esther (1845), Isaiah (1849), Leviticus and Song of Songs (1860), and other books of the Bible (1867-1876), contain his polemics against modern methods of Bible study. Against the reformers, Malbim asserted that the words of the rabbis in the oral law were given from heaven, that there were no superfluous words in scripture, and that the rabbis had developed the basic foundations of grammar and logic. His commentaries achieved great popularity. In addition to his biblical commentaries, Malbim composed treatises on Talmudic law, commentaries on rabbinic codifications, and

works on language, poetry, and logic. ¢ Eliezer Parkoff, Fine Lines of Faith: A Study of the Torah’s Outlook on Human Suffering Based on the Malbim's Commentary to Iyov (Jerusalem and Spring Valley, N.Y., 1994). Noah Rosenbloom, Ha-Malbim: Parshanut, Filosofivah Madda‘ u-Mistorin be-Khitvei ha-Rav Me‘ir Leybush Malbim (Jerusalem, 1988). Yehezkel Rotenberg and Aharon Sorski, eds., Sefer ha-Malbim: Me'ah Shanah li-Fetirato, by Meir Malbim (Bene Beraq, 1979). -MICHAEL

A. SIGNER

MALKHUT

SHAMAYIM

MALKHUT

SHAMAYIM.

469 See KINGpoM oF HEAVEN.

MALKHUYYOT (nis 50; Sovereignties), first of the middle three sections (the other being *Zikhronot and *Shofarot) of the *‘Amidah in the *musaf service of the *Ro’sh ha-Shanah liturgy, devoted to the theme of God's sovereignty. The theme is expressed by biblical verses containing the root milk, “to reign’—three each from the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets, with the concluding verse from the Torah (as laid down in R. ha-Sh. 4.6). After Malkhuyyot, the *shofar is sounded (except on Sabbath)—in the Sephardi rite, during both the silent ‘Amidah and its repetition by the cantor; in the Ashkenazi rite, during the repetition only. ¢ Eliezer Eliner, “Die Auswahl und Anordnung der Pesukim von “Malchiot’ in der Synagoge,” 25 Jahre Judische Schule Festschrift (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 53-55. Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale, N.J., 1993), pp. 235-236. L. A. Rosenthal, “Malkhijot R. Johanan b. Nuri’s,” Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage David Hoffmann's, edited by Simon Eppenstein et al. (Berlin, 1914), pp. 234-240.

MALQOT. MALSHIN.

MAMRAM

See FLOGGING. See DENUNCIATION.

(Hebraized

form

of

Lat.

membrana

[parchment]), promissory note; first described by Jewish authorities in sixteenth-century Poland. It was designed to allow a person to write out authorization to another to pay the bearer of the note a fixed amount of money, and in certain ways was similar to a bond or a check. It is first described in the halakhic literature by R. Mordekhai ben Avraham Jaffe in his work Levushim, although some believe it dates to the fourteenth century. ¢ J. David Bleich, “Survey of Recent Halakhic Literature: Checks,” Tradition 24 (Fall 1989): 74-83. Abraham M. Fuss, “Assignability of Debt and Negotiable Instruments in Jewish Law,” Diné Israel 12 (1984-1985): 19-37. -MICHAEL

BROYDE

MANASSEH

BEN ISRAEL

high public office. According to the Mishnah, “a scholarly mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest” (Hor. 3.8). It is a general principle of rabbinic law that the creation of mamzerim ought to be avoided and, in practice, various methods are used in order to ensure that the taint, if it has been established in

a particular family, does not persist throughout the generations. See also ADULTERY; INCEST. e

J. David Bleich, Contemporary

Halakhic

Problems

1 (New York,

1977),

pp. 159-176. David Weiss-Halivni, “Can a Religious Law Be Immoral?” in Perspectives on Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of Wolfe Kelman, edited by Arthur A. Chiel (New York, 1978), pp. 165-170. Moshe Zemer, “Purifying Mamzerim,” Jewish Law Annual 10 (1992): 101-114. -DANIEL

MAN.

SINCLAIR

See HuMAN BEING.

MAN, SON OF. See SON oF MAN. MANASSEH

(Heb.

Menasheh),

*Joseph’s

firstborn

son and the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Manasseh and *Ephraim were born to Joseph and his Egyptian wife, Asenath, in Egypt. Although Manasseh was the elder son, *Jacob put Ephraim first in his blessing (Gn. 48.20). Joseph was allotted two tribal territories, one for each of his sons. The territories of Manasseh and Ephraim were located in the central hill country; Manasseh’s lay north of Ephraim’s, half of it west of the Jordan River, half on its eastern bank. The earliest Israelite settlement sites are found in the territories of Manasseh and Ephraim. Mount Ebal in Manasseh was perhaps the site of the first Israelite cult center (Jos. 8.30). In the Midrash, Manasseh

is

identified as the interpreter between Joseph and his brothers (Gn. Rab. 91.8). ¢

Yohanan

Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2d

ed., translated by A. F. Rainey (Philadelphia, 1979). Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, translated by D. Saltz (Jerusalem,

1988), Amihay Mazar, Archaeology of the Land ofthe Bible: 10,000-586 BCE (New York, 1990).

—NILI

SACHER

FOX

PRAYER

OF

MAMZER (7173/3;), the product of an adulterous or an incestuous union. Under biblical law it is forbidden for a mamzer to marry another Jew (Dt. 23.3; Shulhan

MANASSEH,

‘Arukh, Even ha-‘Ezer 4.13). Marriage between two mamzerim is permitted, as is a marriage between a mamzer and a convert, and their children will

MANASSEH BEN ISRAEL (1604-1657), Marranoborn Dutch scholar. His family left Portugal for

be mamzerim (Yev. 45b, 79b; Shulhan ‘Arukh, Even ha-‘Ezer 4.22-24). If, despite the prohibition, a Jew

Judaism and where Manasseh embarked on a multifaceted career. He served the Sephardi com-

contracts a marriage with a mamzer, the offspring is

munities of Amsterdam as chief preacher, rabbi, schoolteacher, and principal, and he founded the

a mamzer since the rule is that in prohibited unions,

the children adopt the status of the “tainted” parent. The child of a mamzer and a non-Jewish woman will,

however, be a non-Jew (Qid. 67a) and the product of an adulterous union between a Jewish woman and a nonJewish man is not a mamzer (Yev. 45b). Although the term mamzer is often translated as “bastard,” under Jewish law, a child born out of wedlock is in fact not a mamzer, and his or her personal status is legally unimpeachable. Except with regard to marriage, a

mamzer does not suffer from any legal disadvantage. The *inheritance rights of a mamzer are the same as those of any other heir and he may be appointed to

PRAYER

OF. See

MANASSEH.

the freedom

of Amsterdam,

where

they embraced

city’s first Hebrew printing press. Manasseh wrote many works in Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin. Some were addressed to the needs of returning Marranos (Thesouro dos dinim; Nishmat Hayyim). Other works include Conciliador (1632), on the reconciliation of apparent contradictions between biblical passages; De creatione problemata (1635), on creation; and De resurrectione mortuorum

(1636), on

resurrection. Manasseh had a wide reputation among learned

Christians,

who

came

to hear him preach,

corresponded with him, and cultivated his personal acquaintance; these included the jurist Hugo Grotius

MANASSEH

and Rembrandt, who painted his portrait. In his Miqveh Yisra’el (1650), Manasseh lent credibility and millenarian significance to the purported discovery of the ten lost tribes in South America. In 1655 Manasseh traveled to England, where he petitioned Oliver Cromwell to readmit Jews. While the terms of Manasseh’s petition were never formally granted, it paved the way for the eventual return of open Jewish life to England. While there he wrote a polemical defense of Judaism, Vindiciae Judaeorum (1656), a response to a work by William Prynne, who was opposed to the return of Jews to England. ¢ Yosef Kaplan et al., eds., Menasseh ben Israel and his World (Leiden, 1989). Cecil Roth, A Life of Menasseh ben Israel: Rabbi, Printer, and Diplomat (Philadelphia, 1934), contains a comprehensive bibliography of Manasseh's writings. Lucien Wolf, Menasseh ben Israel's Mission to Oliver Cromwell (London,

1901).

MANNHEIMER,

470

BEN ISRAEL

-ELISHEVA

CARLEBACH

ISAAC NOAH

phrase in Exodus 16.15, man hu’, means both “what is it?” and “it is manna.” The metaphorical descriptions “food from heaven” (Ex. 16.4) and “heavenly grain” (Ps. 78.24, cf. Ps. 105.40) are figurative and expressive but tell nothing of the physical properties of the manna. Exodus 16 and Numbers 11 provide some physical details, but several of the technical terms involved are themselves enigmatic, since they occur hardly anywhere else in the Bible. After comparison with other ancient Near Eastern texts, the manna may be described as an edible substance, white in color,

abundant

and fine like frost on the ground, with a

sweet, rich, creamy taste, generally similar in nature to the seed of the more common (white) coriander herb. ¢ F. S. Bodenheimer, “The Manna of Sinai,” in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol. 1, edited by David M. Freedman and G. E. Wright (New York, 1961), pp. 76-80. Chaim Cohen and Daniel Sivan, The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts:

A

Critical

Edition

(New

Haven,

1983),

pp.

38-39,

56-57.

Paul

MANICHAEISM, dualistic religion, incorporating elements of gnosticism, founded by Mani (c.216276). Mani seems to have spent part of his youth

Untersuchung (Wiesbaden, 1983). Joel C. Slayton, “Manna,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:511 (New York, 1992). -—CHAIM COHEN

in Judeo-Christian

MANNERS.

circles

(see EBIONITES)

and was

Maiberger, Das Manna: Eine literarische, etymologische und naturkundliche

See DEREKH ERETS.

active mainly in the Persian empire, where, after initial successes, he was finally martyred by order of the Sassanian king Bahram I. Manichaeism was a missionary religion and seems to have had wide appeal, gaining adherents in North Africa, the Near

MANNHEIMER, ISAAC NOAH (1793-1865), preacher whose name is associated with the Wiener minhag (Viennese rite), a compromise between

East, Persia, Central Asia, and even China before being

a Hungarian

brutally stamped out. Scholars detect Manichaean influence in various medieval gnostic-dualistic heresies, including the Albigenses (Catharans) in twelfthcentury southern France. The possibility of Catharan influence on *Kabbalah, particularly the doctrine of

educated in Copenhagen, where he endeavored to promote a reformed style of worship between 1817 and 1820. When Vienna’s elegant new Stadttempel (City Temple) was consecrated in 1826, Mannheimer,

“transmigration,

preacher), officiated. Initially, his reluctance to antagonize most regular worshipers deflected him from his original path. By 1830, however, Mannheimer had become ideologically more conservative. Together with Salomon *Sulzer, the Stadttempel’s young cantor-composer, he developed an aesthetically “improved” choral service with German-language sermons but few changes in the traditional liturgy. Prayers were recited in Hebrew, those expressing the hope for Israel’s national

exists, but there is no

conclusive

evidence. The polemics of *Sa‘adyah ben Yosef Ga’on (882-942) against dualistic beliefs and also against the belief in transmigration were probably directed at Jewish proponents of Manichaeism. ¢ Peter Bryder, ed., Manichaean Studies (Lund, 1988). Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East (Leiden, 1994). Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa, Savoir et salut (Paris, 1992). Geo Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism (London, 1982).

MANNA, food miraculously provided for the Israelites during their wandering in the wilderness (Ex. 16.4-35). It is described as a thin layer of seedlike substance, akin to hoarfrost (Ex. 16.14) or coriander

seed, suitable for varied processing (Nm. 11.6-8). A double portion was gathered every Friday, the only time manna remained fresh until the next day (from which derives the custom of placing two loaves on the Sabbath-eve table). Only when the Israelites had crossed the Jordan River did manna cease to appear, but as a memorial, a jar of manna was placed in the Sanctuary. Its spiritual significance was explained in the passage “. . . and gave you manna to eat ... in order to teach you that man does not live on bread only, but that man may live on anything that the Lord decrees...” (Dt. 8.3). The rabbis suggested that manna was created on the first Sabbath eve (Avot 5.9).

The physical nature of the manna was a perplexing question

for the Israelites

themselves;

the Hebrew

*Orthodoxy

director

of

restoration

and

*Reform

cantor,

the

Judaism.

Mannheimer

religious

in Zion were

school

retained,

The was

(i.e.,

son

born

of and

minister-

and organ

music

was excluded on Sabbaths and festivals. While this form of worship did not satisfy more-Orthodox Jews, it prevented a split in the community and— as the Wiener minhag—was adopted by many congregations throughout the Habsburg empire. Though not an ordained rabbi, Mannheimer excelled as a preacher and became renowned for his pastoral and philanthropic work. In later years he vigorously defended circumcision, boycotted Reform congresses in Germany, and issued a prayer book with translation (1840) that appeared in several editions. During the revolutions of 1848, he was elected to parliament and called for Jewish emancipation and the abolition of capital punishment. *

Michael

Movement

A. Meyer, Response

to Modernity: A History of the Reform

in Judaism (New York, 1988), pp. 144-151. Moses Rosenmann,

Isak Noa Mannheimer, Sein Leben und Wirken (Vienna and Berlin, 1922). Kurt Schubert, ed., Der Wiener Stadttenpel 1826-1976 (Eisenstadt, 1978).

MANNHEIMER,

ISAAC NOAH

471

Robert S. Wistrich, The Jews of Vienna in the Age of Franz Joseph (Oxford, 1989), pp. 98-106.

-GABRIEL

MANSLAUGHTER. MANTLE MANUAL COMMUNITY.

OF THE OF

A. SIVAN

See ToraH ORNAMENTS.

DISCIPLINE.

See

RULE

OF

THE

MA‘OZ TSUR (738 M1; O Fortress, Rock [of My Salvation]), hymn sung on *Hanukkah after the kindling of lights in the Ashkenazi ritual, but not the Sephardi one (although now widely sung by all communities in Israel). Ma‘oz Tsur was composed by a certain Mordekhai (possibly 13th cent.), whose name appears in acrostic. Originally intended for the home, the song has been also transferred to the synagogue. Its stirring tune, adapted from an old German folk song, forms a fitting accompaniment to its theme of the Jewish people’s salvation from the oppression of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Haman, and the Syrian Greeks. ¢ Israel Davidson, Thesaurus of Medieval Jewish Poetry, 4 vols. (New York, 1970). Macy Nulman, The Concise Encyclopedia of Jewish Music (New York, 1975), pp. 162-163. Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale, N.J., and London, 1993), pp. 236-237. Ismar Schorsch, “A Meditation on “Maoz Zur,” Judaism 37.4 (1988): 459-464.

MAPPAH

(TBI;

cloth),

a word

used

for various

types of coverings: (1) a binder wound around the Torah scroll in the Ashkenazi custom (see TORAH ORNAMENTS); (2) a cover, often elaborately decorated, for the reading desk; (3) a cover placed over the Torah scroll between sections of the Torah reading in the synagogue (‘aliyyot); (4) the name of glosses on Yosef Karo’s Shulhan ‘Arukh by Moshe *Isserles, specifying Ashkenazi customs and practices.

MOSES ZEVULUN

figure, there were often conflicts between the marbits Torah and the communities over halakhic issues, the

heredity of the was known in the seventeenth Tangiers at the

See Homicipe. LAW.

MARGOLIES,

position, and the salary. The position Turkey and Italy until the end of century and was still in existence in end of the eighteenth century.

¢ Meir Benayahu, Marbits Torah (Jerusalem, 1953). -SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

MARGALIT, MOSHE (c.1719-1780), rabbi and Talmudic commentator. Margalit was born near Kovno, Lithuania, and later served as rabbi in several Lithuanian communities. He wrote one of the most important commentaries on the Talmud Yerushalmi. Part one, entitled Penei Moshe, gives a running explanation of the text; the second part, Mar’eh haPanim, notes the differences between the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli, and here Margalit shows great textual acumen, offering numerous emendations, based in part on evidence from the Tosefta’. Together with David Franckel’s Qorban ha-‘Edah, Margalit’s commentary continues to appear in almost every edition of the Talmud Yerushalmi. Margalit enrolled at the University of Frankfurt in 1779, shortly before his death, in order to study botany, presumably to understand better the Jewish agricultural laws. The tradition that Eliyyahu ben Shelomo Zalman of Vilna was, in his youth, Margalit’s student is almost certainly apocryphal, and the former knew nothing of Margalit’s commentaries, many of which were not published until after his death. Margalit wrote commentaries on the Torah and a few tractates of Talmud Bavli, but they were never published. * Louis Ginzberg, On Jewish Law and Lore (New York, 1970), pp. 42-44. —-MARC SHAPIRO

¢ C. Grossman, “Womanly Arts: A Study of Italian Torah Binders,” Journal of Jewish Arts 7 (1980): 35-43.

MAR

(Aram.;

713; master),

honorific

title given

in

Babylonia to the *exilarchs and to some amora’im (see AMorA’); for example, a son quoting his scholarly father was told to refer to him as “my father, my mar”

MARGOLIES, MOSES ZEVULUN (1851-1936), Orthodox rabbi in the United States. He was born in Kroja, Russia, and attended yeshivot in Bialystok and Kovno before serving as rabbi in Slobodka from 1877 to 1899. He then migrated to America and

(Qid. 31b). Sometimes the title was used in preference to “Rabbi,” notably for the scholars Mar *Shemu’el, Mar Zutra’ (6th cent. exilarch), and Mar ‘Ukba’ (10th cent. exilarch). In the course of a Talmudic discussion,

served as Boston’s unofficial chief rabbi until 1905,

when the words “mar said” are used, the meaning is “one [of the disputants mentioned earlier] said.” In

Rabbis

Modern Hebrew, “Mar” is used as “Mr.”

~SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN MARBITS TORAH (ayn 7272; Torah teacher), a type of communal religious leader in Mediterranean lands from the sixteenth through the eighteenth century. When the Spanish refugees reached the Ottoman empire at the end of the fifteenth century, they called their local spiritual leaders marbits Torah. His authority was limited to a single community or province. Though he was a highly respected

when he moved to New York’s Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, where he served until his death.

Although he was a leader of the *Union of Orthodox of the

United

States

and

Canada,

which

actively opposed immigrant religious acculturation, Margolies supported the *Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the modernization of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, and the modern

Talmud

Torah movement,

all of which pro-

moted Americanized Orthodoxy. The Ramaz School in New York is named for him (using his acronym). e Jeffrey S. Gurock, “Resisters and Accommodators: Varieties of Orthodox Rabbis in America, 1886-1983,” American Jewish Archives (November 1983):

120-125. Jenna Weissman Joselit, New York's Jewish Jews: The Orthodox Community in the Interwar Years (Bloomington, Ind., 1990), pp. 60-65. Haskel Lookstein, “Rabbi Moses Zebulon Margolies—High Priest of Kehilath Jeshurun,” in Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun Diamond Jubilee Year Book (New York, 1946), pp. 48-51.

-JEFFREY

S. GUROCK

MARHESHVAN.

MARRANOS

472

MARHESHVAN

They constituted a discernible and influential class of

See HESHVAN.

society.

MAROR (71713; bitter herb), bitter herb eaten at the *Seder service. The regulations for the paschal lamb include the injunction, “With unleavened bread and with bitter herbs shall they eat it” (Ex. 12.8). Originally a condiment

eaten

with

meat,

maror

was

invested

with symbolic significance commemorating that the Egyptians “embittered the lives” of the Israelites (Ex. 1.14). With the destruction of the Temple, the paschal sacrifice ceased, but both unleavened bread and bitter

herbs became an integral part of the Seder service. The *Haggadah is to be recited only “when *matsah and maror are lying before you,’ and the maror is ceremoniously eaten twice, once with *haroset and once with matsah in the form of a sandwich in recollection of the custom of *Hillel, who made a sandwich of the paschal offering together with matsah and maror. The Mishnah (Pes. 2.5) lists five plants that may be used for the bitter herb: hazeret (lettuce),

‘olshin

(chicory),

uncertain), harhavinah

tamkha’

(identification

(a plant of the Umbelliferae

family), and maror (possibly Sonchus oleraceus; Arab.

murar). In eastern Europe it became customary to use horseradish root. According to the custom of Yitshaq ben Shelomo *Luria, followed by the Sephardim, the maror

is in the center of the Seder plate; according

to R. *Eliyyahu ben Shelomo Zalman, the Vilna Ga’on, followed by Ashkenazim, it is at the top of the plate. ¢

Baruch

Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early

Rabbinic Judaism

(Berkeley,

1984). William

Braude,

“The Two

Lives of

Hillel's Sandwich,” in A Rational Faith: Essays in Honor of Rabbi Levi A. Olan, edited by Jack Bemporad (New York, 1977), pp. 51-60. Arthur Schaffer, “The History of Horseradish as the Bitter Herb of Passover,” Gesher 8 (1981): 217-237.

MARRANOS, crypto-Jews of Spain and Portugal, forcibly converted to Christianity in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Beginning with violent antiJewish persecutions in 1391, followed by anti-Jewish legislation, compulsory conversionary sermons in synagogues, and a religious disputation in Tortosa in the early fifteenth century, over one hundred thousand Jews in Spain either reluctantly sought baptism or were forcibly converted to Christianity. They were known as conversos or New Christians. Some became sincere Christians, while others continued to adhere to Jewish practices in secret. The latter were soon derisively called Marranos, meaning swine. The Marranos of the Balearic Islands were known as *Chuetas. The converts hoped to weather the storm and return to Judaism, only to discover that their baptism was considered indelible by church authorities and that any further practice of Judaism would be regarded as the criminal offense of Judaizing or heresy. With their conversions, these former Jews were no longer barred from many areas of the Iberian economy or society, and they soon distinguished themselves in commerce,

statecraft,

and even

within

the church.

In 1449 anti-Jewish popular sentiments were deflected into anti-Marrano riots. Laws were promulgated barring New Christians from advancement on the basis of their origins (racial laws known as limpieza de sangre [purity of blood]). In 1480 the *Inquisition was established in the kingdom of Aragon; New Christians, particularly wealthier families, were its major target at first. The ranks of the Marrano population swelled with the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 and the forced conversion of the Jewish community of Portugal in 1497. Many of the latter were exiles from Spain who had chosen immigration over conversion only a few years previously. The Inquisition was introduced into Portugal in 1540. Marranism virtually ceased in Spain by the middle of the sixteenth century. Upon the annexation of Portugal by Spain in 1580, thousands of Marranos from Portugal fled back to Spain, assured by the authorities that the Spanish Inquisition would not try them for “crimes” committed in Portugal. Spanish society once again faced the issue of crypto-Judaism. With the passage of time traces of Judaism grew fainter among the Marranos. They constituted a secret society pervaded by fear of detection and Inquisitorial prosecution. After 1540, the Portuguese Inquisition was especially zealous in ferreting out Marranos. Eventually many Marranos escaped to England, Holland, France, the Ottoman empire, or the New World (where the Inquisition followed them) and returned to Judaism. They formed a diaspora stretching from Brazil to Goa, linked by family ties, shared tragedy, and often commerce. Rabbinical authorities tended to be lenient with these former Marranos, regarding them as Jews who were not to be reminded of their tragic past. Crypto-Judaism persisted in the Iberian Peninsula for centuries. Deprived of rabbinical authorities, access to knowledge of Hebrew, and access to post-biblical sources, as well as the sustenance of a living community, it became a radically altered religion. Nevertheless, Marranos and their descendants, who had long since forgotten why they retained some of their distinctive practices, continued to be stereotyped and stigmatized

despite their strict adherence to Catholicism. Until its abolition in Portugal in the eighteenth century and in Spain in the nineteenth century, the Inquisition continued to prosecute Marranos. Remnants of Marrano practices persist in northeastern towns and villages in Portugal. Recently an entire community of Marranos in Belmonte, Portugal, returned to Judaism. e

Haim

(Jerusalem,

Beinart,

Conversos

on

Trial: The Inquisition

in Ciudad

Real

1981). Benzion Netanyahu, The Marranos of Spain (New York,

1966). Rene’e Levine Melammed, Heretics or Daughters ofIsrael2: The CryptoJewish Women of Castile (New York, 1999), Rene’e Levine Melammed, A Question of Identity: Iberian Conversos in Historical Perspective (New York, 2004). Benzion Netanyahu, The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain, 2 vols. (New York, 1995). Cecil Roth, History of the Marranos (Philadelphia, 1932). Yosef Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto: Isaac Cardoso; A Study in Seventeenth-Century Marranism and Jewish Apologetics (Seattle, 1971). -JANE S. GERBER

MARRIAGE

473

MARRIAGE. To be married is emphatically regarded in Judaism as a social, moral, and religious ideal, and as a necessary condition of spiritual perfection. *Celibacy is frowned upon, and even ascetic and mystical writers never suggested that the perfect life was possible without marriage. Biblical texts treat marriage as the normal state of existence, and the Creation story (Gn. 1-2) further imagines monogamy as the ideal: “therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gn. 2.24).The patriarchal society that underlies these biblical traditions ensures that the husband is the dominant party in any legal relationship of marriage, but biblical texts present wives in positions of status in the home, and the stories of the *matriarchs treat them as independent and often assertive characters. Marriage is a primary metaphor that the biblical prophets, and later aggadic literature and liturgical poetry, use to depict the ideal relationship between God and Israel, for it expresses the faithfulness that each partner has for the other. Israel’s sin of idolatry is equated with adultery or prostitution; it signifies Israel's disloyalty, the breaking of her covenantal vows with God. The biblical and Talmudic legal systems presuppose *polygamy as a normal state in society. Not until the time of R. *Gershom

monogamy

became

ben Yehuda

(c.960-1028)

did

legally binding upon Ashkenazi

Jews, but the decree enforcing it seems to have been

the legal formulation of existing practice rather than a reform. The purpose of marriage was understood to be procreation; thus the rabbis regarded ten years of childless marriage as a valid and natural cause for *divorce. At the same time, the rabbis eloquently extolled the virtues of marriage: “He who dwells without a wife dwells without joy, without blessing, without good, and without happiness” (Yev. 62b); and “He who has no wife is less than a man” (Yev. 67a). Husbands had significant authority over but also significant responsibilities with regard to their wives. The biblical precedent set the tone for Talmudic law,

codified in Maimonides’ Mishneh

Torah and in the

Shulhan ‘Arukh (Hilkhot Ishut 12.1-4; Shulhan “‘Arukh,

Even ha-‘Ezer 69.1-3). The husband was obligated to provide sustenance, clothing, and housing (see MAINTENANCE). He was also to decide where the couple would live, although if either wished to live in Erets Yisra’el and the other objected, such an objection was grounds for divorce. The husband was to cohabit with his wife (see SEXUALITY), to provide her a *ketubbah, to be responsible for her medical needs, to ransom

her from captivity, and to ensure that she had a proper burial. Allowance was also to be made for her maintenance in the event of his death. The husband was entitled to inherit his wife’s property (see INHERITANCE). See also BETROTHAL. ¢

Rachel

Biale,

ed.,

Women

and

Jewish

Law:

The

Essential

Texts,

Their History, and Their Relevance for Today (New York, 1995). Michael J. Broyde, Marriage, Divorce, and the Abandoned Wife in Jewish Law (Jerusalem, 2001). Sergio Della Pergola, Recent Trends in Jewish Marriage

MARRIAGES, PROHIBITED

(Jerusalem, 1989). Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles,

4 vols. (Philadelphia, 1994), Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract: A Study in the Status of the Woman in Jewish Law (New York, 1927). Zeev Falk, Jewish Matrimonial Law in the Middle Ages (London,

1966). Norman

Lamm, A Hedge of Roses: Jewish Insights into Marriage and Married Life, 2d ed. (New York, 1968). Benzion Schereschewsky, Dinei Mishpahah (Jerusalem, 1967). -REVISED

BY

ADELE

BERLIN

MARRIAGE

BROKER.

MARRIAGE

CONTRACT.

MARRIAGES,

AND

MAXINE

L. GROSSMAN

See SHADDEKHAN. See KETupBan.

PROHIBITED.

There are two main

categories of prohibited marriages in Jewish law: void and valid. Void marriages include adulterous unions, incestuous unions, and unions with non-Jews. In the case of adultery (on the wife’s part) and incest,

any offspring are mamzerim (see MAMZER). While an adulterous woman

must be divorced by her husband,

such a step does not need to be taken in the case of incest or in the case of marriage with a non-Jew since these marriages are considered void ab initio. Valid prohibited marriages generally involve transgressions of biblical laws that fall short of the incest prohibitions, as well as unions between the secondary degrees of consanguinity prohibited by the rabbis (Shulhan

‘Arukh,

marriage

has occurred,

Even

ha-‘Ezer

44.6-7).

pressure

If such a

is applied to the

couple to secure a divorce, even if they were unaware

of the prohibition at the time of their nuptials. Examples of valid prohibited marriages include those of: an adulteress and her lover, even after the woman’s divorce from her husband or his death (Yev. 24b);

a priest and a woman

whom

he is forbidden

to

marry (Rema’, Even ha-‘Ezer 3.6); a divorcée who has remarried and her first husband, after her second husband has divorced her or died (Dt. 24.4); a couple

whose marriage creates a bigamous union (under the decree of R. Gershom, who prohibited polygamy). In general, if the husband was unaware at the time

of marriage that his wife was prohibited to him, then both parties will be exempt from their marital obligations under the law. Voluntary obligations such as the tosefet ketubbah (see ALIMONY) will, however, remain in force (Shulhan ‘Arukh, Even ha‘Ezer 116.1-3). Where the husband was aware of

the impediment at the time of marriage, a balance is struck between compelling him to fulfill all the obligations imposed upon him by the law and creating a situation in which the couple will be encouraged to divorce. The wife’s knowledge is not taken into account legally in this area of Jewish law. In most cases where the principle of equality is at issue, the Reform movement rejects the notion of a prohibited marriage. See also INTERMARRIAGE; SEXUAL OFFENSES ¢

Menachem

Elon, Jewish

Law:

History,

Sources,

Principles,

4 vols.

(Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 1771-1784. Louis Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud (Cambridge, Mass., 1967). Mendell Lewittes, Jewish Marriage: Rabbinic Law, Legend, and Custom (Northvale, N.J., 1994), pp. 19-27. —DANIEL

SINCLAIR

MASORAH

474

MARTYRDOM MARTYRDOM. The Hebrew term for martyrdom, giddush ha-Shem (death for “the sanctification of the

* Ronal E. Agus, The Binding of Isaac and Messiah: Law, Martyrdom, and

Deliverance in Early Rabbinic Religiosity (Albany, 1988). Arthur J. Drodge and

James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and

Name [of God]”; see Lv. 22.32), stems from the belief

Jews in Antiquity (San Francisco, 1992), an unconventional interpretation.

that any worthy action on the part of a Jew that enhances the prestige of Judaism in the eyes of gentiles

and translated by Abraham Halkin and David Hartman (Philadelphia, 1993).

thereby also “sanctifies” the name of God (similarly, its

opposite, */illul ha-Shem, an unworthy act, desecrates the Name). Oiddush ha-Shem came to have the more specific meaning of martyrdom, since the sacrifice of one’s life for God’s Torah was regarded as the ultimate sanctification of God’s name. This supreme act of faith was final proof of the willingness to “Love the Lord your God with all your soul (Dt. 6.5)—even though he take your soul” (Ber. 61b). The ideal of martyrdom in Judaism has its roots in the *‘agedah, God’s test of Abraham through a command to offer up his only son Isaac; in that case, the supreme sacrifice was not

exacted, and essentially martyrdom thus the willingness to make such a sacrifice. “sanctifies the name of God in public” and gadosh (holy one). Limits on the Jewish valuation of

represents The martyr he is called

martyrdom

arise because of traditional views of *suicide, which treat it as a most heinous crime against one of

God’s creations. Various regulations in Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature attempt to establish those instances when martyrdom is justified and to draw,

as far as possible,

clear boundaries

between

martyrdom and willful suicide. As a general rule, in order to save life one may transgress all the commandments of the Torah except the three cardinal sins of idolatry, shedding of innocent blood, and major *sexual offenses (adultery and incest). In the case of these three, one should endure martyrdom rather than transgress. The Talmud also preserves an opposing view, however,

that

in

times

of

religious

persecution,

when the observance of the Torah becomes a public demonstration of religious loyalty, a Jew is obliged to submit to martyrdom rather than transgress even the most insignificant commandment (San. 74a). During the Middle Ages, mostly in connection with

Hayim I. Kolits, Rabbi Akiva: Sage of All Sages (Woodmere, N.Y., 1989). Moses Maimonides, Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis and Leadership, edited Shalom Spiegel, The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah, translated by Judah Goldin (Woodstock, Vt., 1993).

MARTYRS,

TEN. See TEN Martyrs.

MASHGIAH (771U!3; supervisor), a title applied to two types of religious supervisors. A mashgiah kashrut is responsible for ensuring that the food products of a factory, store, restaurant, or hotel are in compliance

with the *dietary laws. Besides being a halakhic expert on kashrut, the mashgiah must be God-fearing and trustworthy. The ignorant and those motivated solely by financial gain are precluded from serving as mashgiah. A mashgiah ruhani (spiritual supervisor) is assigned in a *yeshivah to supervise the spiritual development and well-being of the students.

MASHIAH. See MEssIAH. MASHIV HA-RUAH U-MORID HA-GESHEM (QWaT T9991 71197 Bw; “[He] who causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall”), phrase (taken from Ta‘an. 1.1) introduced in all rites as part of the second blessing of the ‘Amidah. The onset of the fall and winter rainy season in Erets Yisra’el is marked by strong winds. The phrase is recited between *Shemini ‘Atseret (when first recited in the prayer for rain [see TEFILLAT GESHEM]) and the first day of *Pesah, after which the Sephardi (but not the Ashkenazi) rite replaces it with morid ha-tal, “[He] who causes the dew to fall” (see TEFILLAT TAL). In Israel, most Ashkenazim

follow the Sephardi practice. ¢ Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia and New York, 1993), p. 39, s.v. index. Joseph Heinemann, “La-Verur Peshutan shel Mishnayyot Ahadot: She’elat Geshem ve-Hazkarat Geshamim ba-Golah uve-‘Erets Yisra’el,” in “Iyyunei Tefillah (Jerusalem, 1981).

the massacres that accompanied the *Crusades, whole

communities underwent self-immolation at the behest of their leaders rather than submit to baptism (the example of the Jewish community of York in 1190 is outstanding). These tragic episodes are usually regarded as the classic examples of martyrdom in Jewish thought and history, and to this day a prayer is recited on the Sabbath for “the holy congregations who laid down their lives for the sanctification of the divine name.” Sephardi communities recite a special memorial prayer (Hashkavah) in memory of the victims of the Inquisition. According to Jewish law, the wife of a martyr may not remarry. Medieval pietists and especially the kabbalists recommended that those faced with martyrdom should meet it in contemplation while reciting the *Shema‘. The ‘Aleinu prayer was also often recited by martyrs. See also MEMORBUKH; TEN Martyrs.

MASKIL (5D);

intelligent, knowing),

originally,

particularly in Sephardi usage, a title of honor for a learned man. In the Middle Ages, the term also meant (depending on the circle in which it was used) either a philosopher or a kabbalist. In the nineteenth century, the term came to designate a follower of the *Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement; hence it had a pejorative

implication when used by the Orthodox. MASORAH (771019; traditional text). In the narrow and technical sense, the term refers to an apparatus

for the writing and reading of the biblical text (see

BiBLE Text). The Masorah is written around the consonantal framework of the biblical text as handed down for centuries by the schools of the Masoretes. In the wider sense of the term, the Masorah consists also of the *vocalization, “accents, and certain other

MASORAH

475

elements of the text. The Masorah originated in the period of the soferim (see SoFER), though some of its earliest features may date back to the time of “Ezra. The purpose of the Masoretes was to safeguard the integrity of the biblical text and to facilitate its study. Since the Bible as a whole, and the Torah in particular, were regarded as divinely inspired and considered the ultimate source of Jewish doctrine and observance, the slightest change could have farreaching

consequences

(cf. ‘Eruv.

13a). In order

to

achieve uniformity, the Masoretes compiled, first orally and subsequently in writing, numerous notes and rules with which to “fence round” the correct text and especially the exact spellings of the words— hence, the various masoretic treatises laying down the rules of spelling (full or defective) and marginal notes in Aramaic regarding the exceptions to these rules. As an additional precaution, the Masoretes would note how many times a certain spelling occurred in a given biblical book or in the Bible as a whole. The Masoretes also attended to such details of the text as the division into words and paragraphs; vocalization and accents; and determining which letters must be written large (Gn. 1.1), small (Lv. 1.1), suspended Ugs. 18.30), inverted (Ni. 10.35 ff.), or dotted (Dt. 29.28). The Masorah counted the letters, words, and verses in

the individual books and in the Bible as a whole and represented differences between pronunciation (geri [what is read]) and spelling (ketiv [what is written]).

The term sevirin (what could be suggested) refers to possible but not accepted alternatives, though the text was left unchanged. The Masorah also mentions corrections of the scribes (*tigqunei soferim), which,

however, seem to represent Midrashic exegesis rather than emendations. These masoretic notes are placed on the side margins (Minor Masorah), while the notes on the tops and bottoms of pages (Major Masorah) list in detail the particulars mentioned

by way of allusion in the Minor Masorah. Still longer annotations, included in medieval manuscripts and the Second Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1525-1526), (see Miora’oT GEDOLOT) are reserved for the end of the biblical books (Final Masorah). The Masoretes

worked over many centuries (probably from 500 until 1000), especially in Erets Yisra’el but also in Babylonia and elsewhere. The accepted text was determined by Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher of the school of Tiberias (see BEN ASHER FAMILY). The

masoretic the activity collections handbooks

apparatuses were developed far beyond of the first generations of Masoretes into of notes written in separate volumes or of detailed observations on the biblical

text, above all, about spelling, including *Okhlah ve-

Okhlah; Minhat Shai, by Shelomo Yedidyah (16th cent.); and Masoret ha-Masoret, by Eliyyahu *Levita (1538).

The

precise

form

of the

Masorah,

which

was culled from various manuscripts by Ya‘aqov Hayyim ibn Adoniyahu for the Second Rabbinic Bible, has become the accepted text of the Masorah,

although

scholars

prefer to use

the Masorah

of

MATRIARCHS

individual manuscripts, such as that of the Aleppo Codex published by Loewinger (1977) or that of the Codex Leningrad B194 published by Weil (1971). Various printed editions of the Bible based on the Aleppo Codex and on the Leningrad Codex have been published in recent years. These codices are also available online. ¢ Mordechai Breuer, Keter Aram Tsovah veha-Nusah ha-Mekubbal shel ha-Migqra’ (Jerusalem, 1976). Menachem Cohen, Migra’ot Gedolot ha-Keter, vols. 1-9 (Ramat Gan, 1992-2000). Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, 1897; repr. New York, 1966). Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, translated from Hebrew and edited by E. J. Revell, Society of Biblical Literature, Masoretic Studes 5 (Missoula, Mont., 1980).

MASORETIC

ACCENTS.

See Accents.

MASORTI

MOVEMENT.

See

CONSERVATIVE

JUDAISM.

MASORTI

OLAMI.

See

Wor.Lp

CoUNCIL

OF

SYNA-

GOGUES.

MASSEKHET (f50'3; Aram. masekhta’ woven fabric), a tractate of the Mishnah or of other rabbinic

works

(Tosefta’,

Talmud,

Mekhilta’).

Usually

a massekhet deals with a specific subject and is subdivided into chapters, with the exception of ‘Eduyyot, which is organized associatively. Originally the Mishnah

had sixty tractates

Rab.

but

18.21),

the

division

(Sg. Rab.

of tractate

6.9; Nm.

Nezigin

into three subsections and the separation of Makkot from Sanhedrin raised the number to sixty-three. The Talmud Yerushalmi has thirty-nine tractates; the

Talmud Bavli thirty-seven. MATMID

-AVRAHAM WALFISH

(77739713; from Heb. tamid [perpetual]), one

who persists, or is diligent, particularly in his study of the Talmud. Among those studying in yeshivot, the matmid has always been the most admired of all students, a true matmid may spend as many as eighteen hours a day, or more, poring over the Talmud texts, leaving his books only for the three daily prayer services, meals, and a few hours of sleep. The fervent student who devotes days and nights to Talmudic learning has been immortalized in Hebrew literature by Hayyim Nahman Bialik’s poem Nahman ha-Matmid. -SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN MATRIARCHS (Heb. immahot), *Sarah, *Rebekah, *Leah, and *Rachel, the wives of the three “patriarchs.

Unlike the patriarchs they are not mentioned in the traditional daily prayers, but they are now named along with the patriarchs in many non-Orthodox congregations and prayer books. Prayers for women who are ill and women after childbirth invoke the matriarchs,

and

blessings

for girls mention

their

names. Rabbinic legends contain many stories about the four matriarchs, extolling their virtues.

¢ Catherine Chalier, Les Matriarches: Sarah, Rébecca, Rachel et Léa (Paris, 1985). The Torah, A Women’s Commentary, Tamara Eskenazi, ed. (New York, 2008). —-SHALOM PAUL

MATRILINEAL

DESCENT.

See

PATRILINEAL

DE-

SCENT. MATRIMONY.

was not leavened, because they had been driven out of

Egypt and could not delay” (Ex. 12.39). It therefore also became known as “the bread of affliction.” As a result, the main ritual in the observance of *Pesah (also called the Festival of Matsot), is the prohibition against eating any */iamets (leaven) and the religious duty of eating matsah. The two regulations are not identical; the positive duty of eating matsah applies only on the first night (the first two nights in the when

the eating of matsah

is a central

feature of the *Seder, while the prohibition against leaven applies to the duration of the festival. Matsah may be eaten all year, but it became a custom not to eat it in the period preceding Pesah. The principal regulation concerning the baking of matsah is that the ingredients be only specially prepared flour (made from one of the “five species of grain,” that is, wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt; cf. Pes. 35a) and cooled water.

The addition of salt is prohibited for no clear reason, and the dough must be continuously kneaded and baked with such rapidity as to prevent any possibility of fermentation. Eighteen minutes is usually regarded as the maximum amount of time. Normally it is sufficient to exercise care that the flour does not come into contact with moisture from the time of the grinding of the grain. In view of the positive obligation of eating matsah on the first night, many strictly Orthodox Jews bake a specially prepared matsah for that occasion. This is called shemurah matsah or matsah shemurah (i.e., matsah that has been specially

guarded), and the flour for this matsah is supervised from the time the grain is harvested. Spiritually and allegorically, leaven is regarded as the symbol of impurity and matsah that of purity (Ber. 17a). All the meal offerings in the Temple were of matsah and were disqualified in the event of fermentation. The laws concerning matsah are to be found in the tractate Pesahim, in Hilkhot Hamets u-Matsah in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, and in the Shulhan ‘Arukh (Orah

Hayyim 53-462). ¢ Yoel Ben-Nun, “Hamets u-Matsah be-Pesah, be-Shavu‘ot uve-Qorbonot ha-Lehem,” Megadim 13 (1991): 25-45. Avi Nilsson Ben-Zvi, “Passover Traditions and the Baking of Matzah Among Géteborg Jews,” Israel Museum Journal 3 (1984): 68-74. Yehuda Felix, “Li-She’eilat Zihuyah shel Shibbolet Shu‘al,” Sefer ha-Yovel Minhah le-'Ish, edited by Itamar Warhaftig (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 171-178. Shalom Y. Gross, Laws and Customs of Passover

Matzah

(Brooklyn,

N.Y.,

1981).

Manufacture,” L’eylah 2.7 (1984): 8-11. Yisrael Ta-Shema, “Matzah Meluhah

be-Pesah: Le-Tiv'am u-Muvanam shel Minhagei Ashkenaz ha-Qedumim,” Minhag Ashkenaz ha-Qadmon (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 249-259.

MATSEVAH

I. Lerner,

“Modern

Matzo

in

(723!2; monument), originally, a raised

stone. According to the Bible, matsevot served as memorial stones for the dead (Gn. 35.20; 2 Sm. 18.18)

and commemorated

See MarrIAGE.

MATSAH (733), unleavened bread. Since the dough does not require fermentation, matsah can be baked hurriedly and is therefore specified as the bread prepared for unexpected visitors (cf. Gn. 19.3). For the same reason it became the bread of the *Exodus: “And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough ... for it

Diaspora),

MAZZAL

476

MATRIARCHS

treaties or border agreements

(Gn. 31.45-52; Jos. 4.4-9). They were connected with the worship of the Lord, as is clear from the early narratives of Jacob at Bethel (Gn. 28.18, 22, 35.14). In

general, however, they were viewed negatively, since they were also employed as part of the cultic worship of other gods, especially the Canaanite-Phoenician Baal (J Kgs. 14.23; 2 Kgs. 3.2). Thus, the Israelites were commanded

to destroy them (Ex. 23.24, 34.13;

Dt. 7.5, 12.3) and were prohibited from using them (Dt. 16.22). They have been identified with the larger stones or groups of stones found in archeological excavations throughout Israel dating from many of the early periods. In Jewish usage, the term subsequently signified a tombstone (see TOMBS). e Shalom (Jerusalem,

M. Paul and William 1973), pp. 271-275.

MATTAN

TORAH.

MATTATHIAS.

G.

Dever,

eds., Biblical Archaeology —SHALOM PAUL

See GIVING OF THE TORAH.

See HASMONEANS.

MAYIM AHARONIM (5°31908 03; latter waters), the washing of hands after meals. Before beginning a meal

at which

bread

is served,

the hands

must

be washed and the appropriate blessing recited. The water used for this first *ablution is called mayim ri’shonim (first waters). After the meal it is customary,

though not obligatory, to dip the hands into a container containing mayim aharonim in order to cleanse the hands before reciting the *Birkat haMazon. No blessing is recited over this post-prandial washing (Shulhan ‘Arukh, Orah Hayyim 181.f). ¢ Philip Birnbaum, A Book of Jewish Concepts (New York, 1964), p. 414. -A.

MAZEL a

TOV (Heb.

congratulatory

mazzal

greeting.

tov; See

STANLEY

“Good

DREYFUS

luck”);

GREETINGS

AND

CONGRATULATIONS; MAZZAL.

MAZZAL

(512), literally, a “constellation,” the word has come to mean “luck.” *Astrology is based on the belief that the fate of each person is determined by the constellation under whose influence he or she was born; hence, the Talmudic dictum ein mazzal leYisra‘el, namely, Israel is ruled by divine providence and is not subject to the rule of the stars (i.e., fate). The word mazzal now is completely devoid of any such astrological significance. Since fortune can be either good or bad, the Talmud differentiates between mazzal tov (good luck) and mazzal bish (bad luck). Today mazzal tov is a formal expression of congratulation (see GREETINGS AND CONGRATULATIONS). ¢ James H. Charlesworth, “Jewish Interest in Astrology during the Hellenistic

and Roman Period,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rémischen Welt, section

MAZZAL

477

II, vol. 2, pt. 2 (Berlin, 1987), pp. 926-950. Wolfgang Hubner, Zodiacus Christianus: Jtidisch-christliche Adaptationen des Tierkreises von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Konigstein, 1983). -~SHIFRA EPSTEIN

MAZZIQ.

See DEMoNns.

MEAL OFFERING (Heb. minhah), one of the *sacrifices; also called a cereal or grain offering. The word minhah actually means gift, in the sense of a tribute paid to a superior (e.g., Gn. 32.14, 22) ora ruler (e.g., Jgs. 3.15ff.; 1 Sm. 10.27), and could be used to refer to sacrifices

in general

(Gn. 4.3; cf. 7 Sm.

26.19;

/

Kgs. 18.36). Usually, however, the minhah is a specific type of sacrifice: a cereal offering, as opposed to an animal sacrifice. The ingredients of the minhah are semolina and oil. The various types are enumerated in Leviticus 2. The simplest is the uncooked mixture, requiring the addition of frankincense. The remaining types all involve some preparation of unleavened cakes: oven-baked (as loaves or wafers), griddletoasted (and crumbled), and panfried. Only a small, representative portion (azkarah) was placed on the altar, the larger remainder was eaten by the priest (Lv. 6.11, 7.9). Conceptually, it was as though God had given the priests a portion of his own gift of food (Lv. 6.9-11). A special meal offering was made by the high priest (Lv. 6.12-16), according to some authorities, daily; according to others, on the day of his

investiture. An individual would be moved to make a meal offering for a multitude of reasons, among them reverence, homage, gratitude, and propitiation. The meal offering shared the same functions as the *burnt offering for those whose means did not enable them to offer an animal. In the public sacrificial system, meal offerings accompanied the daily, Sabbath, Ro’sh Hodesh, and festival offerings (Nm. 15.1-16, 28-29). The public minhah, especially that which was part of the daily evening sacrifice, eventually gave its name to the afternoon prayer service (see MINHAH). The laws of the meal offering as expounded by the rabbinic authorities are found in tractate *Menahot. * Gary A. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance, Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 41 (Atlanta, 1987), pp. 27-75. Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 9-14. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus J-16, The Anchor Bible, vol. 3 (New York, 1991), pp. 177-202, 382-401.-BARUCH

J. SCHWARTZ

ME‘AM

LO‘EZ.

See CuLl, YA‘AQov.

MEAT (Heb. basar), animal flesh, as opposed to the bones, sinews, horns, or hoofs of an animal.

MEDICAL ETHICS

permitted and forbidden animals (Lv. 11), defects that render flesh unfit for consumption (see TEREFAH), the

impurities to which flesh is subject (e.g., Dt. 14.21), flesh from which no benefit may be derived (e.g., Ex. 21.28), the prohibition against cooking meat and milk together (based on Ex. 23.19, etc.), the preparation of the meat of permitted animals for consumption, or the determination of what is considered meat as far as vows are concerned (Ned. 54b). Only the meat of permitted animals (Lv. 11) that have been ritually slaughtered (see RiTuAL SLAUGHTER) may be eaten. Since, however, the Bible forbids the consumption of certain fats and blood (Lv. 3.17), the meat after

slaughter must be porged (see Nroqur) in order to rid it of forbidden fat and must be made kasher in order to rid it of any remaining blood. This is done by soaking the meat in water for a half hour and then covering it lightly with salt (meliiah). The salt must be of a fairly coarse variety so that it will not melt on contact with the meat. Liver must be broiled directly over a flame in order to be rendered kasher. Meat may not be cooked together with milk or in utensils in which dairy foods have been cooked. Such cooking renders the meat and utensils forbidden, and no benefit may

be derived from either. Although the Bible says, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” (Ex. 23.19),

the rabbis included all permitted animals and fowl in the meat-milk prohibition. Milk may not be eaten after the partaking of meat; custom varies as to the

period of time that should elapse (see DIETARY LAws). Meat is considered both a substantial food and one that gives joy. It is therefore to be eaten on the Sabbath and festivals. For the same reason, it is not eaten by

the mourner on the day of the burial, nor is it eaten during periods of national mourning, such as the nine days that culminate in the fast of Tish‘ah be-’Av. * Seligmann B. Bamberger, Hilchoth Melicho: Laws for the Preparation and Salting of Meat According to Halacha (New York, 1958). Isidor Grunfeld, The Jewish Dietary Laws, 2 vols. (London, 1982).

MEDICAL ETHICS. The role of the physician, birth control, feticide, and the treatment of the dying

are among the issues that have been dealt with in classical Jewish law and that have been analyzed by halakhists over the centuries. Medical law is a major field of research for modern halakhists as a result of the universal concern with the moral implications of contemporary medicine and biotechnology. The extensive modern literature in this field includes discussions of fetal reduction in artificially assisted reproduction, surrogacy, the mapping of the human genome, the implications of genetic research and

The flesh of fowl and birds is considered meat in rabbinic law but not in the Bible. The flesh of fish or permitted insects is not considered meat, nor is blood or forbidden fat. Certain parts of the hide or skin are considered meat, though not after they have been made into leather (Hul. 122a). Meat is mentioned in halakhic discussion in a variety of contexts; for example, in connection with the laws regarding the

medical

paschal lamb (Ex. 12.8), sacrificial flesh (Ex. 29.33),

halakhic

meat torn from a living animal (see ElvaR MIN HA-HAI),

patient, therefore, are only relevant in the interstices of

therapy, the use of fetal tissue, the treatment of patients in a persistent vegetative state, allocation

of costly medical resources, confidentiality between doctor and patient, and professional ethics. The focus of Jewish medical law, which is distinct from Jewish ethics, is the nature

rules

and

and scope of relevant

principles.

The

wishes

of the

halakhic doctrine; they do not in themselves constitute a halakhically valid norm in biomedical decisions. However, in cases of medical uncertainty or high risk treatment or in cases in which depriving the patient of his or her autonomy is likely to affect health in an adverse manner, the relevant principle in Jewish law is that the patient’s wishes are to be respected. The preservation of life, according to Jewish tradition, constitutes the fulfillment of a divine

commandment, and only the prohibitions against the three major transgressions of homicide, idolatry, and forbidden sexual relations override the obligation to save life (San. 74a). Under Jewish law, a fetus is only endowed with full legal status, for purposes of criminal law, once

MEDINA, SHEMU’EL DE

478

MEDICAL ETHICS

it has emerged

from the womb;

applies to those on a lower spiritual level, that is, the majority, in consideration of their inability to abandon themselves completely to God’s providence. The Shulhan ‘Arukh (Yoreh De‘ah 336) conforms with

Maimonides’ view that a physician who withholds his services is shedding blood. According to the Talmud, a scholar, who should be

aware of the obligation to care for one’s life, may only live in a city where there is a physician and a surgeon (San. 17b). Of special historical interest are many passages in the Talmud testifying to some advanced medical knowledge. Such passages include references to anesthesia (a “sleeping drug”) for surgical operations (B.M. 83b), amputations (Y., Naz. 9.5), artificial teeth and limbs (Shab. 6.5, 8), Caesarean sections on

hence, therapeutic *abortion is generally treated in a lenient manner in the Jewish tradition (Ohal. 7.6). Such enterprises as the mapping of the human genome and research using genetic material need not clash with halakhic norms, as long as the research is orientated in a therapeutic direction. There are a number of institutions in various countries devoted to research in Jewish medical law and ethics, and there exist a number of publications, such as Assia, which are devoted solely to matters of halakhah and medicine. See also MEDICINE.

living mothers and in subsequent childbirths (Bekh.

¢ Elliot N. Dorff, Choose Life: A Jewish Perspective on Medical Ethics (Los Angeles, 1985). Elliot N. Dorff, Matters ofLife and Death: A Jewish Approach to

etc.). The Talmud also deals with *abortion, *birth, *circumcision, and “sterilization. Many of the bestknown rabbis, philosophers, poets, and grammarians

Modern Medical Ethics (Philadelphia, 2004). David M. Feldman, Health and Medicine in the Jewish Tradition (New York, 1986). Immanuel Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics (New York, 1959; repr. 1975). Fred Rosner and J. David Bleich, eds., Jewish Bioethics (New York, 1979). Daniel B. Sinclair, Tradition

and the Biological Revolution: The Application of Jewish Law to the Treatment of the Critically Ill (Edinburgh, 1989), Avraham Steinberg, ed., Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, updated and revised ed., trans. by Fred Rosner, vol. 1-3 (Jerusalem, 2003). Moshe David Tendler, Medical Ethics (New York, 1981). -DANIEL SINCLAIR

MEDICINE. is in Genesis

The first biblical reference 48.1; the word

to illness

rofe’ (healer,

doctor)

appears first in Genesis 50.2, but it is applied there to Joseph’s Egyptian servants who embalmed his father, Jacob. God is the healer who heals Israel (Ex. 15.26), and he promises to prevent diseases

among

the people if they keep his commandments

(Ex. 23.25). Since it is God who smites with illness and who alone heals (see / Sm. 2.6), the practice

of medicine became a theological problem, since it represented an attempt to interfere with the ways of God. King Asa was reproved for seeking healing not from God but from physicians (2 Chr. 16.12). The Talmud deduces from Exodus 21.19 that the healing profession is religiously legitimate, but the problem continued to exercise thinkers throughout the Middle Ages when Jews were among the most renowned doctors. Moses *Maimonides, himself a physician, ruled that medical intervention was a religious duty and that every individual was obliged to care for his health in order to serve God (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De‘ot 3.3). Other authorities (e.g., Nahmanides in his commentary on Lv, 26.11, Avraham ibn Ezra

on Ex. 21.19) held different opinions; for example, that permission to seek and to dispense medical care

8.2), and the feasibility of artificial human conception

by impregnation through sperm in tub water (Hag. 15a)—the latter two being the first such references known in the history of medicine. The legal codes devote chapters to the laws of the physician, listing his responsibilities, including visiting and praying for the sick (Yoreh De‘ah 335), liabilities, claims to payment (Yoreh De‘ah 336), and the conditions under which

the Sabbath and other precepts may be violated to protect life and health (Orah Hayyim 228-230, 618,

of the Middle Ages were physicians by occupation. Jews have continued to play a prominent part in all branches of medical research and practice. Certain medical developments have raised halakhic concerns, among them the need for *autopsies and dissections both for establishing the causes of death and for the training of medical students. e Natalia Berger, ed., Jews and Medicine: Religion, Culture, Science (Tel Aviv, 1995). Harry Friedenwald, The Jews and Medicine, 2 vols. (Baltimore, 1944-1946). Immanuel Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics (New York, 1959). Nathan Koren, Jewish Physicians: A Biographical Index (Jerusalem, 1973).

Julius Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, edited and translated by Fred Rosner (New York, 1978). Fred Rosner, Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud: Selections from Classical Sources (New York, 1995). -FRANCISCO

MEDINA, the

SHEMU’EL

acronym

Rashdam;

MORENO

CARVALHO

DE (1506-1589), known by rabbinical

authority

and

community leader in his native Salonika, where he served as dayyan. He was a student of Yosef *Taitazak and was rabbi of two of the most important communities in Salonika. Medina was consulted on halakhic matters by many communities from all parts of the Ottoman empire and beyond, such as Italy and France. He was immersed in halakhah and took no interest in kabbalistic literature or philosophy. Many of his responsa became generally accepted decisions not only in the Ottoman empire but also in eastern Europe and have been quoted in modern times by judges in Israel. His authority and powerful personality were widely respected, and he was called on to decide disputes in the Salonikan and other communities. A selection of his responsa

MEDINA, SHEMU’EL DE

479

was published in his lifetime (Salonika, 15852-1587) and a more comprehensive selection, consisting of 626 responsa, appeared after his death (Venice and Salonika, 1594-1595). He headed a large yeshivah, and his best-known student was Avraham ben Moshe di Boton (see BOTON FAMILY). ¢ Leah Bornstein, ed., Index to the Responsa of Rabbi Shemu'el de Medina (Ramat Gan, 1979). Morris S. Goodblatt, Jewish Life in Turkey in the XVIth

Century as Reflected in the Legal Writings of Samuel de Medina (New York, 1952).

—-SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

MEDINI, HAYYIM HIZQTYYARU (1833-1905), rabbi and halakhist. Born in Jerusalem, he served as a rabbi for many years in Constantinople and in the Crimea before returning to Erets Yisra’el in 1899, Turning down the possibility of the appointment as chief rabbi of the Sephardi community, he accepted a rabbinical position in Hebron. Medini is best known for his Sedei Hemed (18 vols. [Warsaw,

1891-1912]),

an encyclopedia of alakhah that deals with individual legal topics and with the rules of halakhic decision making. The work is used widely in Talmudic studies. ¢ Me'ir Benayahu in Hemdat Yisra’el, edited by Abraham Elmaleh (Jerusalem, 1945), pp. 183-212. Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles (Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 1552-1553.

—-MARK

WASHOFSKY

MEDITATION. Jewish meditation entails deep reflection and contemplation of God, often with a withdrawal from social interactions and a turning inward

that is sometimes

labeled

hitbodedut

(self-

isolation). The Hebrew Bible is replete with spiritual directives that formed the basis of Jewish meditation. “For you, who adhere to the Lord, your God, are all alive today” (Dt. 4.4). From this the rabbis deduced that attachment (*devequt) to God is life-sustaining

and will ultimately result in resurrection (cf. San. 90b). The seminal formulation of devequt is: “I have continuously placed /shivviti] the Lord before me” (Ps. 16.8). The sages commented that “one who prays should perceive the divine presence before him”

MEGILLAH

tradition. Hasidic masters, including R. Mordekhai of Chernobyl and R. Nahman of Bratslav, encouraged their followers to undertake hitbodedut for an hour or more daily. Rabbi Hayyim Vital compiled the most comprehensive premodern anthology of meditative techniques in the long-suppressed fourth chapter of his Sha‘arei Qedushah. Among the texts quoted is Sha‘ar ha-Kavvanah, in which the adept visualizes that he is light and is surrounded by celestial lights. Vital and R. Yehuda al-Botini publicized Avraham Abulafia’s methods, in which divine names are chanted and their vocalization is accompanied by head movements. Vital also disseminated the practice of yihudim (unifications), wherein names representing different elements of the divine realm are interwoven and contemplated during prayers. Since

the

1960s,

Jewish

meditative

practice

has

been influenced by an engagement with the Buddhist and Hindu traditions. While some liberal Jews incorporate eastern-based meditation into their Judaism with little self-reflection, other Jews (including so-called “Ju-Bu’s) have begun to blend Jewish and Asian meditative traditions in conscious and explicit ways. ¢ Yitzhak Buxbaum, Jewish Spiritual Practices (Northvale, N.J., 1990). Arthur

Green, ed., Jewish Spirituality, World Spirituality, vols. 13-14 (New York, 1987). Moshe Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, 1988). Rodger Kamenetz , The Jew in the Lotus: A Poet's Rediscovery of Jewish Identity in Buddhist India (San Francisco, 1994). Rodger Kamenetz, Stalking Elijah: Adventures with Today’s Jewish Mystical Masters (San Francisco, 1997). Aryeh Kaplan, Meditation and Kabbalah (Northvale, N.J., 1995). Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, Fragments ofa Future Scroll: Hassidism for the Aquarian Age (Germantown, Pa., 1975). Mark Verman, “The Development of Yihudim in Spanish Kabbalah,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989): 25-41. Hayyim ben Yosef Vital, Ketavim Hadashim me-Rabbenu Hayyim Vital (Jerusalem, 1988). R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, Joseph Karo: Lawyer and Mystic (Philadelphia, 1977). —-MARK

VERMAN,

ME‘EIN SHEVA’. MEGILLAH

REVISED

BY

MAXINE

L. GROSSMAN

See MAGEN Avot.

(mwa ; scroll), name of an Esther scroll

(San. 22a). These verses gave rise to various meditations in which the divine name is visualized, including

and of a Mishnaic tractate. Esther Scroll Megillah is a common designation

R. Yitshag ben Shemu’el of Acre’s technique, wherein YHVH is imagined to be written infinitely large, while

Esther

the heart focuses on the Ein Sof (the Infinite).

Jewish meditation has been practiced both publicly and privately. The rabbis treat the recitation of the *Shema‘

as an occasion

recommending

a protracted

for public meditation,

pronunciation

climactic word ehad (one, Berakh.

of the

13b). Later elab-

orations of this tradition included assigning special significance and gestures to each letter of the word, or connection of the letters with aspect of the sefirot (see EZRA OF GERONA). Even among non-mystics, this valuation continues: “When reciting the alef, one should consider that God is one; at the fet, that he is united in the seven heavens and on earth, which makes

eight; and, the dalet alludes to the four directions” (Arba‘ah Turim, Orah Hayyim 61.9). Meditation has been a significant aspect of personal religious practice within the modern Hasidic

for a handwritten parchment scroll of the Book of (see ESTHER,

SCROLL OF; HAMESH

MEGILLOT),

read in the synagogue on *Purim. The illumination of such scrolls has been a favorite Jewish art form. See also SCROLLS. -BARUCH J. SCHWARTZ Tractate. The tractate Megillah consists of four chapters in Mishnah order Mo‘ed, with related material in the Tosefta’ and in both Talmuds. It derives its name from the scroll of Esther, the biblical source

for Purim. The rabbis understood the biblical mandate to “commemorate” the two days of Purim (Est. 9.28) as a requirement to read the scroll of Esther as part of the festivities (Meg. 17a, 18a). The tractate deals with the rules for celebrating Purim, primarily the reading of the Megillah, as well as with the synagogal reading of the Torah and laws concerning the sanctity of the synagogue and the public prayer services.

Megillah’s hierarchy of sanctified objects (3.1) focuses the sanctity of the synagogue on the ark housing the

ME‘ILAH

480

MEGILLAH Torah scrolls, much as the sanctity of the Temple focused on the Ark housing the tablets of the Law

* Menachem Elon, ed., The Principles of Jewish Law (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 307-309. Isaac Herzog, The Main Institutions of Jewish Law, 2d ed. (London, 1965), vol. 2, pp. 229-233.

-BEN

TZION

GREENBERGER

during biblical times (Ex. 25.21-22; 1 Kgs. 8.3-10). ¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Mo‘ed (Jerusalem, 1952). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 2, Order Moed (Gateshead,

1973). Pinhas ores ed., Mishnah: A New Translation witha

Commentary, Seder Moed, vol. 5, Ta‘anit, Megillah, Moed Katan, Haggigah (Jerusalem, 1991). Joseph Reeencute ed. and trans., Mishnah Megillah (London, 1931). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

1992).

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

MEGILLAT ESTER. HAMESH MEGILLOT.

See

MEGILLAT

an ancient tannaitic chroni-

TA‘ANIT,

ESTHER,

SCROLL

OF;

cle compiled at the beginning of the Common Era and recording thirty-five anniversaries of glorious deeds or joyous events in the Second Temple period (Ta‘an. 2.8). Public mourning was forbidden on most of these days; public fasting, on all of them. The scroll, written in Aramaic with Hebrew additions, is divided into

twelve chapters coinciding with the months of the year and enumerating the appropriate events. The significance of the dates lapsed in the course of time,

and, since the third century, days recorded in Megillat Ta‘anit are no longer marked in the calendar. * Solomon Zeitlin, Megillat Ta‘anit as a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Philadelphia, 1922).

MEGILLOT,

FIVE. See HAMESH MEGILLOT

MEHADDERIN (pa); “Mehadrin”; “Beautified,

Sometimes spelled enhanced”). The most

stringent level of kashrut supervision.

See DIETARY

LAws; KASHER. MEHILAH

MEHITSAH (73°17; partition), a partition in the synagogue separating men from women during public prayer. In the Temple, both women and men were permitted in the so-called “Women’s Court,” although women were not admitted into more central precincts of the Temple grounds. The Mishnah (Suk. 5.2) asserts,

however,

that

special

care

was

taken

to

maintain the separation of the sexes, especially during Sukkot, when the Temple festivities attracted large crowds of worshipers. There is no clear archaeological evidence for a mehitsah in ancient synagogues, and the one literary reference is found in Philo’s description of the Therapeutae, whose Sabbath gathering included a mehitsah to divide male and female contemplatives (Cont. Life 32-33, 69); only on Shavuot was this barrier

apparently breached (85-87). By the beginning of the Middle Ages, the mehitsah had become a recognized feature in synagogues (see ‘EZRAT NASHIM). The mehitsah takes various forms when the women are not in a balcony but on the same level as the men; iron or wooden grilles or curtains are common; newer synagogues may have one-way glass or other arrangements whereby the women can see the synagogue proceedings but cannot be seen by the men. It was customary in Sephardi synagogues to open the mehitsah curtain during the reading of the Torah. Attempts by worshipers to remove the mehitsah in synagogues that had been founded as Orthodox and whose charters stated that they must remain Orthodox have gone to the civil courts in the United States, where, in most instances, the rulings

ona;

forgiveness),

the

waiver

or

renunciation of a claim or right. No specific formalities or considerations are required; one possessing a claim or right, even in written form, may validly waive it by parole. A waiver may similarly be inferred froma creditor’s statements or actions. One exception to this rule is a case in which the creditor continues to hold the debtor’s written note or his pawn. A written waiver is required, for doubt would otherwise exist as to the

genuineness of the creditor’s intent. In principle, the waiver of a future right is equally as valid as that of a present right. However, such a waiver cannot be effected where to do so would contradict the general principle that one cannot exercise legal control over a devar she-lo’ ba’ la-‘olam, “something that has not yet come into existence.” In order for an attempted change in a right or obligation to be

stipulated that the mehitsah had to be kept in place. Reform and Conservative synagogues dispense with the mehitsah, although there are some Conservative synagogues in which men and women sit on opposite sides of a dividing aisle. Religious innovations with regard to the mehitsah stand at the center of debate within “traditional egalitarian” Jewish communities, in which halakhah and gender-equality may be in a state of constant tension (see PLURALISM, JEWISH).

In halakhah,

mehitsah

is a technical

term

for a

division (e.g., a wall or fence) that creates a separate

domain; to be legally effective it must be at least ten handbreadths (approx. 40 inches) in height. ¢ Hannah Safrai, “Women and the Ancient Synagogue,” in Daughters ofthe King: Women and the Synagogue, edited by Susan Grossman and Rivka Haut (Philadelphia, 1992), pp. 39-49. The Sanctity of the Synagogue: The Case for Mechitzah . .. , edited by Baruch Litvin; 3d rev. ed., edited by Jeanne Litvin and Melvin Teitelbaum (Hoboken, N.J., 1987). -SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN

effective, there must exist some present nexus between

the right and the party seeking to make such change. Thus, a prospective husband could not validly waive his future right to usufruct in his wife’s estate until after betrothal, which, while not creating a present right to usufruct,

is deemed

to have

established

a

sufficient basis to allow a valid waiver even before the marriage is finalized.

ME‘IL.

See ToraH ORNAMENTS.

ME‘ILAH (nn; Misappropriation), tractate consisting of six chapters iin Mishnah order *Qodashim, with related material in the Tosefta’ and in the Talmud Bavli. It deals with the laws concerning the secular use of objects consecrated to the Temple, which are

ME‘ILAH

481

ME'IR BEN GEDALYAH

OF LUBLIN

subject to the penalty of a *reparation offering. In

Tiberias each year on Pesah Sheni (14 Iyyar), and he is

addition,

venerated by both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews. The name Me’ir Ba‘al ha-Nes became widespread only in the eighteenth century, when collections throughout the world for charitable causes in the Holy Land were made in boxes labeled “The Charity of R. Me’ir Ba‘al ha-Nes.” Many rabbis condemned the annual celebration and the association of the collection box with a legendary figure.

the

value

of the

item

additional fifth of the value must Temple

together

with

an

be repaid to the

(Lv. 5.14-16). The tractate lists the kinds of

items and forms of consecration that are subject to the laws of me‘ilah, differentiating between those items that were actually utilized in the Temple service and those that were used for maintenance of the Temple structure. The former retained their sanctity even after being misappropriated for secular use, whereas the latter were considered profaned by secular use and therefore not subject to repeated violations (Me‘il. 5.3). An English translation of the tractate appears in the Soncino Talmud (London,

1948).

1956). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Kodashim (Gateshead, 1973). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992). -~AVRAHAM WALFISH

See Locos.

ME’IR (2d cent.), tanna’, pupil of R. *‘Aqiva’ ben Yosef. During the Hadrianic persecution following the failure of the *Bar Kokhba’ Revolt in 135, Me’ir was

secretly ordained and was a prominent member of the Sanhedrin established at Usha’ in Galilee. Me’ir had a brilliant intellect and was said to have been able to adduce a hundred fifty reasons for declaring an object unclean and another hundred fifty reasons for declaring it clean. He is the authority whose opinions are most frequently found in tannaitic literature. His teaching formed an important basis for the compilation of the *Mishnah by R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’,

so that traditionally a Mishnaic teaching, the source of which was not specifically named, was ascribed to Meir

(San.

86a).

Nonetheless,

in controversies

with his contemporaries, Me’ir’s opinions were not followed. The reason given by the later amora’im for this anomaly is that, precisely because of his brilliant argumentation, it is difficult to know whether he was

seriously disagreeing

with or merely debating

issues (‘Eruv. 13b). He was famous

the

for his parables

and fables. Nothing is known of his origins; the name of his father is nowhere given, but he may have come from Asia Minor. Me’ir was a professional scribe of the highest quality. He is described as a man of humility and resignation. His wife *Beruryah is also quoted as a Talmudic

A Guide to Antiquity Sites in Tiberias (Jerusalem, 1992).

ME’IR BEN BARUKH OF ROTHENBURG (died 1293), German rabbinic authority; died in prison in Alsace, having refused to allow the

¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Qodashim (Jerusalem,

MEIMRA’.

¢ Yizhar Hirschfeld,

on

the

part

martyrdom (1297),

of the

rulers.

he left the Sanhedrin

With

his

of one pupil, R. *Mordekhai

and

the

flight of another,

R.

death,

the

ben Hillel *Asher

ben

Yehi’el, to Spain in 1305, the period of the German tosafists came to an end. Meir himself was not an original glossator (tosafist) of note, but rather a poseq (see POSEQIM), the greatest produced by the Ashkenazi (Franco-German) community of the Middle Ages, and his rulings were viewed for centuries as authoritative. Sensing, perhaps, the impending fate of his community, he began in his academy to gather the responsa literature of the Ashkenazi community of the preceding three hundred years. These collections were assiduously copied in the later Middle Ages, and six volumes were subsequently published. Often going under his name, these influential compilations further enhanced Me’ir’s fame. Unlike other Ashkenazi tosafists, who were wholly indifferent to Maimonides’

code, Me’ir sought to integrate it with tosafist culture. His pupil, Me’ir ha-Kohen, wrote glosses on all fourteen

volumes

of Maimonides’

work,

seeking to

provide for that code what Moshe Isserles was later to do for Yosef Karo’s Shulhan

‘Arukh, namely,

to

amend a Sephardi code and render it authoritative in Ashkenaz. Me’ir also wrote liturgical poems, the best known of which, composed after the burning of the Talmud in Paris in 1242, became part of the liturgy of Tish‘ah be-’Av. ¢ Irving A. Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg: His Life and His Works as a Source for the Religious, Legal, and Social History of the Jews in Germany in the Thirteenth Century, 2d ed., 2 vols. (New York, 1970). Shemuel Argaman,

The Captivity ofthe Maharam: A Narrative of the Events Surrounding the Arrest and Captivity of the Maharam of Rothenburg (New York, 1990). —-HAYM

authority. Toward the end of his life,

to the patriarch

Jewish community

to ransom him and thereby encourage future extortion

SOLOVEITCHIK

as a result of his opposition

R. *Shim‘on

ben

Gamli’el;

Me’ir’s

ME’IR

BEN

GEDALYAH

OF

LUBLIN (1558-

further statements are introduced as the remarks of “the others” (aherim). Perhaps it is for this reason that his opinions were not held as authoritative.

1616), Talmudist and yeshivah head, known as Maharam (an acronym of Moreinu ha-Rav Meir, “Our Teacher Rabbi Me’ir”) of Lublin. He attracted

¢ M. Friedman, “Iyyunim be-Midrasho shel R. Me’ir,” Te‘udah 4 (1986): 79-92. Israel Konovitz, Rabbi Meir: Collected Sayings in Halakah and Aggadah in the Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem, 1967).

hundreds of students to his Krakéw and Lublin academies. He wrote Meir ‘Einei Hakhamim (Venice,

-DANIEL

SPERBER

ME’IR BASAL HA-NES, name associated with various rabbis, most popularly with the tanna’ *Me’ir (‘A.Z. 18a-b). A celebration is held at his grave in

1619; in many standard editions of the Talmud), a commentary on many Talmudic tractates, focusing

in particular on the interpretations of Rashi and the tosafists. An independent thinker, Me’ir ben Gedalyah of Lublin criticized the authority of the Shulhan

ME'TIR BEN GEDALYAH ‘Arukh,

deeming

it to be

a collection

of rulings

rather than a cohesive halakhic work. At times, he preferred the views of later authorities over the more traditionally accepted views of Maimonides and the tosafists. His collection of 140 responsa, Manhir ‘Einei Hakhamim (Venice, 1618), provides valuable information about Jewish communal life in sixteenthand seventeenth-century Poland. He exhibited great leniency in dealing with the problems of ‘agunot (see ‘AGUNAH) and the socially and economically disadvantaged. e S. M. Chones, Sefer Toledot ha-Posegqim (New York, 1945-1946), pp. 366— 371. Samuel A. Horodetzky, Le-Qorot ha-Rabbanut (Warsaw, 1911), pp. 175182. S. B. Nissenbaum, Le-Qorot ha-Yehudim be-Lublin (Lublin, 1899). -ELIJAH J. SCHOCHET

ME’IR BEN SHEMU’EL (c.1060-1135), rabbinic scholar, tosafist. He studied in Worms with R. Yitshaq ha-Levi during the period prior to the First Crusade. He also studied with the scholars of Lorraine, with R. Elisezer ben Natan of Mainz, and with Rashi, whose daughter Yokheved he married. Three of his sons, who were also his students, Shemu’el, Yitshag, and Ya‘aqov Tam, became well-known through their biblical and Talmudic commentaries and tosafot, while his son-inlaw was Shemu’el of Vitry, father of the important tosafist Yitshaq of Dampierre. Rabbi Me’ir himself wrote commentaries and tosafot to the Talmud, some of which are incorporated into the standard editions of Rashi and tosafot. It is likely that he played a crucial role in the transmission of the Talmudic dialectics that were produced at Worms in the last quarter of the eleventh century (found, for example, in the so-called Rashi

commentary

to tractate

Nazir),

which

were

then further developed and expanded by R. Tam and Yitshaq of Dampierre. Rabbi Me’ir lived mainly in the northern French town of Ramerupt and was known in tosafistic literature as Ha-Yashish (The Venerable One) or Avi ha-Rabbanim (Father of the Rabbis). He introduced certain changes in the *Kol Nidrei prayer and was responsible for its final formulation. ¢

Avraham

Grossman, Hakhmei Tsarefat ha-Ri’shonim

(Jerusalem,

1995).

Ephraim Kanarfogel, Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages (Detroit, 1992), pp. 69-70. Efraim E. Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980), vol. 1, pp. 41-45.

-EPHRAIM

KANARFOGEL

ME’IRI, MENAHEM (1249-c.1316), Talmudist from Perpignan, in southern France. His first significant work, written in his youth, was Hibbur ha-Teshuvah (New York, 1950), a compendium of writings dealing with repentance. His magnum opus was Beit haBehirah, about twenty published volumes, noted for their expositions of Talmudic passages with definitive halakhic decisions. In this work, he employed the Talmud Yerushalmi extensively. His introduction to Avot contains a significant essay tracing the chain of tradition from Moses to his own day. He wrote commentaries to the biblical books of Psalms (Jerusalem, 1936) and Proverbs (Portugal, 1492; Jerusalem, 1937) based upon the ethical and wisdom literature of the Middle Ages, midrashim, and the works of noted

grammarians.

His Qiryat Sefer (Izmir,

MEKHILTA’ DE-RABBI YISHMA‘E’L

482

OF LUBLIN

1863-1881)

contains the laws of writing a Torah scroll, while Magen Avot (London, 1909) defended local Proven¢al customs against criticism by Moses Nahmanides’ disciples who had immigrated to Perpignan. Although Me’iri communicated extensively with R. Shelomo ben Avraham *Adret, he did not accept the latter’s ban on philosophy and maintained his independence of mind and freedom from intervention by outside rabbis. His rationalistic outlook is evidenced by his denial of the

existence of evil spirits and of the efficacy of amulets and astrology, which—he said—contradicted human free will. e Henri Gross, Gallia judaica: Dictionnaire géographique de la France d'aprés les sources rabbiniques (Paris, 1897; repr. Amsterdam, 1969), with a supplement by Simon Schwarzfuchs. Menahem ben Solomon Meiri, Seder ha-Qabbala le-Rabbeinu Menahem ha-Meiri, edited by Shelomo Zalman ben Shalom Havlin (Jerusalem, 1991). Samuel Kalman Mirsky, Ben Sheqi'ah li-Zerihah (New York, 1951), pp. 83-115 (Hebrew). -SHLOMO

H. PICK

MEKHILTA’ DE-RABBI SHIM‘ON BAR YOH’AI, tannaitic midrash on the Book of Exodus (beginning with Ex 3.1) from the school of R. ‘Aqiva’. The precise scope of the work is not clear, as it has only been preserved in fragmentary form. It is essentially a halakhic

midrash,

although

parts

of the work

are

aggadic in nature, and its aggadah closely resembles that in the parallel tannaitic midrash, Mekhilta’ deRabbi Yishma‘el. Mekhilta’ de-Rabbi Shim‘on bar Yoh’ai is apparently one of the latest halakhic midrashim, although it cannot be dated with certainty. It is written in Rabbinic Hebrew. ¢ Jacob Nahum Epstein, Mevo’ot le-Sifrut ha-Tanna’im Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl 1992). Menahem Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim” in

(Jerusalem, 1957). /ntroduction to the (1931; Minneapolis, The Literature ofthe

Sages, vol. 2, edited by S. Safrai, Z. Safrai, J. Schwartz, and P. Tomson (Assen, 2006, pp. 72-77). -LEIB MOSCOVITZ

MEKHILTA’ DE-RABBI YISHMA‘E’L, tannaitic midrash on Exodus, produced by the school of R. Yishma‘e’l ben Elisha‘. The Mekhilta’ presents a running commentary on Exodus 12.1-23.19 and concludes with two sections on the Sabbath (on Ex. 31-35). Fragments of another Mekhilta’ on Exodus, from the school of R. ‘Aqiva’ (the so-called *Mekhilta’ de-Rabbi Shim‘on bar Yoh'ai), have also

been preserved. Mekhilta’ de-Rabbi Yishma‘e’l is first mentioned by name in geonic literature and was apparently unknown,

at least in its present form, to the rabbis

of the Talmud (although the.Talmuds Bavli and Yerushalmi contain similar material). Nevertheless, the work is evidently of Palestinian provenance and was apparently redacted no later than the third century CE. The Mekhilta’ is written in Rabbinic Hebrew and contains some Latin and Greek words. While the Mekhilta’ is essentially a halakhic midrash, large parts of it deal with aggadic matters. A critical edition in light of genizah fragments was published by M. Kahan in Tarbiz 55 (1986): 545— 587, and an English translation was done by Jacob Z. Lauterbach in 1933.

MEKHILTA’ DE-RABBI YISHMA‘E’L ¢

Chasioch Albeck, Mavo’ la-Talmudim

(Tel Aviv,

483

1987). Jacob Nahum

Epstein, Mevo'ot le-Sifrut ha-Tanna ‘im (Jerusalem, 1957). Menahern Kahana,

“The Halakhic Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sayes, vol. 2, edited by

S. Safrai, Z. Safrai, J. Schwartz, and P. Tomson (Assen, 2006, pp. 68-72).

Hermann Leberecht Strack and Ginter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuchl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992).

MELAMMED

-LEIB

MOSCOVITZ

(amSn; teacher), usually a teacher of

small children (melammed dardegei or melammed tinogot). The Talmud stresses the melammed's importance, but, in the course of time, because the term was applied to those on the lowest rung of the teaching profession, it came to have a derogatory meaning.

-SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN MELAVVEH MALKAH (Don mon; Accompanying the [Sabbath] Queen), a festive meal and celebration conducted when the Sabbath ends, in order to retain the Sabbath atmosphere after its conclusion. Just as the Sabbath is welcomed in song as a bride and as a queen (the Sephardi version of *Lekhah Dodi contains a kabbalistic addition ending “Come, O bride, come, O Sabbath queen”), so it is also bid farewell. Kabbalistic and Hasidic practice (based on the belief of Yitshag ben Shelomo *Luria that at the close of the Sabbath wicked souls return to *Geihinnom and

MENAHEM

MENDEL BEN YOSEF

MEMORIAL LIGHT (Heb. ner zikkaron), a light kindled, usually for twenty-four hours, to commemorate the death of a family member. The custom is supported by the verse, “The sou] of man is the lamp of the Lord” (Prv. 20.27). Although it is usual to light a special candle that Jasts for an entire day, it is permitted to use an electric light (Gesher haHayyim, vol. 1, pp. 198, 343), sometimes specially designed for this purpose. The lighting of memorial lights is post-Talmudic and may have originated in medieval Germany. It is customary to kindle memorial lights on the *yahrzeit (anniversary of the death) of a close relative, during the *shiv‘ah (the seven days of mourning for a close family member), and on *Yom Kippur eve (when it is called the ner neshamah, “soul light”) (Orah Hayyim 610.3). Some people observe the custom of keeping a memorial light burning throughout the entire year of mourning following the death of a parent. Many people now light a memoria] light on *Yom ha-Sho’ah, the day that commemorates the murder of millions of Jews during the Nazi Holocaust, and in Israel on *Yom HaZikkaron (Memorial Day, 4 Iyyar), special flames are lit in public ceremonies that memorialize those who have fallen in Israel’s defense. * Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York, 1979). Yehid Mikha’el Tuktsinski, Gesher ha-Hayyimm (erusalem, 1960). -CHAIM

Sabbath angels to heaven) enhanced the observance of

the custom. Authority for the Melavveh Malkah meal

is found in the Talmud (Shab. 119b) where R. Hanina’ enjoins laying the table on Sabbath night even if one is not hungry. Special *zemirot have been composed for this celebration, of which the most important is in praise of the prophet Elijah, who, according to a popular belief, sits on this night under the tree of life and records the merits of those who have faithfully observed the Sabbath (Ya‘agov ben Moshe ha-Levi Molin, Hilkhot Shabbat, end). The Melavveh Malkah is

also identified with the feast of R. Hidga’ (see SE“UDAT Razei Hipos’). ©

C. ¥. Friedman,

ed, Seda Melavwyeh Malkah

(Brooklyn, N-Y.,

1994),

includes bibliography. Abraham Joshua Heschel. The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modan Man (New York, 1995).

MELIHAH. See Meat. MEMORBUKH, martyrology containing a list of the countries and localities in which massacres took place during the Middle Ages, together with the names of the martyrs (usually confined to scholars and communal leaders) who Jost their lives on those occasions. In many European synagogues, on all occasions upon which the memorial prayer for the dead was recited, the martyrologies were solemnly read out loud. The word memorbukh is a Yiddish translation of a phrase in Malachi (“and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord”—3.16).

MEMORIAL SERVICE. See Yizxor. MENAHEM

MENAHEM

DAY. See YOM H4-ZIKKARON.

AV. See Av.

BEN

AHARON

BEN

ZERAH

(c.1310-1385), Spanish codifier. Born in Estalla, Navarre, he moved to Toledo after the 1328 anti-

Jewish outbreaks, in which all of his family was killed and he himself was severely injured. He studied with Yosef ben Shu‘ayb and Yehuda, son of Asher ben Yehi’el (the Ro’sh). He belonged to a group of sages whose philosophy was influenced by Shelomo ben Avraham Adret and whose halakhic outlook was influenced by the Ashkenazi traditions of the Asher ben Yehi’el. Like his friend Me’ir Aldabi, Menahem used scientific sources and his writings had lexical value. His main work, Tsedah la-Derekh (Ferrara, 1554;

Warsaw, 1880), was a legal code meant for study in the batei midrash in Spain. It combines philosophy, halakhic methodology, and logic. Its subject matter concerns everyday life, including a discussion of bigamy, a subject on the communal agenda in those days, and a practice of which Menahem disapproved. In his Or Torah, he emphasized the importance of education for women. ¢ M.A. Friedman, “Menahem ben Aaron Ibn Zerah’s Anti-Polygamy Torah Commentary from the Geniza,” in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies presented to Nahum M. Sarna, edited by Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 154 (Sheffield, UK, 1993), pp. 108-116.

MENAHEM

MEMORIAL

PEARL

RYMANOW

MENDEL

—-SHALOM

BEN

BAR-ASHER

YOSEF

OF

(died 1815), Hasidic master and author.

MENAHEM

MENDEL

As one of the three principal disciples of Elimelekh of Lyzhansk, he was an important Hasidic leader in Poland. He is best known for his asceticism and mystical support for Napoléon, whose wars he identified with the battles of Gog and Magog, a tradition associated with the advent of the messianic age. His writings

and sermons

were

published, notably Sifrei ha-Rahak

posthumously

Rabbi Menahem

Mendel me-Rymandéw (Jerusalem, 1985). e Martin Buber, Tales of dim: (New York, 1947). Martin Buber, For the Sake of Heaven: A Chronicle (New York, 1969). —MILES KRASSEN

MENAHEM MENDEL OF KOTSK (1787-1859), Hasidic master; the outstanding figure among the disciples of *Ya‘aqov Yitshaq and *Simhah Bunem of Przysucha. Upon the latter's death in 1827, his closest followers looked to R. Mendel to lead what had become a distinct school of Polish Hasidism. First in Tomaszdéw, and from 1829 in Kotsk, there gathered around R. Mendel an assemblage of bright and learned young men, the likes of which Hasidism had not seen since the court of *Dov Ber of Mezhirech. The radical search for truth that R. Mendel demanded of his disciples meant an overthrow of convention and a challenging of all tokens of piety not specifically required by Jewish law. Miracles and claims of mystical experience were scoffed at by the Kotsker, who was a rationalist and a legalist within the Hasidic camp. Though some of his values appear contrary to Hasidism, the pursuit of truth became an expression of ecstatic passion. After 1840, R. Mendel became extremely reclusive, and for the last nineteen years of his life he was mostly isolated from his disciples. One of his most important disciples, R. Mordekhai Yosef Leiner, left him for ideological reasons and founded his own Hasidic court at *Izbica. The Kotsker had always insisted on the unique responsibility of each individual, however, and the disciples carried on their tasks of study and devotion without him. After Kotsker's death most of his disciples followed the Ger or Aleksander schools. e Abraham Joshua Heschel, Kotsk: In Gerangel far Emesdikeyt (Tel Aviv, 1973). Yaacov Levinger, “Amarot Otentiyyot shel ha-Rabbi mi-Kotsk,” Tarbiz 55 (1986): 109-135. Yaacov Tarbiz 55 (1986): 413-431.

Levinger,

“Torato

MENDELSSOHN,

484

BEN YOSEF

shel ha-Rabbi mi-Kotsk,” —-ARTHUR GREEN

MOSES

correspondence. As a thinker, he was faithful to the extreme spiritual teachings of Dov Ber. Prayer has as its goal only devequt, cleaving to God by means of a contemplative ascent that results in a nullification of one’s sense of individuality. Thus the verse “He shall do the will of those that fear him” (Ps. 145.19) is interpreted to mean that the one who prays contemplatively will be permitted to remain on a spiritual plateau even when compelled to descend to the mundane world. Believing that the ecstatic connection to God was paramount, he struggled in his teachings to justify the necessity for physically performing the commandments. He was the author of Peri ha-'Arets (Jerusalem, 1987). e Martin Buber, Tales of the Hasidim (New York, 1946). Roman Foxbrunner, Habad: The Hasidism ofR.Shneour Zalman of Lyady (Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1992). Rivka Schatz Uffenheimer, Hasidisit as Mysticism (Princeton, 1993). —MILES KRASSEN

MENAHOT (91733; Meal Offerings), second tractate, consisting of thirteen chapters, in Mishnah order Qodashim, with related material in the Tosefta’ and in the Talmud Bavli. It deals with the regulations concerning *meal offerings, serving as a sequel to the treatment of animal and fowl sacrifices in tractate Zevahim. Just as Zevahim opened with the requirement of intent and closed with a historicalgeographical survey of the sanctuaries leading to the Temple in Jerusalem, so, too, Menahot opens with the requirement of intention in the central procedures of meal offerings and concludes with the status of priests who had served in the Temple of Onias in Elephantine, which was not recognized by the sages as a legitimate place of worship (see YEB). The discussion of various types of meal offerings includes a description of the “Omer service, whose performance on the second day

of Pesah was accompanied by great public fanfare, in order to underscore the rabbinic acceptance of the Pharisaic timing of the offering, as opposed to that of the Boethusians (Men. 10.3). Menahot closes with the declaration (13.11): “It matters not whether one offers

much or littke—providing that one directs his thoughts towards heaven.” An English translation of the tractate appears in the Soncino Talmud (London, 1948). ¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Qodashim (Jerusalem,

1956). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Kodashim

MENAHEM MENDEL OF VITEBSK (1730-1788), Hasidic master and author. He was a leading disciple of Dov Ber of Mezhirech and led a Hasidic group in Minsk. After his master’s death in 1772, he became the principal Hasidic leader in Belorussia and Lithuania. Along with his younger colleague, Shneur Zalman of Lyady, he unsuccessfully attempted to justify Hasidism to Eliyyahu ben Shelomo Zalman, the Vilna Ga’on. In 1777 accompanied by two of his closest associates, Avraham of Kalisk and Yisra’el of Polotsk, he led a large group to Erets Yisra’el. He settled in Tiberias and became leader of the Hasidic community there, while continuing to exercise his authority over the Hasidim in Belorussia and Lithuania through

(Gateshead, 1973). Pinhas Kehati, ed., Mishnah: A New Translation with a Commentary, Seder Kodashim, vol. 1, Zevahim, Menahot, Hullin (Jerusalem,

1994). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931: Minneapolis,

1992).

MENAQOER.

—-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

See Nigovr.

MENDELSSOHN, MOSES (1729-1796), German philosopher, communal leader, proponent of Jewish “emancipation, biblical scholar, and translator. Born in Dessau, the son of a Torah scribe, Mendelssohn received a traditional Talmudic education. In 1743 when Mendelssohn's teacher, R. David *Franckel, became chief rabbi of Berlin, Mendelssohn followed him there to pursue his studies. While continuing

MENDELSSOHN,

MOSES

his study of Talmud and medieval Jewish philosophy, Mendelssohn mastered German, Greek, Latin, French, and English, and turned to the study of modern philosophy, particularly the writings of the English philosopher, John Locke, and the German philosophers, Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff. With his first work, Philosophical Dialogues (1755),

Mendelssohn emerged as one of the leading and most eloquent spokesmen of German enlightenment philosophy. His reputation was cemented by his Treatise on Metaphysical Evidence (1763), which won

the essay competition of the Berlin Royal Academy (Immanuel Kant received second place of honor), and by his Phaedon (1767). The latter was modeled on Plato’s dialogue by that name and earned him the accolade of “the German Socrates.” Mendelssohn professed himself particularly indebted to the LeibnizWolffian school, for having rationally demonstrated the fundamental truths of natural religion, namely, God's existence, his providence, and the immortality of the soul. In Phaedon, he drew upon Leibniz and Wolff to prove that the soul is immortal. In addition, arguing for God’s goodness, he contended that God must necessarily guarantee that the soul after death will advance along the path to self-perfection and happiness. In his last metaphysical work, Morgenstunden (1785), Mendelssohn focused on proofs for the existence of God, in particular the ontological proof. Mendelssohn wrote on a wide variety of subjects, including aesthetics and psychology. In the late 1750s, Mendelssohn published a Hebrew weekly (Qohelet Musar), of which only two issues appeared. In addition, he wrote a Hebrew commentary on Maimonides’ Treatise on Logic. Although he devoted most of his efforts in the 1760s to his metaphysical works and literary essays, he did not completely abandon his Hebrew writings. In 1768, he wrote in 1769,

a Hebrew commentary on Ecclesiastes, and, a Hebrew essay on the immortality of the

soul (published after his death), partially based on Phaedon. That same year, he was publicly challenged by a Swiss pastor, Johann Lavater, either to refute an apologetic treatise purporting to prove the truth of Christianity or to convert. Mendelssohn, who had

always hoped to avoid having his commitment to Judaism made into a public issue, was shaken by the challenge. True to his principles, he refused to engage in religious polemic, but simply replied that his continued commitment to traditional Judaism was not incompatible with his devotion to rational inquiry. In the 1770s, Mendelssohn made use of his growing reputation as a philosopher to deflect anti-Jewish measures in Germany and Switzerland. For the use of Prussian courts he wrote a précis of Jewish laws bearing upon property rights, somewhat misleadingly titled Ritual Laws of the Jews (1778). Mendelssohn’s translation of the Torah into German (using the Hebrew alphabet), together with a Hebrew commentary

(Bi’ur), written in collaboration with a

group of scholars, was published in the early 1780s.

485

MENDELSSOHN,

MOSES

The translation, written in an elegant High German, and the Bi’ur, a skillful distillation of the tradition of medieval plain sense exegesis, supplemented with contemporary poetic and aesthetic observations, together led to a revival of biblical studies among Jews of the time; the work as a whole was described by many young Jews as their first way station along the road to Enlightenment. At the same time, it aroused the opposition of many traditionalist rabbis and narrowly escaped being banned. In

1781

Mendelssohn,

in connection

with

efforts

to protect the Jews of Alsace, prevailed upon

the

German statesman and scholar, C. W. Dohm to write

his pathbreaking treatise, On the Civic Improvement of the Jews. In 1782 in the “Preface” to the German translation of Vindiciae Judaeorum (written by the Amsterdam rabbi and philosopher *Manasseh ben Israel), Mendelssohn praised Dohm’s treatise but criticized his suggestion that the Jewish community should be permitted to retain the right of religious excommunication. In a similar fashion, Mendelssohn

also denied the state’s right of coercion in matters of conscience. In response to these assertions there appeared an anonymous brochure, The Searching for Light and Right, in which the author, recently identified as August Cranz, a journalist of dubious reputation, asked Mendelssohn how he could combine his opposition to coercion in matters of religion with his continued adherence to Mosaic law, which would

appear to sanction coercion. In reply, Mendelssohn, in 1782 and 1783, wrote his classic work, Jerusalem,

or On Religious Power and Judaism. In the first section of the work Mendelssohn reaffirmed and elaborated upon his opposition to coercion in matters of conscience, grounding this opposition in the principle of natural law, while in the second section he sought to show that such opposition is in harmony with “authentic” Judaism. In this connection he presented a theory of Judaism in which he sought to differentiate between the eternal truths of natural religion, based solely upon reason and binding upon everyone, and the supernatural revelation of the law,

binding

upon

Jews

alone.

For

Mendelssohn,

the original Mosaic constitution no longer holds, and while Mosaic ceremonial law is still binding on account of its religious significance, it has lost the civil status it once possessed. As a result, the ceremonial law may not be imposed through coercion, nor does it serve as a bar against the Jews’ civic and political loyalty to the states in which they live. Mendelssohn has often been called the first modern Jew. His pioneering attempt to combine enlightenment philosophy with traditional Judaism, continued observance of the law with participation in the intellectual streams of European culture, and loyalty to the Jewish community with political emancipation and liberalism has been epochal. In 1886 the centenary of Mendelssohn’s death was commemorated by all sections of German Jewry, all of which hailed him as

their spiritual godfather.

MENDELSSOHN,

e Alexander Altmann, Die trostvolle Aufkldrung (Stuttgart, 1982). Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (University, Ala., 1973). Alexander Altmann, “Moses Mendelssohn’s Conception of Judaism Reexamined,” in Von der Mittelalterlichen zur Modernen Aufklérung (Tiibingen, 1987), pp. 238-249. Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohns Fruhschriften zur Metaphysik (Tiibingen, 1969). Allan Arkush, trans., Jerusalem: Or, On Religious Power and Judaism, with an introduction and commentary by Alexander Altmann (Hanover, N.H., 1983). Allan Arkush, Moses Mendelssohn and the Enlightenment (Albany, N.Y., 1994), contains an up-to-date bibliography. Fritz Bamberger et al., eds., Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiliumsausgabe, 7 vols. (Berlin, 1929-1938), an incomplete edition of Mendelssohn's writings; a completed edition, edited by Alexander Altmann and Eva Engel, is almost completed (Stuttgart, 1971- ). Fritz Bamberger, “Mendelssohn's Concept of

Judaism,” in Studies in Jewish Thought, edited by Alfred Jospe (Detroit, 1981), pp. 343-361. Edward Breuer, “Politics, Tradition, and History: Rabbinic Judaism and the Eighteenth-Century Struggle for Civil Equality,” Harvard Theological Review 85 (1992): 357-383. Arnold Eisen, “Divine Legislation as ‘Ceremonial Script’: Mendelssohn on the Commandments,” AJS Review 15 (1990): 239-267. Julius Guttmann, “Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem and Spinoza’s

Theologico-Political Treatise,” in Studies in Jewish Thought, edited by A. Jospe (Detroit, 1981), pp. 361-386. Eva Jospe, ed., Moses Mendelssohn: Selections from His Writings (New York, 1975). David Sorkin, “The Case for Compassion: Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment,” Modern Judaism

14:2 (1994): 121-138.

MENDES,

-LAWRENCE

HENRY

J. KAPLAN

PEREIRA (1852-1937),

U.S.

spiritual leader, communal activist, and author. Born in Birmingham, England, he served as rabbi of the

Sephardi congregation in Manchester from 1874 to 1877 and then moved to Congregation Shearith Israel, the historic Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue of New York City, which he served until 1920, when he

was named rabbi emeritus. He held a medical degree from New York University. Mendes was the leading spokesman for Sephardi Jewry in the United States, a founder and first president of the *Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America in 1898, and acting president of the *Jewish Theological Seminary of America from 1897 to 1902. He was a leader in Zionist and humanitarian causes. A prolific author, he promoted traditional Jewish observances and values in the modern context. He wrote The Jewish Religion Ethically Presented (New York, 1905). * Moshe Davis, The Emergence of Conservative Judaism (Philadelphia, 1963). David de Sola Pool, H. Pereira Mendes: A Biography (New York, 1938). David de Sola Pool and Tamar Pool, An Old Faith in the New World (New York, 1955), pp. 192-201. —MARC D. ANGEL

MENORAH

(7753); candelabrum).

The design of

the menorah was, according to biblical tradition, revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. It consisted of seven branches, three on each side of the central shaft, each of which was ornamented

of almond-blossom

with carvings

cups, divided into a knop and

flowers. (A depiction of a menorah was discovered on

the wall of a villa from Second Temple times in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem.) The Tabernacle

of gold, was

Menorah,

situated

MENSTRUATION

486

MOSES

formed

from one

ingot

in front of the veil on the

south side of the Tabernacle (Ex. 25.31-40, 26.36, 40.24). In Solomon’s Temple, there were ten golden

candelabra in the large hall of the Temple, five to the right and five to the left of the entrance to the Holy of Holies (/ Kgs. 7.49). These were destroyed by the Babylonians (2 Kgs. 24.13) and do not appear in Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple

(Ez. 41.14). The Arch of Titus in Rome

depicts what

purports to be the Menorah of the Second Temple. It has a double-octagon base, but recent research has proved almost conclusively that this is an imaginative reconstruction since the Temple Menorah stood on three legs. Reproduction of the Temple Menorah or its use outside the Temple was forbidden. After the destruction of the Second Temple, traces of the

Menorah disappeared, although legends abounded. The first-century philosopher *Philo interpreted the symbolism

of the menorah,

linking it to the seven

planets, the cyclic quality of life, and the concept of time. The seven-branched menorah became one of the most familiar Jewish symbols (see SYMBOLISM) and is frequently found in synagogue decorations and tombs from the first century CE on. In Kabbalah, the menorah

symbolized the tree of life, and its seven branches were held to represent the planets, the firmament, and the days of Creation. The eight-branched Hanukkah candelabrum (hanukkiyyah) was modeled after the Temple Menorah. The Talmud forbids any attempt to replicate the Menorah of the Temple, and few threedimensional examples are found in Jewish art before modern times. During the Emancipation, many Jews

found the menorah too particularistic, and it was replaced by the *magen David as the central Jewish symbol. The menorah reemerged as a Zionist symbol, and the relief on the Arch of Titus was copied in the emblem of the State of Israel. ¢

Israel Museum, Adrikhalut bi-Menorat ha-Hanukkah

(Jerusalem,

1978),

exhibition catalogue. Carol L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult (Missoula, Mont., 1976). Shalom M. Paul and William G. Dever, eds., Biblical Archaeology (Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 252-255. Jens Voss, Die Menora: Gestalt und Funktion des Leuchters im Temple zu Jerusalem, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 128 (Freiburg, 1993). Leon

Yarden, The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah (Ithaca, N.Y., 1971). Jacob Zwarts, Die Zevenarmige Kandelaar in de Romeinse Diaspora (Utrecht, 1935). -SHALOM PAUL

MENSTRUATION. The Bible is attentive to menstrual impurity within the general system of biblical ritual purity (see PuRITy AND Impurity, RITUAL) and also because of the specific prohibition on sexual intercourse with a menstruant, punishment for which is *karet (Lv. 20.18). While a niddah (menstruant) becomes ritually pure after the cessation of her menstrual discharge, a zavah (one who discharges blood outside her menstrual period) must wait for seven bloodless days after her discharge ceases before being restored to purity (Lv. 15.19-32). Rabbinic literature eliminates the biblical distinction between niddah and zavah, so that by the tannaitic

period, a practice of waiting seven “clean days” after any menstrual discharge was universally accepted (Nid. 66a). On the evening of the conclusion of this seven-day period, the woman immerses herself in a ritual bath (*miqveh), after which she is permitted to resume sexual relations with her husband (Shulhan “Arukh, Yoreh De‘ah 197.1—5). Any bleeding or spotting during the seven clean days cancels the whole sequence, and the seven day period must begin again once the discharge has ceased (Shulhan ‘Arukh,

MENSTRUATION

487

MESHULLAM

BEN MOSHE

Yoreh De‘ah 140.1, 196.10). Halakhic norms assume a menstrual period of at least five days (including the day on which bleeding begins), in contrast with the biblical assumption of a seven-day menstrual

the biblical notion that God responds to appropriate human behavior. It has been criticized by Christian writers as exemplifying the character of Judaism as a religion of works. See also ZEKHUT AVOT.

period (Rema’, Yoreh De‘ah 196.11). The “clean days” or “white days” are determined by the wife, who

* Martin Abegg, “Paul, ‘Works of the Law,’ and MMT,” Biblical Archaeology

is expected to perform daily internal examinations beginning on the day that her menstrual period ends (Shulhan ‘Arukh, Yoreh De‘ah 196.4-5). In practice, a halakhically-observant married couple will abstain from intercourse for a minimum of twelve days per menstrual cycle, regardless of the duration of bleeding or spotting. The idea behind this separation is expressed by R. Me'ir: “If a husband is with his wife constantly, he will come to loathe her, therefore, the Torah provided that she should be separated from him ... and, thereafter, she will be as dear to him as at the moment she entered the bridal chamber” (Nid. 31b). Conservative Judaism has proposed reducing the minimum number of days from twelve to eleven and, in general, does not lay great stress on the observance of the menstruation laws. While Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism do not accept the halakhic obligation, some women in these movements have found spiritual value in observing the laws of niddah and immersing in the miqveh. * Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law: The Essential Texts, Their History, and

Their Relevance for Today (New York, 1995), pp. 147-174. Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Woman in Jewish Law (New York, 1978), pp. 116-129. Moshe Tendler, Pardes Rimonim: A Marriage Manual for the Jewish Family (Jerusalem, 1970). Rahel Wasserfall, ed., Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law (Hanover, N.H., 1999). -DANIEL SINCLAIR

ME‘OT HITTIM (O°2n nivn; contribution for wheat), money distributed before Pesah to the poor, enabling them to make the requisite preparations for the festival. The Mishnah and Talmud saw this provision for the needy as a communal obligation, and in medieval times me‘ot hittim was accepted as a communal tax. Although monetary gifts have largely supplanted gifts in kind, it is still the practice of some communal organizations and individuals to supply those in need with unleavened bread and wine for the festival. ¢ Eliyahu Kitov, The Book of Our Heritage: The Jewish Year and Its Days of Significance, rev. ed. (Jerusalem and New York, 1978), pp. 143-146.

MERCY.

See ComMpPaASssION.

Review 20 (November-December 1994): 52-55, 82. Arthur Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature (New York, 1968). E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion

(Minneapolis, Minn., 1989).

MERITS OF THE ANCESTORS. MERKAVAH.

See ZEKHUT AVOT.

See MA‘ASEH MERKAVAH.

MESHULLAH (nun; messenger), an emissary accredited by the patriarch of the Jewish communities in Erets Yisra’el (termed apostoli by the Roman rulers) whose function was to collect funds to support the Talmudic academies of Erets Yisra’el after the destruction of the Temple. Originally designated in the Talmud (Y., Hag. 1.8) as a shaluah or sheliah Tsiyyon (emissary of Zion; Beits. 25b), these emissaries were also charged with the task of providing spiritual leadership and appointing religious functionaries for the Diaspora communities. They were the precursors of the shadarim (acronym of sheluha’ de-rabbanan [Aram.;

emissary

of the rabbis]), emissary-scholars

sent by the yeshivot of the Holy Land to raise money in the Diaspora through the medieval period until the rise of modern Zionism in the late nineteenth century. Besides collecting funds, the shadarim contributed to

the maintenance of Hebrew and rabbinic scholarship, as well as to religious revivals in the communities that they visited and that extended as far as Australasia and the New World. Improved forms of communication and the development of banking facilities led to the decline of this ancient institution. On the other hand, in eastern Europe, particularly in Lithuania and Poland, the emergence of the central rather than local yeshivah, whose archetype was the *Volozhin Yeshivah, which drew students from all parts of the

Diaspora, saw the revival of the meshullah, who was sent out principally as a fund-raiser but acted also as an itinerant preacher or *maggid. His spiritual influence

was,

however,

limited

to

the

Yiddish-

speaking immigrant generation that had fled eastern Europe to settle in western Europe, South Africa, and the Americas. e Jacob Saphir, Even Sappir: Massa’otav ha-Mufla’im shel Ya‘aqov Safir ha-

MERITS, rabbinic works commanded

doctrine that by performing by and pleasing to God (meri-

torious works), one may obtain divine favor, which benefits not only the individual but also others (one’s

descendants,

one’s city or people, even the world).

Levi be-Teiman (Beersheva,

1990), Hebrew journal of a nineteenth-century

Jerusalem meshullah to the Far East, English excerpts appear in The Jews in Victoria in the Nineteenth Century, by Lazarus Goldman (Melbourne, 1954), p. 162. Abraham Yaari, Shluhei Erets Yisra’el: Toledot ha-Shelihut meha-'Arets la-Golah me-Hurban Bayit Sheni‘ad ha-Me’ah ha-Tesha‘ Esreh (Jerusalem, 1951), includes an extensive Hebrew and non-Hebrew bibliography. -ARYEH

NEWMAN

Merit (zekhut) is not negative (avoidance of sin) but

positive (obedience of God’s commandments). The conception of solidarity that underlies the doctrine of merits also implies, albeit to a lesser degree, a doctrine of demerits; the consequence of sin may fall not only on the sinner but on others as well. The doctrine of zekhut developed naturally out of

MESHULLAM BEN MOSHE (c.1175-1250), scholar of Béziers in southern France and maternal grandson of *Meshullam ben Ya‘agqov of Lunel. His nephew was Me’ir ben Shin‘on ha-Me‘ili of Narbonne, author of Ha-Me’orot. Meshullam was opposed to the study of Kabbalah and supported

MESHULLAM

his nephew’s opposition to kabbalistic works. Meshullam corresponded with Moses Nahmanides about halakhic matters and about the Maimonidean controversy during the 1230s. One of Meshullam ben Moshe’s most famous students was Yeda‘yah ben Avraham Bedersi, who left an account of his mentor’s wisdom and the program of study in Meshullam’s academy. Meshullam is best known for his Sefer ha-Hashlamah, the purpose of which was to complete Yitshaq *Alfasi’s code. Meshullam based his work upon the works of earlier Provencal scholars. In it, he explicated the difficult passages of Alfasi’s code, added laws that had been left out, updated it with Provengal traditions, and defended it from its critics. He also wrote critical notes to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. ¢ Henrich Gross, Gallia judaica: Dictionaire géographique de la France daprés les sources rabbiniques (Paris, 1897; repr. Amsterdam, 1969), with a supplement by Simon Schwarzfuchs. Judah Lubetzki, ed., Sefer haHashlamah le-Seder Neziqin, vol. 1 (Paris, 1885). Isadore Twersky, Rabad of Posquiéres: A Twelfth-Century Talmudist (Philadelphia, 1980). -SHLOMO

MESHULLAM

BEN

YA‘SAQOV

OF

H. PICK

LUNEL

(c.1090-1160), Provencal scholar. Among his halakhic

essays is Issur ve-Hetter (published by Y. Kafah in Teshuvot ha-Rabad [Jerusalem, 1962]), in which he criticized prevalent Provengal ritual slaughtering customs and maintained that they were not in accordance with halakhic literary sources. As a philanthropist, he maintained an academy in Lunel, to which students flocked from southern France and northern Spain. He was the patron of Avraham ben David of Posquiéres and Zerahyah ben Yitshaq ha-Levi, who were among his outstanding students. Consequently, Lunel became famous as a significant center of study, and its scholars were known as the sages of Lunel. Meshullam was also prominent in secular studies. He sponsored the translation of books on grammar, theology, rhetoric, ethics, and parables. He himself wrote books on parables of wisdom and ethics that are no longer extant. ¢ Benjamin Ze‘ev Benedikt, Merkaz ha-Torah be-Provence (Jerusalem, 1985).

Israel Ta-Shema, Le-Toledot

Rabbi Zerahyah ha-Levi—Ba‘al ha-Ma’or u-Venei Hugo:

ha-Sifrut

ha-Rabbanit

be-Provence

(Jerusalem,

1992).

Isadore

Twersky, Rabad of Posquiéres: A Twelfth-Century Talmudist (Philadelphia, 1980).

-SHLOMO

MESHUMMAD.

See DENUNCIATION.

MESIVTA’.

See YEsHIvaH.

MESSER ars.

LEON

Yehuda

ben

H. PICK

See Apostasy.

MESIRAH.

Messer

Leon (c.1425-

c.1495), Italian physician, halakhist, and philosopher. He was

born in the town

of Montecchio,

and lived

at various times in Ancona, Bologna, Padua, Venice,

and Mantua.

In the wake of a dispute with Yosef

*Colon, he was expelled from Mantua

the title Messer by Emperor Frederick III in 1452. His stature was enhanced in 1469 when the same ruler granted him doctoral degrees in medicine and philosophy, allowing him to treat Christians and to grant doctoral degrees to others. Intellectually, Messer Leon stood on the cusp of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. His philosophic writings, many of which are supercommentaries on Aristotle, Porphyry, and Maimonides, stand within the medieval scholastic tradition. Yet he is best known for Nofet Tsufim (Mantua, 1475), the first Hebrew book published in its author’s lifetime, which demonstrates the conformity of the Bible with classical rhetoric. This concern with grammar and rhetoric demonstrates his openness to contemporary Italian humanism. Nevertheless, despite Nofet Tsufim’s Renaissance traits, recent scholarship has characterized it as a medieval work in structure and argument. Messer Leon’s halakhic career was marked by controversy. While Italian halakhic practice was based

upon

the

Mishneh

Torah

of

Maimonides,

Messer Leon taught and advocated the adoption by Italian Jewry of the stricter Ashkenazi tradition embodied in Ya‘aqov ben Asher’s Arba‘ah Turim and represented by the French and German scholars migrating into northern Italy. Moreover, his rabbinic scholarship, adumbrated by his standing as physician and philosopher, convinced him of his preeminent rabbinic authority. These two factors led him to issue two highly controversial bans in 1455. The first called for the adoption of Ashkenazi strictures in the area of family law. The second banned the Torah Commentary of Gersonides as a measure to protect the Ashkenazim of northern Italy from its influence, which he regarded as subversive and contrary to normative Jewish scholastic thought. David ben Yehuda Messer Leon (c.1470-1536), son

of Yehuda

and rabbi in Valena,

Albania;

after

controversies around his halakhic rulings, he retired to Salonika. Like his father, he preferred the halakhic

methods of the Ashkenazi to the Sephardi rabbinical scholars. He brought a broad knowledge of general culture, notably philosophy, to his writings on Jewish subjects. ¢ Alexander Altmann, in Essays in Jewish Intellectual History (Hanover, N.H., 1981), pp. 97-118. S. Assaf, in Minhah le-David: ...R. David Yellin (Jerusalem, 1935), pp. 226-228. Robert Bonfil, “Introduction,” in Nofet Tsufim, by Judah ben Jehiel (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 7-69. Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (London, 1993). D. Carpi, in Studi

FAMILY, family of Jewish schol-

Yehi’el

MESSIAH

488

BEN MOSHE

sull'ebraismo italiano: In memoria di Cecil Roth, edited by Elio Toaff (Rome, 1974), pp. 39-62. Isaac Husik, Judah Messer Leons’ Commentary on the “Vetus Logica,” a Study Based on Three Manuscripts (Leiden, 1906). Isaac Rabinowitz, ed., Judah Messer Leon: The Book of the Honeycomb's Flow (Ithaca, 1983), pp. xv-Ixx. Isaac Rabinowitz, in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History, and Literature in Honor of Edward Kiev, edited by Charles Berlin (New York, 1972), pp. 399-406. Shalom Rosenberg, “Logiqah ve-'Ontologyah ba-Filosofyah ha-Yehudit ba-Me’ah ha-14,” Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1973. Moritz Steinschneider, Die hebraischen Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), pp. 76-86. Hava Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds: The Life and Thought of Rabbi David ben Judah Messer Leon (Albany, 1991), pp. 24-33. -JEFFREY R. WOOLF

(c.1475) and

settled in Naples. He was a distinguished physician, in recognition of which he was knighted and granted

MESSIAH. The verb m sh h (anoint [with oil]) is used in biblical Hebrew in connection with material objects

MESSIAH as

well

as

489 persons.

The

noun

mashiah

(anointed;

the source of the English word messiah) came to mean a consecrated person charged with a special mission from God; kings, prophets, priests, and even the gentile king Cyrus, founder of the Persian empire (see Js. 45.1), are given this title. More specifically, the term signified the kings of the Davidic dynasty, and in particular the future “Son of David,” who would deliver Israel from foreign bondage, restore the glories of a former golden age, and inaugurate the ingathering of Israel and God’s kingdom of righteousness and peace. From its original Jewish context the term messianism passed into general usage and is often used to refer, broadly, to beliefs or theories regarding an ultimate improvement of the state of humanity and the world, or a final consummation of history. Visions of a happy and blessed future were already expressed by the biblical prophets, especially as the sense of the fulfillment of God’s *covenant with his people—living in peace and prosperity in the land that had been promised to the patriarchs—was gradually undermined by negative experiences: the division of the kingdom, the ravages of wars and enemy incursions, and social and moral corruption. The prophets described a vision of a severe judgment, which would be followed by a glorious future, at least for a righteous remnant. However, “messianic” terminology in the eschatological sense is absent from these prophecies even when the reference is clearly to an ideal future king. The message of the prophet known as Deutero-Isaiah is definitely eschatological in character, though not messianic in its vocabulary, and the idea of a Davidic king is absent in this particular case. The usual association of the messianic idea with the Davidic kingship ideology is also illustrated by the Davidic pedigree assigned to Jesus by the writers of the Gospels (Mt. 1.1-17). Messianic terminology, and many of the expectations and hopes expressed by it, developed in the postexilic period and in response to varying historical situations. Thus, the rebuilding of the Temple became a central feature of the “messianic complex” after its destruction. The failure of *Zerubbabel to restore the kingdom of Judah moved the restoration of the Davidic dynasty into the eschatological realm. The period of persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes preceding the Maccabean Revolt seems to have stimulated messianic ferment and contributed to the development of *apocalyptic speculation. Various eschatological ideas (the messianic age, the *kingdom of heaven, the last judgment, the *resurrection of the dead, etc.) were held by different groups in different combinations and with varying emphases already in Second Temple times. The group known as the *Dead Sea (or *Qumran) sect held a doctrine (found also in later sects) of a

messianic pair: a priestly Messiah of the house of Aaron and a royal Messiah of the house of David. This detail may serve as illustration that the “anointed” one was not necessarily thought of as a savior (as for example, in later Christian thought) but rather as a

MESSIAH

symbolic figure presiding over an ideal, divinely willed and “messianic” socio-religious order. For others, the “Son-of-David” messianism, with its political or even military implications, was overshadowed by apocalyptic notions of amore mythological character, such as the *“Son of Man” who will descend from heaven to save the elect. Both early rabbinic and medieval Jewish thought exhibit much variety in the elaboration of messianic doctrine, ranging from the apocalyptic and kabbalistic end of the scale to more rationalist thinkers, such as Moses *Maimonides, who emphasized the non-miraculous nature of the messianic era. Medieval Jewish thought was largely concerned with interpreting and harmonizing the different, and occasionally conflicting, traditions enshrined in aggadic literature. A fundamental question was: Which prophecies should be taken literally and which metaphorically? The heterogeneity of the material also suggested a distinction between two different dispensations: a more this-worldly messianic age (ingathering of the dispersed, restoration of the Davidic kingdom, delivery from bondage, rebuilding of the Temple) and the eschatological “end of days” (day of judgment, resurrection of the dead).

To what extent revolts and uprisings, such as the Bar Kokhba’ Revolt, were “messianic” in character has to

be examined in detail in every case. The disastrous failure of uprisings had two significant consequences. It strengthened the element of “apocalyptic” catastrophe in the eschatological scheme: the final consummation would be preceded by great suffering (the messianic woes, hevlei mashiah); moral degeneracy; wars and cosmic upheavals (Armageddon, *Gog and Magog); and a messianic “Son of Joseph” (possibly an indirect reference to the ten tribes), who would heroically fall

in battle against the forces of evil before the ultimate triumph of the victorious Son of David. Another result was an increasingly quietistic emphasis, accompanied by warnings against attempts “to force the end.” Messianic

faith came

to mean

patient waiting, and

“calculating the end” by means of interpreting certain biblical numbers (e.g., in the Book of Daniel) was discouraged by the rabbis, though the prohibition was not always obeyed. “Redemption, the rabbis asserted, will be brought about by God in his own time and not by human activity, though its advent could be hastened by ascetic piety, strict observance of the law, penitence, and mystical meditation.

Nevertheless the strength and intensity of faith, hope, and yearning, drawing on biblical and rabbinic tradition as well as on the daily prayer book, in combination with constant suffering, persecution and humiliation, and, occasionally, large-scale massacres,

frequently produced messianic outbursts. Messianic pretenders, also known as “false Messiahs” or “pseudoMessiahs,” have appeared throughout Jewish history, as well as various announcers of the imminent arrival of the Messiah. Most of the movements generated by such individuals were short-lived and of local or regional extent only. The list of pretenders includes

*Abu ‘Issa the eighth Persia; the the Jewries

al-Isfahani and his disciple Yudghan in century; David *Alroy in twelfth-century propagandists of the agitation among of western Europe in the eleventh and

twelfth centuries; and the twelfth-century Yemenite pretender who caused Maimonides to write his Epistle to Yemen. The best known of all false Messiahs, whose

METATRON

490

MESSIAH

impact

extended

beyond

the local level, was

the pretender *Shabbetai Tsevi, in the seventeenth century. The Sabbataian debacle and its demoralizing aftermath, involving secret adherence and _heresyhunting on the one hand, apostasy and nihilism on the other, cast a cloud over all forms of overt messianic enthusiasm (see DONMEH; EMDEN, YA‘AQOV; EYBESCHUETZ, YONATAN; FRANK, YA‘AQOV).

The faith in an ultimately redeemed world of peace and justice, and in a messianic future for mankind (as distinct

from

faith

in a personal

Messiah),

is

shared by most trends in modern Jewry. Classical Reform rejected the concept of a personal Messiah, substituting the conviction that humankind was moving toward a messianic era of perfect peace and justice. Similarly, Conservative thinkers have adopted the concept of a messianic period to be achieved without supernatural intervention. PostEnlightenment secularism identified messianism with either the social and political goals of tolerance, liberalism and full emancipation or, alternatively, socialism, and rejected Zionist nationalism in favor

of universalist ideas. Contemporary attitudes toward nationalism and messianism are changing. While secularists might support a Jewish national identity without messianic expectations,

*Religious Zionism has undergone an ideological messianization. The prayer sanctioned by the chief rabbinate of Israel, and recited also in synagogues in the Diaspora, defines the State of Israel as “the beginning of the sprouting of our redemption,” wording which guardedly implies that the messianic era has begun and that the State of Israel constitutes the beginning of the messianic process. *Habad (Lubavitch) Hasidism

has attracted

METAPHYSICS, the philosophical study of the nature of being. Jewish philosophers have tended to define and defend their faith in the light of current general philosophical positions. In the first century, for example, *Philo of Alexandria interpreted the

Torah

as

using

a

Platonic

worldview,

and

his writings were also influenced by contemporary Stoicism. Similarly *Sa‘adyah ben Yosef Ga’on was indebted to Aristotelian as well as Muslim Kalam philosophy. In his Emunot ve-De‘ot, he argued that basic theological concepts are subject to rational analysis and that human reason is a legitimate source of religious knowledge. Shelomo *ibn Gabirol understood Judaism in the light of Neoplatonism, while Moses *Maimonides was an Aristotelian. His Guide of the Perplexed was intended as a response to the difficulties of educated Jews who were troubled by the apparent contradictions between rabbinic Judaism and current philosophy. Other

Jewish

thinkers,

however,

were

skeptical

of metaphysics. In his Kuzari, *Yehuda ha-Levi attempted to demonstrate the inadequacy of Aristotelian philosophy and argued for the superiority of religious revelation. Similarly Hasda’i ben Avraham Crescas, in his Or Adonai, argued strongly against the metaphysics of Maimonides and maintained that the only certainty lay in trusting in the authority of scripture. ¢ Hermann Cohen, Religion of Reason: Out of the Sources of Judaism, translated by Simon Kaplan (New York, 1972). Steven T. Katz, ed., Jewish Philosophers (New York, 1975). Leo Strauss, “The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy,” in The Independent Journal of Philosophy 3 (1980). A. Vdoff, “Metaphysics,” in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, edited by Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (New York, 1988).

METATRON,

in Talmudic, Midrashic, and mystical

literature the name of one of the supreme powers in the divine realm. He is often associated with the sar ha-panim (the prince of the countenance), meaning the power standing face to face with God (while others are to his left, to his right, or behind him). Talmudic literature associates Metatron with

attention in recent years for its explicit expectation

the angel sent by God to guide the Israelites in the

of the imminent advent of the Messiah. The implicit suggestion is that the Messiah may be their leader,

wilderness, “for my name is in him” (Ex. 23.21). The name is probably based on the Greek tetra (four),

R. Menahem Schneerson, who died in 1994. See also ESCHATOLOGY; KABBALAH.

referring to the Tetragrammaton, God’s four-letter holy name (though other explanations have been offered, based on the references to Metatron as a “messenger”). According to Hagigah 15a, the sage *Elisha ‘ben Avuyah lapsed into heresy when in his vision he saw Metatron sitting on a throne in the seventh heaven and judging the world; this led him to the belief that “there are two powers in heaven.” Metatron may also be associated with the sar ha‘olam, the prince of the world, an opaque Midrashic reference to a probably demiurgic power. The most detailed description of him in mystical literature is found in the Hebrew Apocalypse of Enoch, in which the gradual transformation of Enoch ben Jared (Gn. 5.18-19) into the power Metatron is described, after which he guides R. Yishma‘e’l on a tour of divine

¢ John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York, 1995). Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (New York, 1955). Raphael Patai, The Messiah

Texts (Detroit, 1979). Aviezer Ravitzky, Ha-Qets ha-Megulleh u-Medinat haYehudim (Tel Aviv, 1993). Marc Saperstein, ed., Essential Papers on Messianic Movements and Personalities in Jewish History (New York, 1992), an

anthology of some of the most important scholarship on Jewish messianism. Gershom Gerhard Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1971). Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676 (Princeton, 1973). Abba Hillel Silver, A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel from the First through the Seventeenth Centuries (New York, 1927; repr. Gloucester, Mass., 1978).

MESSIANIC

JUDAISM.

See JEwisH CHRISTIANS.

MESSIANIC MOVEMENTS.

See Messian.

METATRON

491

worlds. Metatron is called na‘ar (youth or servant; 3 En.), the same appellation that is found in gnostic treatises. Gershom Scholem identified him with the angel Yahoel mentioned in the Apocalypse of Abraham. Medieval kabbalists identified Metatron with different aspects of the divine realm, most often with the *Shekhinah. ¢

Joseph

Dan,

The

Ancient

Jewish

Mysticism

(Tel Aviv,

1993), passim.

Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden, 1980), pp. 235-241 et passim. Hugo Odeberg, 3rd Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch, 2d ed. (New York, 1873), pp. 79-147. Peter Schiifer, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism (Albany, N.Y., 1993), passim. Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah

Mysticism and Talmudic et passim.

Tradition,

2d ed

(New

York,

1965), pp. 43-56 -JOSEPH

METEMPSYCHOSIS.

METIVTA’.

DAN

See TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS.

See YESHTVAH.

METURGEMAN

(Aram.;

}23953;

interpreter),

in

early times, the translator of the Torah and Prophets into the vernacular (*Aramaic) when these were read

in public in the synagogue service. His translation accompanied the reading (verse by verse for the Torah; three verses at a time for the Prophets) and consisted

of the officially approved Bible (see TARGUM).

Aramaic

version

of the

He was not allowed to read his

translation from a written text or to speak louder than the reader of the Hebrew so as to emphasize the primacy of the Hebrew text. On occasions the meturgeman not only translated but added explanation as well. During the Talmudic period, the meturgeman acted as a spokesman for the teachers when they lectured in public. The teacher would speak quietly to the meturgeman who then repeated the discourse to the audience in a loud voice (Qid. 31b; Sot. 40a). The office of meturgeman is still extant among Yemenite

MICAH writing of a Torah scroll. The mezuzah is nailed in a sloping position (the top pointing inward; the bottom outward) on the upper right-hand doorpost of the entry to the home and each of its rooms used for human habitation. The sloping position was a compromise reached by *Rashi, who held that it should be vertical, and by his grandson, *Ya‘aqov ben Me’ir Tam,

who

maintained

that it should be

horizontal. In ancient times a hollow was constructed in the doorpost, and the mezuzah was placed inside.

A special blessing is recited when securing the mezuzah to the door. While some interpret mezuzot as protective *amulets, the mezuzah has also been described as the sanctification of the home by the continual

reminder of God’s omnipresence. Among pious Jews, it became customary to kiss the mezuzah upon entering or leaving a room. Mezuzot are to be checked twice every seven years to confirm their continued fitness. For *Karaites, the mezuzah is optional and consists of a plate in the shape of the two tablets of the Torah without any script. Rabbi *Me’ir ben Barukh of Rothenburg wrote, “No

demon

can have power

the mezuzah

over a house

is affixed.” Names,

verses,

upon which and figures

were added by mystics and kabbalists, but Moses *Maimonides insisted upon not tampering with the text. The mezuzah case has been one of the objects of Jewish ritual artistic expression, especially since the eighteenth century. For example, in North Africa mezuzot

covers

were

elaborately

embroidered,

and

in the center appeared the name of the woman who embroidered the cloth or the recipient. In recent years, small charms shaped like a mezuzah case (without a parchment inside) began to be worn around the neck as ornaments for good luck or to signify Jewish identity. ¢ Belle Rosenbaum, Upon Thy Doorposts: The Law, Lore, the Love of Mezuzot

Jews.

(Hackensack, N.J., 1995). David Rothstein, “From Bible to Murabaat: Studies

¢ Avigdor Shinan, “Sermons, Targums and the Reading from Scriptures in the Ancient Synagogue,” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 97-110.

in the Literary, Textual and Scribal Features of Phylacteries and Mezuzot in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1992.

MEZONOT.

MICAH

See MAINTENANCE.

MEZUMMAN.

MEZUZAH

See BirKAT HA-MAZON.

(7113; doorpost), small parchment (from the skin of a clean animal) on which are inscribed the first two paragraphs of the *Shema‘ (Dt. 6.4-9, 11.13-21). The parchment is rolled tightly and placed in a small case, many of which have a small aperture through which the word Shaddai (Almighty), inscribed on the back of the scroll (homiletically explained as an acronym for shomer delatot Yisra’el [guardian of the doors of Israel]), can be seen. This seems to confirm the mezuzah’s original apotropaic purpose. Mezuzot are affixed to doorposts in the home in accordance with the prescription in Deuteronomy 6.9. Only a qualified scribe (*sofer setam) may write a mezuzah, and it is to be written with the same care used in the

(fl. 8th cent. BcE), prophet from the southern

kingdom of Judah, whose collection of prophecies, directed against both Samaria and Judah, makes up the sixth book in the collection of the Twelve Minor Prophets. He began to preach shortly before the fall of Samaria and was a later contemporary of Hosea and Isaiah. The seven chapters of the prophetic work may be divided into three sections. Chapters 1.1-3.12 are characterized by words of condemnation, in which the prophet denounces deeds of oppression, dishonest business practices, and idolatry, which eventually will bring about the downfall of Samaria (1.6). He also levels attacks against the prophets of his day, who cry “peace” only when they are paid for their oracles, and against the leaders of the people, who are guilty of perversions of justice, which will culminate in the destruction of Jerusalem (3.12). This is the first

prophecy of its kind, and its repercussions were heard over a century later when Jeremiah was almost put

MIDDOT

492

MICAH

which God will issue instructions, thereby resolving all international disputes (4.1-4). Micah envisions

this principle to note that certain people will not participate in the resurrection of the dead because they did not believe that the Almighty would resurrect the dead and that all of the attributes of the Lord are measure for measure (San. 80a). Middah ke-neged middah is not a normative Jewish principle of punishment but is limited to explaining the conduct of God.

the eventual destruction of Israel’s enemies and the ingathering of exiles, presided over and shepherded

¢ Shmuel Lenshtam, “Middah ke-Neged Middah,” in Entsiglopedyah Migqra it (Jerusalem, 1950-), vol. 4, pp. 840-846. Saul Lieberman, “On Sins and Their Punishments,” in Texts and Studies (New York, 1974), pp. 29-56.

to death

for uttering

a similar

threat

Ver. 26.18),

only to be saved because of Micah’s prophecy. The second section, chapters 4-5, commences with a quote from Isaiah (Is. 2.2-4) predicting a reign of universal peace, with nations streaming to Jerusalem, which is portrayed as an international court of law from

by a descendant of David from Bethlehem (5.1-5), as well as the final extermination of idols (5.9-14). The final section, chapters 6-7, contains oracles of both condemnation and consolation, including

Micah’s famous pronouncement, “He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God” (6.8). The book concludes with a prayer for forgiveness and consolation, culminating with words that later were incorporated in the New Year custom of *Tashlikh, appealing to God to hurl people’s sins “into the depths of the sea” (7.18-20). e Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York, 2000). Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 21B (Grand Rapids, 2000). Delbert R. Hillers, Micah, Hermeneia Commentary (Philadelphia, 1984). Hans W. Wolff, Micah the Prophet (Philadelphia, 1981). -SHALOM

PAUL

MICHAEL (Who Is Like unto God), one of the four archangels; one of the few named *angels in the Bible (Dn. 12.1). It is said that he is composed of snow, while Gabriel is composed of fire (Dt.

Rab. 5). Michael figures prominently in apocryphal and aggadic literature, in which he is variously described as God’s viceregent; celestial high priest, who sacrifices the souls of the righteous on the altar before God (Midrash ‘Aseret ha-Dibberot 1); protector and advocate of Israel (Yoma’ 77a); and keeper of the

heavenly keys. As *Satan’s main adversary, Michael also has certain eschatological functions (e.g., calling the dead to the Resurrection). ¢ Wilhelm Lueken, Michael: Eine Darstellung und chen und der morgenlandisch-christlichen Tradition (Gottingen, 1898). Benedikt Otzen, “Michael and Problems in the Book of Daniel,” in The Scriptures

Vergleichung der jtidisvom Erzengel Michael Gabriel: Angelological and the Scrolls, edited by F. Garcfa-Martinez et al., eds. (Leiden, 1992), pp. 114-124.

MIDDAH measure

KE-NEGED for measure),

MIDDAH a term

(7713 7225 7713;

commonly

used to

describe the method of punishment that is exacted by God directly. One of the earliest references to this concept is found in Mishnah tractate Sotah 8b—9a, “The ways a person measures himself [conducts himself] is how he is measured from above,” and the

Mishnah continues with several examples of middah ke-neged middah as a form of *divine punishment. The Talmud seems to infer that this type of punishment is implied in Isaiah’s comment “by measure and by exile, you contend with them” (/s. 28.7). The Talmud

notes that the story of Purim contains within it the theme of middah ke-neged middah (Meg. 12b); it uses

—-MICHAEL

BROYDE

MIDDAT SEDOM (03795 713), when one person denies another a legal benefit which could have been given without cost or detriment of any kind. The rabbis criticized such behavior as reflecting the immorality of the biblical Sodom, and characterized it as middat Sedom (a quality of Sodom). For example, if upon the dissolution of a partnership in land one partner requests to take his share in a given location, in order to maintain continuity with adjoining parcels owned by him individually, and if all potential shares are in all respects of equal value, the other partners would be guilty of middat Sedom if they refused. The rabbis implemented this moral judgment by imposing a legal obligation upon the uncooperative party to grant the benefit, stating that “one can be compelled to act against the quality of Sodom.” ¢ Nahum Rakover, Osher ve-Lo’ be-Mishpat (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 20-22. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, ed., Entsiglopedyah Talmudit (Jerusalem, 1981), vol. 15, p. 409 et seq. -BEN TZION GREENBERGER

MIDDOT (ni7!3; Measurements). [This entry discusses the tractate Middot; for a discussion of

hermeneutics,

see HERMENEUTICS.]

Tractate

Middot

consists of five chapters in Mishnah order Qodashim,

with no gemara’ in either Talmud, describing the layout and structure of the Second *Temple. Opening with a list of places where the honor guard of priests and Levites took their posts for the night watch,

Middot

enumerates

the gates,

sections,

and

offices of the Temple, detailing the measurements of each section. Middot intersperses several remarks regarding the symbolic significance of some of the structures discussed: a doorway to the north of the main entrance to the Temple hall remained forever closed “because the Lord God of Israel enters through it [Ez. 44.2]” (Mid. 4.2); the fifteen stairs leading from the women’s courtyard to the Israelite courtyard correspond to the fifteen songs of ascension in Psalms 120-134; and the Temple hall is called Ariel (Lion of God; Is. 29.1) due to its trapezoidal structure, similar to “the lion, which is narrow in the rear and broad in the front” (Mid. 4:7). Concluding its

description with the “office of hewn-stone,” where the Sanhedrin supervised the ritual fitness of the priests, Middot closes with a paean to God, who chose the sons of Aaron Holies.

to serve

before

him

in the Holy of

MIDDOT

493

An English translation of the tractate by Herbert

MIDRASH public discourses without reference to a specific text.

Danby is in The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933).

Derived

from

¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Qodashim (Jerusalem,

midrash

first occurs in late biblical Hebrew in two

1956). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Kodashim (Gateshead, 1973). Frederick James Hollis, The Archaeology of Herod's Temple:

With a Commentary

on

Tractate

Middoth

(London,

1934). Asher

Selig Kaufman, ed., Massekhet Middot, Ha-Miqdash bi-Yerushalayim, pt. 1 (Jerusalem, 1991). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

MIDDOT,

1992).

THIRTEEN.

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

See TuIRTEEN ATTRIBUTES.

MIDIANITES, tribes of nomads and shepherds in the southern part of Canaan and northern Arabia. According to Genesis 25.2 (cf. / Chr. 1.32), Midian was the son of Keturah, Abraham’s wife. The Midianites dwelled in the same area as the rest of Abraham’s descendants (other than Isaac), south and southeast of Canaan. The Midianites are mentioned as merchants (Gn. 37.28) and as shepherds (Ex. 3.1). In the first chapters of Exodus, Moses finds refuge with Jethro,

“priest of Midian,” described as a host and an ally to Moses

and the people of Israel (Ex. 18; Nm.

10.29).

Moses also marries Jethro’s daughter, Zipporah. In contrast, the Midianites are mentioned as enemies of

Israel during their wandering in the wilderness and allies of Balak, king of Moab

(Nm. 22.4, 7), and also

in the story of Baal-peor (Nm. 25). Hostilities between Israel and the Midianites are also evident in Canaan, where “the hand of Midian prevailed over Israel” (Jgs.

6.2). Gideon saved the Israelites, and the great victory was engraved in the historical memory of the nation. Reflections of this event can be found in Psalms (83.10) and Isaiah (9.3, 10.26). The peoples of Midian were apparently organized in a five-tribe alliance (Nm. 31.8; Jgs. 8.5; cf. Gn. 25.4). The names of the Midianite leaders (Nm. 31.8; Jos. 13.21; Jgs. 8.12) seem to be of Semitic origin (except Hur [Nm. 31.8], which is

an Egyptian name; see also Ex 17.10, 12). After the Midianite alliance collapsed, some Midianite tribes remained in the area east of the Gulf of Aqaba, where the name Midian is mentioned in Hellenistic sources near the oasis of el-Baddai. * Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible (New York, 1993), pp. 67-90, 334-335. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary

(Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 78-80.

-ZE’EV KAINAN

MIDNIGHT TIQQUN. See T100un.

MIDRASH

(2777)

AND

MIDRASHIC

LIT-

ERATURE, didactic exposition or interpretation; an activity associated with the sages of the Talmudic period, commonly used to denote the sages’ interpretations of Scriptural passages or other rulings, both legal and non-legal, as well as the methods employed by these sages in arriving at their interpretations. In some passages in rabbinic literature, especially in the Babylonian Talmud, the term midrash and the associated verbal form darash, can also denote didactic expositions, whether of a legal or non-legal nature, expounded by sages in

the

root

d r sh (inquire),

the term

obscure contexts (2 Chr. 13.22, 24.27), where it refers

to a body of authoritative narratives, or interpretations thereof, concerning historically important figures. It also occurs in texts of the Dead Sea sect found at *Qumran (usually in the phrase midrash ha-Torah), where it may refer to an authoritative exposition of law, although many scholars understand the term in these early texts, as well as in later passages of the rabbinic period, to imply the study of the law, especially the analysis and exegesis (“inquiry”) of the text of the law. In early rabbinic usage the term midrash appears alongside the terms halakhot and aggadot, the three terms together describing the entire corpus of orally transmitted rabbinic teachings (constituting the *Oral

Law). In this context it denotes the legal rulings derived from Scriptural passages as taught by the sages (often by way of rules or canons [middot] of legal textual deduction). In none of these occurrences does the term midrash refer specifically to non-literal or fanciful interpretations—although the application of methods of deduction of teachings from Scriptural passages, especially relating to verses of a non-legal nature, often leads to conclusions (whether actually

deduced from the text or applied to it after the fact) which are not immediately evident nor seem to be rooted in the literal meaning of the words of the text (cf. Yoma 8, 9; Sifrei Dt. 225). In later rabbinic texts of the

amoraic

period,

methods of midrashic analysis are increasingly found in non-legal contexts, where they are used to provide suggestive interpretations of scripture that may consciously be chosen to reflect the view of the interpreter, to further his homiletic-didactic aim, or

to provide a response to the needs of a particular age or environment through fanciful and clever expositions of biblical passages. (An example is the teaching that “the patriarch Jacob did not die,” derived from the verse in Jer. 30.10 [Tan.

also providing however,

an

midrashic

exegesis

of Gn.

interpretations,

5b], but

49.33). both

Often,

early and

late, are the result of close readings of a scriptural passage, taking special account of other passages using similar wording or found in similar legal or non-legal contexts. In this sense, legal midrashic analysis can be compared to other legal systems of deduction

of rules

from

existing

texts

of law,

reflecting many of the same principles and methods of interpretation and allowing thereby for the further development of the legal system through textual analysis and reasoning. Unique to the midrashic system is a belief in the divinity and ultimate significance of the scriptural text; this lends a greater authority to midrashic interpretations, which, in the legal contexts, are understood to share to a certain degree the authority of the divine text, even though the interpretations themselves are arrived at

494

MIDRASH by human activity. In non-legal contexts, midrashic textual analysis has some parallels to other ancient systems of interpretation, such as the interpretation of dreams, Alexandrian Hellenistic methods of interpretation of ancient texts, and ancient Mesopotamian interpretations of omens (see PESHER).

According to the traditional approach, the canons of legal midrashic interpretation were transmitted to Moses along with the written Torah on Mt. Sinai, thereby enabling Moses and future generations to derive new laws from the written text, which were then transmitted in oral fashion along with other aspects of the *Oral Law. Scholars have pointed to the Second Temple period as a period of efflorescence of textual interpretative activity relating to both the legal and non-legal parts of the Bible, and some have connected the beginning of this activity specifically to Ezra “the scribe” (cf. Ezr. 7.6, 10, 11) and the scribe-scholars of the Second Temple period named soferim (see SOFER). While midrashic commentary may be found in all major works of the rabbinic period, including the Mishnah, Tosefta’ and both the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmuds, the earliest collections of

exclusively midrashic interpretations are those of the tannaitic period, in compilations to the books Exodus (the *Mekhilta’ De-Rabbi Yishma‘e'l and the *Mekhilta’ De-Rabbi Shim‘on Bar Yoh’ai), Leviticus (the *Sifra’),

MIDRASH HA-GADOL As a whole, midrashic literature contains some

of

the most distinctive features of rabbinic Judaism. It was a way of delving more deeply than the literal meaning of the word of scripture and a method of linking the various parts of the Bible together by the discovery of typological patterns, verbal echoes, and rhythms of repetition. The aggadic midrashim in particular were an instrument for imparting con-

temporary relevance to biblical events. Their subject matter—which includes theology, ethical teaching, philologic analysis, exhortation, popular philosophy, imaginative exposition, legend and allegory—served as a source

of inspiration,

historical consciousness,

philology, and biblical commentary throughout the post-Talmudic period and until the present day. In the early medieval period, a dichotomy was realized between the function of much of midrashic interpretation, named also *derash, and the *peshat (or peshuto shel mikra, the “straight” or direct interpretation of scripture), which aims at reconstructing the literal

meaning of scripture, its local setting, and original system of reference. In the twentieth century, midrash has been seen by some scholars as indicative of a rabbinic sensitivity to the multiple possibilities of textual interpretation akin to modern approaches to textual indeterminacy, although this approach has been subject to criticism.

Numbers (Sifrei Numbers, *Sifrei Zuta’, and Sifrei Deuteronomy-see also SIFRE!). These works emphasize the analysis of the legal sections of the Torah (often according to one of the two major schools of halakhic midrash of the period, that of Rabbi *‘Aqiva’ and

¢ Carol Bakhos, Current Trends in the Study of Midrash (Leiden and Boston, 2006). Daniel Boyarin, /ntertextuality and the Reading of the

that of Rabbi

Texts, edited by Barry W. Holtz (New York,

*Yishma‘e’l),

but also include

many

comments to the non-legal, narrative portions of the respective biblical books. Because of their emphasis on legal (halakhic) midrash, these collections are often called halakhic midrashim (or tannaitic midrashim).

In the later, amoraic period, collections of midrash are almost exclusively concerned with the narrative sections of the Bible, and are thus called aggadic midrashim,

or amoraic

midrashim

(see AGGADAH).

The principal midrashim of the amoraic period, the great majority of which originated in Erets Yisra’el, are those included in *Midrash Rabbah (a collection

of unrelated midrashim to the Torah and the Five Scrolls of different periods and genres) and in the *Tanhuma’-Yelammedenu collections; the Pesigta’ de-

Rav Kahana’ and Pesigta’ Rabbati, consisting of midrashic comments on readings from the Torah and prophetic lessons assigned to holidays and special Sabbaths; and midrashim on other books of the Bible,

such as Samuel, Psalms (also known as Shoher Tov) and Proverbs. Classic midrashic literature came to a close in the late tenth or early eleventh century. Important medieval compilations of midrashic literature, both halakhic and aggadic, include *Yalgut Shim‘oni (compiled in Germany in the thirteenth century) and *Midrash ha-Gadol (Yemen,

of which

14th cent.), the authors

have preserved invaluable

unknown midrashim.

and otherwise

Midrash

(Bloomington, Ind., 1990). Lee Haas, “Bibliography on Midrash,”

in The Study of Ancient Judaism, 1981), vol. 1, pp. 93-103.

edited by Jacob Neusner

David Halivni, Midrash,

Mishnah

(New York, and Gemara:

The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1986). Barry W. Holtz, “Midrash,”

in Back to the Sources:

Reading the Classic Jewish

1984), pp. 177-211.

Rimon

Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature,” in Mikra:

Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin J. Mulder, Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section II, 1, Jewish Writings of

the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 547-594. James L. Kugel, “Two Introductions to Midrash,” in Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 131-155. Hananel Mack, The Aggadic Midrash Literature (Tel Aviv, 1989). Johann Maier, “Early

Jewish Biblical Interpretation in the Qumran Literature,” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Saebo (Gottingen, 1996), volume 1, part 1, pp. 108—129. Paul Mandel, “The Origins of Midrash in the Second Temple Period,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, edited by Carol Bakhos (Leiden and Boston, 2006), pp. 9—34. Gary G. Porton, “Defining Midrash,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner (New York, 1981), vol. 1, pp. 55-92. Meir Rafeld and Joseph Tabory, comps., Peragim mi-Tokh Madrikh Bibliographi le-Torah she-be-‘alPeh: A. Midreshei Halakhah; B. Sifrut ha-'Aggadah (Ramat Gan, 1992), with multilingual bibliography. Richard S. Sarason, “Toward a New Agendum for the Study of Rabbinic Midrashic Literature,” in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, edited by Jakob J, Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 55-73, includes select bibliography. -REVISED BY PAUL MANDEL

MIDRASH HA-GADOL, a thirteenth-century Yemenite Midrashic compilation on the Torah, compiled by David ben ‘Amram of Aden. Written in a clear Hebrew prose, divided up according to the weekly Torah readings, each section is prefaced with a proem in rhymed verse. The author-compiler did not indicate his sources (unlike the otherwise similar *Yalgut Shim‘oni) and at times combined more than one source into a smoothly continuous unit. The work

preserves many otherwise unknown early sources in an accurate transmission. With the aid of this work,

MIDRASH HA-GADOL

495

scholars were able to reconstruct large portions of the lost Mekhilta’ de-Rabbi Shim‘on bar Yoha’i and the Sifrei Zuta’ and also the Mekhilta’ de-Rabbi Yishma‘e'l on Deuteronomy, otherwise called Midrash Tanna’im. Midrash ha-Gadol also preserved accurate readings of early Midrashic texts and Talmudic sources. The compiler made copious use of Maimonides, thus Midrash ha-Gadol is important for Maimonidean studies. It first came to scholarly notice in the second half of the nineteenth century and has been published in a critical edition by a number of scholars: Genesis and Exodus by M. Margaliot (Jerusalem, 1947, 1956); Leviticus by A. Steinsaltz (1975); Numbers by Z. M. Rabinowitz (1967); Deuteronomy by S. Fisch (1972).

-DANIEL SPERBER MIDRASH

PROVERBS.

See PRovERBS, MIDRASH.

MIDRASH RABBAH,a collection of aggadic midrashim to the Torah and the Five Scrolls. The appellation Rabbah (Great), the origin and meaning of which are obscure, originally applied to only some of these midrashim (notably Genesis Rabbah) and then to all the midrashim on the Torah; finally, as a

result of the inclusion of all ten midrashim edition (Venice,

1545), the term

came

in one

to be applied

to the entire collection. Despite their appearance together, however, the midrashim so named are separate works, originating in different periods and organized in different ways. Genesis Rabbah is generally considered to be the earliest compilation (completed c. 5th cent. cE); from a slightly later date

are Leviticus Rabbah and the midrashim to the Five Scrolls. All of these are examples of classical aggadic midrashim,

compiled

in Erets

Yisra’el,

and

were

written in a mixture of Rabbinic Hebrew and Galilean Aramaic. Originating from a later period are the midrashim

to Exodus,

Numbers,

and Deuteronomy,

which are related to—and at times are identical with—the *Tanhuma’-Yelammedenu collection of midrashim; these were written almost completely in Hebrew. Several of the midrashim (those to Exodus, Numbers, and Esther) are, in their present form,

a composite

of two works

from

Viewed together, the midrashim

different periods. in Midrash Rabbah

present a compendium of rabbinic exegesis and lore on the books of the Bible that were most often read and studied in the synagogue and study hall throughout the Mishnaic, Talmudic, and late Byzantine periods. Of the many commentaries that appear in standard editions of Midrash Rabbah, of special note are Mattenot Kehunnah by Yissakhar Berman Ashkenazi (Poland, 16th cent.), Yefei To’ar and Yefei ‘Anaf by Shemu’el Yaffe Ashkenazi (Constantinople, 16th cent.), and Maharzev—a contraction for Maharenu

ha-Rav Ze’ev Wolf Einhorn

(Vilna, 19th cent.). See

also entries on the individual midrashim. ¢ Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah (London, 1961). Midrash Rabbah (Vilna, 1878). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter

Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl

(1931; Minneapolis,

1992). August Wuensche,

ed. and trans.,

MIDRESHEI

ESHET HAYIL

Bibliotheca Rabbinica (Leipzig, 1880-1885). Leopold Zunz, Ha-Derashot beYisrael ve-Hishtalshelutan ha-Historit, edited by Chanoch Albeck (1892; Jerusalem, 1974), —-PAUL MANDEL

MIDRASH

SHEMU’EL.

See SamueL, Miprasu.

MIDRASH TADSHE’, pseudepigraphic midrash, also called Baraiyta’ de-Rabbi Pinhas ben Ya’ir after the second-century tanna’ to whom the work was ascribed. In both content and method it resembles certain late Second Temple works, upon which it clearly drew, such as Jubilees and works by Philo. Midrash Tadshe’ opens with a commentary on “Let the earth bring forth grass” (tadshe’ ha-'arets; Gn. 1.11),

hence its title. Midrash Tadshe’ contains speculations on the mystical significance of numbers along lines developed in *Sefer Yetsirah, as well as astrological matter. It has been suggested that its author could possibly have been the eleventh-century southern French scholar *Moshe ha-Darshan. It was first published by Adolph Jellinek (Beit ha-Midrash 3 [1928]: 164-193).

-DANIEL SPERBER

MIDRESHEI ESHET HAYIL, midrashim on the biblical acrostic poem Eshet Hayil (Prv. 31.10-31). One group of these midrashim interprets each verse as referring to a different female biblical personality. One of the editions, redacted no later than 1270, has been erroneously appended in various manuscripts and printed editions to Midrash Proverbs. A critical edition based on the twelve extant manuscripts has been prepared (Yael Levine Katz, “Midreshei Eshet Hayil,” Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 1993). Four editions from Yemen have been preserved in their entirety, the earliest appearing in the Midrash ha-Gadol of the thirteenth century, and there are six genizah fragments extant of undetermined date. The various editions share, for the most part, a common

tradition with regard to the women included, though they differ considerably in content. These midrashim draw upon the vast corpus of Talmudic and Midrashic literature but also incorporate sources of unknown origin. They employ the hermeneutic methods of classical midrashim. The women in the first eight derashot are presented in chronological order: Noah’s wife, Sarah, Rebekah,

Leah, Rachel, Pharaoh’s

daughter,

Jochebed, and Miriam. The remaining women are drawn from the Prophets and Writings, although they do not appear in chronological order. After identifying the women, many of the derashot proceed to extol their virtuous deeds. Several acted on behalf of their husbands. Pharaoh’s daughter rescued Moses. A number of derashot offer no further details about the women, focusing instead on their sons or on other male figures. Various derashot mention the rewards the women reaped for their good deeds. Another group of these midrashim interprets the proverbial poem as referring to a singular biblical personality, Sarah. Three known editions of these

MIDRESHEI midrashim

are extant, the earliest of which dates to

the ninth or tenth century. * Myron Bialik Lerner, “Keta Hadash mi-Midrash Eshet Hayil u-Tehilato shel Ma’amar Yod-beit Nashim,” in Mehkarim be-Talmud u-ve-Midrash, Sefer Zikaron le-Tirza Lifshitz, ed. Arye Edrei et al. (Jerusalem, 5765), pp. 165-292. Mordecai Margulies, ed., Midrash ha-Gadol (Jerusalem, 1947). Burton Lyle Visotzky, “Midrash Eishet Hayil,” Conservative Judaism 38 (1986). Solomon Aaron Wertheimer, ed., “Midrash Eshet Hayil,” in Battei Midrashot (Jerusalem, 1980). -YAEL LEVINE

MILAH.

MINHAG

496

ESHET HAYIL

of uncertain origin, of

(72731), name,

MIMUNAH

a celebration observed by Jews of North Africa and certain other *‘Adot ha-Mizrah on the day following the conclusion of *Pesah. It is a family festival observed in the home and at communal picnics with a strong emphasis on food, music, and traditional costumes. In Israel it has become a popular holiday among Jews of North African origin. ¢ Eliyahu R. Martsiano, Hag ha-Mimunah (Jerusalem, 1991).

See CiRCUMCISION.

MILK (Heb. halav). The only halakhic restrictions on the consumption of milk are that it be drawn from a permitted species of animal and that milk or milk products not be mixed or cooked together with *meat or meat products; it is forbidden even to derive benefit from such a mixture (see DIETARY Laws). To prevent

any doubts regarding a possible admixture of milk from prohibited (unclean) species, an animal should

be milked either by a Jew or in the presence of a Jew (see MASHGIAH). Breast milk may be imbibed only by a suckling but not by a child already weaned or by an adult. ¢ Abraham ben Jehiel Michal Danzig, The Laws of Meat and Milk, translated by Jeffrey R. Cohen (New York, 1991). Binyomin Forst, The Laws of Kashrus: A Comprehensive Exposition of Their Underlying Concepts (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1993).

MIN.

See MINIM.

MINHAG

(377313; custom),

a term with two distinct

meanings in JJewish tradition, a post-biblical religious custom and a traditional liturgical rite. A Post-Biblical Religious Custom. Customs not introduced by a rabbinical authority or based on biblical writ often became sacred by virtue of long usage. Accepted custom is one of the formative factors in the development of Jewish law and religious observance. This applies both to local minhag, that is, customs that obtain in one locality only, as well as to customs that have been adopted universally. Minhagim are less binding than formal legal enactments, though in the event of conflict, custom can take precedence over law (Y., Yev. 12.1). The institution of a second day of festivals (see YoM Tov SHENI SHEL GALUYYOT) in

MILLENNIUM, the one-thousand-year period of messianic rule that is to precede the last judgment and the world to come. Though the idea of a messianic period is found in the pseudepigrapha, in

the Diaspora is a striking example of an obsolete law surviving merely because it qualified as a custom. Originally the second day was instituted because of

rabbinic literature, and in Christian writings, there were many, and conflicting, calculations of when

emissaries of the Sanhedrin could not reach the Jews in the Diaspora in time to notify them of the date of the new moon. When the calendar became fixed

it would Ezra

begin and how

7.26-31,

for example

the days of the *Messiah hundred

years,

while

long it would

last. In 4

(see EspRAS,

Books OF),

are expected to last four

in Sanhedrin

99a

different

rabbis estimate the duration of the period at forty, seventy, four hundred, or a few thousand years. The term millenarianism is often used to refer to such eschatological expectations, regardless of the exact numerical calculations involved. The concept of one thousand years as the duration of the messianic era may have been derived from the idea of a world week, each day of which was to be a thousand years long. Such a notion, which is found, for example, in

the Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch, recurs in rabbinic sources, where it is also connected with Psalms 90.4

(“For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday”), interpreted to mean that God’s day is a thousand years; just as the days of Creation were six in number, so will the world last for six thousand years, the seventh day being the thousand year reign of the Messiah (cf. San. 97a). The expectation of such

a reign was very much alive in the early church (cf. Rv. 20.4-6), and subsequently in millenarian or chiliastic Christian movements. * Norman Cohn. The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (London, 1957; repr. New York, 1970). Michael St. Clair, Millenarian Movements in Historical Context (New York, 1992).

-GIDEON

BOHAK

doubt

over

the

by astronomical

exact

day of a festival,

calculations,

since

this consideration

the

no

longer applied. The Talmud Bavli asked, “now that we are acquainted with the calendar, why do we observe two days?” and answered, “Because they sent a

directive from Palestine stating, ‘Adhere to the minhag of your ancestors that has been transmitted to you” (Beits.

4b). The

*covering

of the head

is another

example of an early custom that became solidly entrenched in traditional practice. Two widespread minhagim are the practice of eating apples and honey on Ro’sh ha-Shanah and the *kapparot rites before Yom Kippur.

According to rabbinic law, local custom is binding not only upon natives of the locality but also upon all those who take up residence there, though they come from places where a particular custom may not obtain (Suk. 3.11). Discussing the different minhagim regarding the permissibility of work on the eve of Pesah,

the Mishnah lays down the general rule that “in order to obviate conflicts, no one should

depart from local minhag,” and a person should observe the strict custom of his hometown and the place he is visiting (Pes. 4.1). The Talmud records many differences in custom between the provinces of Judea and Galilee. The varieties of rituals that have developed in various communities are generally

MINHAG referred to as the minhag of such and such a group or community. The rabbinic attitude is summarized in the statement, “Custom is Torah” (tosafot to Men. 20b). Occasionally authoritative and powerful voices were raised in protest against slavish adherence to senseless or even objectionable customs. Thus, Maimonides did not hesitate to say of a prevalent custom, “This is not a minhag, but an error, and even smacks of heresy.” Rabbi Ya‘aqov ben Me’ir Tam declared a certain custom “stupid,” adding that the letters of the word minhag read backward as Gehinnom (hell) and that sages need not necessarily uphold foolish customs. Many customs entered Jewish usage from non-Jewish practices, but some of these were subsequently banned by the rabbis (see Huoaat HA-GoyyiM).

A Traditional Liturgical Rite. The basic foundations

MINHAH

497

of the *liturgy, especially of the Shaharit

(morning) service, are laid down in Talmud tractate *Berakhot. Over the course of centuries, however,

individual additions and modifications have been made and considerable and significant differences have developed in the rites of various countries and sects, most notably between the Ashkenazi

by their very nature, are not recorded in books. The necessity for minhagim books arose from contacts between communities that had different customs. Collections of their minhagim showed, on the one hand, that it was legitimate for each community to follow a different custom and, on the other hand, that each set of customs was authoritative in its own locale. One

of the earliest lists of such customs,

a

comparison of the differences in marriage customs between Judah and Galilee, appears in the Tosefta’ (Ket. 1.4). The earliest extant work of significant size (Sefer ha-Hillugim, edited by M. Margaliot [Jerusalem, 1938]) lists the differences between Palestinian and Babylonian liturgical customs and was compiled in the geonic period. Provence, in southern France, was an area in which Ashkenazi and Spanish scholars frequently met, and several collections of minhagim were composed there. The earliest account of different customs in European communities is Sefer ha-Manhig (critical ed. [Jerusalem, 1978]) by R. *Avraham ben Natan of Lunel. Around 1200 R. *Asher ben Sha’ul of Lunel compiled a collection of the customs of

practices,

Lunel and Narbonne, which included sources for the minhagim and was an attempt to protect customs

and Sephardi ritual, which evolved from Babylonian

that were falling into disuse. Of great importance is

usage. Within these broad divisions, however,

the work of Menahem *Me’iri (1249-1316), also of Provence, published under the title Magen Avot, which

ritual,

which

evolved

from

Palestinian

there

are many variations of local minhagim: Byzantine, Italian, Avignon, Polish, German, Eastern Jewish, and Yemenite. Hasidim have adopted the ritual of Yitshaq Luria (Nussah Ari), which varies slightly from standard Sephardi usage, while the Jerusalem minhag is based upon the meticulous regulations for prayer laid down by R. Eliyyahu ben Shelomo

defended Provengal customs against the authority of Spanish scholars who tried to impose the Spanish minhag. A modern work on the study of minhagim is the ongoing series by Daniel Sperber entitled Minhagei Yisra’el. This series contains chapters that discuss the meaning and significance of customs, the patterns

Zalman of Vilna (the Vilna Ga’on), whose disciples (perushim) established the modern Ashkenazi com-

of their development,

munity of Jerusalem. The greatest difference between the various rites is the choice of High Holy Day *piyyutim (originally for other festivals as well). Considerable modification of the traditional liturgy

¢ Ronald A. Brauner, “Some Aspects of Local Custom in Tannaitic Literature,” in Jewish Civilization, Essays and Studies, Jewish Law, edited by Ronald A. Brauner, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1981), pp. 43-54. M. Rapeld and J. Tabory, “Custom, Its Offshoots and Research: A Selected Bibliography,” in Minhagei Yisra’el: Meqorot ve-Toledot, by Daniel Sperber, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 1994). Eli Yassif, Jewish Folklore: An Annotated Bibliography (New York, 1986). -JOSEPH TABORY

has been introduced under Reform, Conservative, and

Reconstructionist influence. Efforts have been made in the State of Israel (especially in the army) to consolidate a unified prayer rite, acceptable to all communities. ¢ Abraham P. Bloch, The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies (New York, 1980). Abraham Chill, The Minhagim (New York, 1980). Haim H. Cohn, “Practice and Procedure,” in Principles ofJewish Law, edited by Menachem Elon (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 574-584. Menachem Elon, “Minhag,” in Principles of Jewish Law, edited by Menachem Elon (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 91-110. Joel Roth, “On Custom in the Halakhic System,” in The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis (New York, 1986), pp. 205-230.

MINHAGIM

BOOKS. Books devoted to minhagim

(customs; see MINHAG) can be divided into three cate-

gories: collections of minhagim of various communities or of important individuals; minhagim related to specific subjects such as wedding or festival customs; and studies of minhagim that are meant to explain their background and origin. Books of minhagim are antithetical to the nature of customs;

minhagim

represent life patterns of societies and individuals that,

and the history of individual

customs.

MINHAH (7079; Offering). [This entry discusses the prayer service; for a discussion of the offering, see MEAL OFFERING.] The Minhah service is the second of the three daily prayer services. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the *Shaharit and Minhah services were regarded as statutory, corresponding to the tamid offering (see PERPETUAL OFFERING) in the Temple, while the evening *Ma‘ariv prayer service was not initially obligatory. Minhah is recited any time during the afternoon until sunset and corresponds to the daily evening sacrifice in the Temple (in practice several hours before sunset). Its institution is ascribed by the Talmud (Ber. 26b) to the patriarch “Isaac (on the basis of Gn. 24.63). Minhah consists mainly of the *‘Amidah

(preceded and followed by *Qaddish), which is recited silently by the worshipers and then repeated aloud by the *sheliah tsibbur (prayer leader). An alternative custom is to have the sheliah tsibbur recite aloud the

MINHAH first blessing (including *Qedushah) and the last three blessings, while the middle section is said silently. It is customary to recite *Ashrei (Psalm 145) by way of opening (Sephardim first recite *Qorbanot, an account of the Temple sacrifices) and to conclude with *“Aleinu. On Sabbaths, Yom Kippur, and other public fasts a short reading from the Torah precedes the ‘Amidah; on Sabbaths, the first part of the following week’s portion is read. On fast days, a reading from the Prophets is also recited in some rites. The ‘Amidah for Minhah is the same as that for Shaharit, but no Birkat ha-Kohanim is pronounced, except on fast days (by the sheliah tsibbur in the Diaspora; by kohanim in Erets Yisra’el); in the Ashkenazi

rite Shalom

Rav

is substituted in the last blessing for Sim Shalom. In many synagogues Minhah is recited late in the afternoon and followed immediately (or after a short interval) by the Ma‘ariv service. In geonic times an abbreviated form of the ‘Amidah was widely used. For Minhah, the sheliah tsibbur wears the “*tallit; the congregation dons the tallit for Minhah only on Yom Kippur and Tish‘ah be-’Av (and in some western Sephardi congregations on every fast day). e

Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:

A Comprehensive History, translated by

Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, 1993).

MINIM

MINOR TRACTATES

498

(0°23),

term

used

in

the

Talmud

and

God. Minim were disqualified from performing any religious or ritual functions, and their relatives were forbidden to mourn their death and instead instructed

to rejoice (Semahot 2.10). See also HERESY. e Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. 25 (Leiden, 1977).

MINISTER.

See RABBI AND RABBINATE.

MINOR PROPHETS, the twelve short prophetic books grouped together in the Bible as the fourth book of the Latter Prophets, following the three “major” prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The

Minor Prophets is commonly known as Terei “Asar, Aramaic for “The Twelve,” and includes *Hosea, *Joel,

“Amos,

*Obadiah,

*Jonah,

*Micah,

*Nahum,

*Habakkuk, *Zephaniah, *Haggai, “Zechariah, and *Malachi. The arrangement of the books was determined by a combination of their length, chronological sequence as perceived in rabbinic tradition, and lexical associations (B.B. 14b). The collection may well have

been edited as a distinct book by the time of Ben Sira (c.180 BcE; cf. Ben Sira 44-49). A Hebrew text of the Minor Prophets from Second Temple times was found at Wadi Murabba‘at and a Greek version at Nahal Hever in the Judean Desert. ¢ Paul R. House, The Unity of the Twelve, Journal for the Study of the Old

Midrash for sectarians, heretics, or Gnostics. Although

Testament,

the etymology of minim is unknown, it may derive from Mani (founder of Manichaeism) or by way of abbreviation from ma’amin Yeshu notseri (believer in Jesus the Nazarene). Although the precise meaning of minim varied with the context—it is used in Talmudic

Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die

and Midrashic sources for Sadducees, Samaritans, *Jewish Christians, and other heretical sectarians—

Supplement

Series 97 (Sheffield, UK,

1990). James

Nogalski,

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 217 (Berlin and New York, 1993). Marvin A,

Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minn., 2000). -MARVIN

MINORS.

A. SWEENEY

See ADULT; CHILDREN.

even though they may contain the name of God, for sectarianism is more dangerous than paganism” (Shab. 116a). A prayer against the minim, which was added to the ‘Amidah, was composed by Shemu’el

MINOR TRACTATES, several tractates not included in the Talmudic canon; also known as toseftot (additional tractates) or hitsonot (external tractates). The existence of such tractates is attested in a number of medieval sources, such as Numbers Rabbah 18.21, which Midrashically explains Song of Songs 6.8, “and damsels without number,” as “external mishnah.” The appellation “minor,” first used in the ninth-century geonic work Halakhot Gedolot (Venice edition, p. 143b), alludes to their extracanonical status and infe-

ha-Qatan

there is no doubt that it later came to mean *Jewish Christians in particular. The Talmud

(Y., San.

10.6)

states that at the time of the destruction of the Temple there were twenty-four kinds of minim. “The writings of the minim,” said R. Tarfon, “deserve to be burned,

of the nasi’, R. Gamli’el,

rior authority (see [ggeret Rav Sherira’ Ga’on, French

as part of the Jewish struggle against Christianity, which at the time was considered a Jewish sect (see BIRKAT HA-MINIM). The wording of the prayer underwent repeated changes for fear of censorship

at the request

exactly which works are referred to by these names. Normally the minor tractates are identified with the fourteen tractates publishéd together following

and to obviate anti-Jewish criticism; thus, malshinim

tractate Avot in the Romm (Vilna, 1886) edition of the

(informers) was substituted for minim. Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 3.7) enumerates five classes of minim (in the sense of “heretics”) who have no share in the world to come: those who deny the existence of God and his providence; those who believe in several gods; those who attribute to God form and figure; those who believe in the eternity of matter from which God created the world; and those who worship stars, planets, and so on, believing that these act as intermediaries between human beings and

Talmud Bavli. However early traditions refer to “seven

recension, p. 47), rather than to their size. It is unclear

minor

tractates”

or, occasionally,

to “nine external

tractates.” The lack of a clear tradition regarding the identity of the minor tractates is a sign of their relative neglect, although later medieval authorities occasionally relied on their halakhic rulings. While the minor tractates all seem to be of Palestinian origin, the nature of their content and the dates of their redaction vary widely. The aggadic “Avot de-Rabbi Natan was apparently redacted during

MINOR TRACTATES

499

or soon after the tannaitic period, whereas most of the other minor tractates, both halakhic and aggadic, appear to have been compiled during the savoraic or early geonic periods. This dating helps to give a picture of the halakhic activity in Palestine in the centuries following the redaction of the Talmud Yerushalmi. The minor tractates include Avot de-Rabbi Natan, *Soferim, Semahot (*Evel Rabbati), *Kallah, Kallah Rabbati, *Derekh Erets Rabbah, and Derekh Erets Zuta’;

a second group of seven minor tractates, organized topically, includes *Gerim, *Kutim, *‘Avadim, Sefer Torah, Tefillin, Tsitsit, and Mezuzah. A critical edition of Avot de-Rabbi Natan was produced by Solomon Schechter, and Michael Higger produced scholarly editions of all of the remaining minor tractates. Higger’s editions of the seven minor tractates and of Derekh Erets contain an English translation. Abraham Cohen produced a translation entitled The Minor Tractates of the Talmud (London, 1965; 2d ed. [1971]). ¢ Myron B. Lerner, “The External Tractates,” in The Literature of the Sages, edited by Shemuel Safrai (Assen and Philadelphia, 1987), pt. 1, pp. 367— 403. Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992). -AVRAHAM WALFISH

MINTZ, MOSHE (15th cent.), rabbinic scholar and authority, communal leader. He studied with R. Yisra’el ben Petahyah Isserlein and with R. Ya‘agov ben Yehuda Weil, and he served as rabbi in Wiirzburg, Mainz, Landau, Ulm, Bamberg, Niirnberg,

and Poznan. He was forced to abandon a planned immigration to Erets Yisra’el for reasons that are unclear. Mintz is best known for his collection of responsa, which center on civil and matrimonial law. He was heavily involved in the enactment of communal legislation, and he writes of taqgqganot of which he approved and of those with which he could not agree. Several of his responsa deal with contemporary prayer and educational practices, and they serve as an important source for the history of the yeshivot of Germany during the fifteenth century. He was involved in a number of controversies concerning the appointments of communal rabbis and academy heads. Mintz referred to and prescribed penitential regimens (tiqgqunei teshuvah), which had been developed by the Hasidei Ashkenaz. ¢ Yedidya Dinari, Hakhmei Ashkenaz be-Shilhei Yemei ha-Beinayim (Jerusalem, 1984). Jacob Elbaum, Teshuvat ha-Lev ve-Qabbalat Yissurim (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 21-24. Israel Yuval, Hakhamim be-Doram: HaManhigut ha-Ruhanit shel Yehudei Germanyah be-Shilhei Yemei ha-Beinayim (Jerusalem, 1988).

—EPHRAIM

KANARFOGEL

MINTZ, YEHUDA (c.1408-1506), Italian rabbi, born in Mainz, from where his family took its name.

A student

of R. Yisra’el

ben

Petahyah

Isserlein,

Mintz settled in Padua, where he headed a renowned

yeshivah and was recognized as one of the outstanding halakhic scholars of Italy. The taqqanot (enactments) he imposed upon his community with the approval of the local nonrabbinic leadership testify that, like other communal rabbis of the period in Italy, Mintz

MIORA’OT GEDOLOT

exercised a significant degree of rabbinic authority. Sixteen of his responsa were published in 1553 by R. Me'ir ben Yitshaq Katzenellenbogen, the husband of Mintz’s granddaughter. ¢ Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (Oxford, 1990). Isaac H. Weiss, Dor Dor ve-Dorshav (Vienna, 1871-1891) vol. 5, pp. 280-282.

MINYAN

-MARK

WASHOFSKY

(7249; counting; hence, quorum), the num-

ber of adult Jews necessary for a quorum for various liturgical purposes. Halakhah defines a minyan for communal prayer as ten Jewish men who are age 13 or older. Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist

Judaism include both adult men and adult women (aged 12 years and older) in the count for the quorum. Particular parts of the communal prayer, such as *Qaddish,

*Oedushah,

*Barekhu,

the *Birkat ha-

Kohanim, and the reader’s repetition of the **Amidah, may only be recited in the presence of a minyan. The reading of the Torah and of the *haftarah also require a minyan. A minyan is also needed for *Sheva‘ Berakhot at the marriage feast, while the presence of a minyan at the *Birkat ha-Mazon requires a change in the text of the invocation to grace. Jewish tradition understands ten adult men to be a “community,” and thus their presence together permits the recital of the communal prayers. A group of fewer than ten men, even in a synagogue, may not recite the communal prayers together, while ten or more adult men, even if gathered in a locale other than the synagogue, may recite these prayers. Various explanations have been proposed for the origin of the quorum of ten. For example, of the twelve spies sent by Moses to scout out the land of Canaan, ten came back with a negative report. These ten are referred to as “this evil community” (Nm. 14.27), from rabbis deduced that a “community” consists ten. Another explanation refers to the ten men who could have saved Sodom (Gn. areas where

it was

which the

of at least righteous 18.32). In

difficult to raise a quorum,

the

community would pay “minyan men” or *batlanim to attend services regularly. If a full quorum was not present, the rabbis counted nine adults and a boy as a minyan.

Some Orthodox women have formed women’s minyanim or prayer groups, although not all of these groups recite the prayers traditionally requiring a minyan. e

Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:

Raymond P. Scheindlin pp. 375-376.

MIQRA’

A Comprehensive History, translated by

(Philadelphia,

New

York, and Jerusalem, 1993), -SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN

See BIBLE.

MIQRA’OT GEDOLOT (i517) MiNIPM Large Bibles), so named perhaps because of their expansive format or perhaps because the biblical text itself is generally printed in a larger size than the surrounding translation and commentary. Also known as

the

Rabbinic

Bible,

it contains

the

*Targum

(Aramaic translation) commentaries.

and

a selection

of medieval

by

Christians.

(New York, 1994). Hanne von Weissenberg, 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text,

the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue (Leiden, 2009). -TIMOTHY

The first edition of the Rabbinic Bible was edited by Felix Pratensis and published by Daniel Bomberg, in Venice in 1517; it was thus a Hebrew Bible produced

MIOVEH

500

MIQRA’OT GEDOLOT

In

fact,

it was

released

in two separate printings, one for Jewish use and another for Christians, the latter bearing a dedication

to Pope Leo X. A second, corrected and improved edition was published in 1525, edited by the Kabbalist Jacob ben Hayyim (who himself would later convert to Christianity). This edition, which included the *Masorah, was the first printed Hebrew Bible to be

suitable both for liturgical use and for study; it served as a model for most subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible for the next 400 years. With regard to the text of the Bible itself, the influence of the Rabbinic

Bible of 1525 lasted until the third edition of Kittel’s (1929-1937), which substituted the text of the Leningrad Codex. A completely new edition, Migqra’ot Gedolot Ha-Keter, based on the Aleppo Codex, is now being produced by Bar-Ilan University Press under the direction of Menahem Cohen.

Biblia Hebraica

e B. Barry Levy, “Rabbinic Bibles, MI/KRA’OT GEDOLOT, and Other Great Books,” Tradition 25 (1991): 65-81. Jordan Penkower, “Rabbinic Bible,” in The Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN, 1999), 2:361b-364a. Eliezer Segal, “Image Map of the Miqra’ot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible)” http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudMap/MG.html. David Stern, “The Rabbinic Bible in Its Sixteenth Century Context,” in Jewish Books in the 16!” Century, ed. Adam Shear and Yosef Hacker, (Philadelphia, forthcoming). —~MICHAEL CARASIK

MIQVA’OT

H. LIM

(NiN1773; Ritual Baths), tractate consist-

ing of ten chapters in Mishnah order *Tohorot, with

related material in the Tosefta’ but with no gemara’ in either Talmud. It deals with the rules pertaining to purification by means of ritual immersion. Biblical law provides for ritual purification—“he shall bathe all his flesh in water” (Lv. 15.16); for more

extreme

forms of impurity, the Bible says, “he shall bathe his flesh in living waters” (Lv. 15.13). Miqgva’ot defines these

forms

of immersion,

requiring

for both

of

them water from a natural source that has not been sullied by human intervention. “Living waters” is understood to mean fresh spring water, which purifies while in motion, so long as its flow has not been interrupted by a vessel; whereas a *migveh purifies only so long as its waters are stationary. The rabbis understood the provision to bathe “all his flesh” (Lv. 15.16) to mean that there should be no impediment separating any part of the body, or any part of a ritually immersed vessel (Nm. 31.23), from the purifying waters. Tractate Miqva’ot pronounces the special presumption of purity attached to baths found in Erets Yisra’el (Miq. 8.1). An English translation of the Mishanat_ tractate is found in Herbert Danby’s The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933). ¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem,

MIQTSAT MA‘ASEI HA-TORAH,

one of the *Dead

1958). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Taharoth (Gateshead,

1973).

Hermann

Leberecht

Strack

and

Ginter

Stemberger,

Sea Scrolls. Six copies (40394-399) of the document

Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl

known as MMT were found in Cave 4 at Qumran. The overlapping fragments allowed the editors to reconstruct some 130 lines of the original text. As

(1931; Minneapolis,

it stands,

the reconstructed

text

consists

of three

sections: a solar 364-day calendar, a section of some twenty legal disputes, and an admonitory letter. Originally the editors believed that this letter was written by the founder of the Dead Sea sect, the *Teacher of Righteousness, to his enemy, the Wicked Priest. While one of the two editors (Elisha Qimron) believes it to be a letter or epistle, the other (John

Strugnell) questions its genre. The halakhic stance of the three diverse groups represented in MMT on various legal matters (e.g., poured liquid and purity after immersion) are reminiscent of the arguments between the Sadducees (“we”) and Pharisees (“they”)

in rabbinic literature (esp. Yad. 4). ¢ Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Disqualifications of Priests in 4Q Fragments of the Damascus Document, a Specimen of the Recovery of pre-Rabbinic Halakha” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991, edited by Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner (Leiden, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 502-513. Steven Fraade, “To Whom It May Concern: 4OMMT and Its Addressee(s),” Revue de Qumran 19 (2000): 507-526. Maxine L. Grossman, “Reading 40MMT:

Genre and History,” Revue de Qumran 20 (2001): 3-22. John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein, Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law

and History (Atlanta, 1996). Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, eds., with Ya‘akov Sussman and Ada Yardeni, Migqsat Ma‘asé ha-Torah, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, vol. 10 (Oxford, 1994). Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll and the System of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period” in Temple Scrolls Studies, edited by George J. Brooke (Sheffield, UK,

1989), pp. 239-255. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls

MIQVEH

1992),

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

(MP1; collection [of water]), a collection

of water for the purpose of immersion for ritual purification. It is first mentioned in Leviticus 11.36 which states in reference to purification after ritual impurity for individuals and utensils: “Only a spring, cistern, or collection [miqveh] shall be cleansing.” In Temple times this law was applied to a variety of causes of impurity. Subsequently it was applied primarily to women after *menstruation. In order for a miqveh to be fit for use it must be built on site and not transported to it in prefabricated form. The minimum amount of valid water required for a migveh is forty se’ah, equal to the volume of one square cubit by three cubits (‘“Eruv. 4b; Tosafot Hag. 11a, s.v. berum; Shulhan ‘Arukh, Yoreh De‘ah 201.1). Since halakhic authorities disagree about the size of the biblical cubit (amah), the modern equivalent of forty se’ah ranges from

250 to 1,000 liters of water.

A miqveh

must

also be completely watertight and may not, therefore, be emptied through a hole in the floor. Instead, it is generally emptied from above, by hand, vacuum, or electric pump. Drawn water (mayim she’uvim) is unfit for miqveh use (Mig. 4.1). Natural spring water, rainwater, snow, and melted ice may be used, but care must be taken that no vessel, such as a pump or a meter, interferes with the flow of the water from

MIOVEH its point of origin to the migveh, because contact with any such vessel may render the water impure. To solve this problem, nonmetal pipes free of any special fittings are used, whose last section consists of a special trough of absorbent concrete generally resting on either compact earth or gravel. A small hole connects this trough to the miqveh. The process of transporting valid water in this fashion is known as hamshakhah. In practice, the miqveh usually consists of at least two chambers, one a storage tank and the other the immersion pool. The valid water is stored in the tank which is connected to the immersion pool through a small round hole in the wall separating the two structures. This is based on the Mishnaic principle that once it contains forty se’ah of valid water, a miqveh is not rendered unfit by virtue of the addition of regular water (Mig. 3.1; Maimonides, Hilkhot Miqva‘ot 4.6). It is, therefore, possible to mix valid water with regular water and to maintain a large immersion pool by means of the contact hole. This method is known as hhashagah. The other accepted method is to mix both valid water and regular water in a special tank and to fill the immersion pool with a combination of different types of water (zeri‘ah). It is not uncommon to combine both methods in order to ensure a large supply of immersion water that can be changed at regular intervals. In order to ensure its watertightness, a modern miqveh is built of poured concrete, strengthened with steel bars and a dry mix of cement and iron aggregate. The cement is waterproofed by adding to it an expanding clay material or pulverized rock that swells and forms a jelly-like substance when touched by water. There are special procedures for the filling, heating and draining of a migveh. Migva’ot conforming to the halakhic requirements for their construction have been discovered as early as the Second Temple period and throughout the Middle Ages, in both Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities. There are many Talmudic references to the ubiquitousness of miqva'ot, especially in Jerusalem and in the Temple

501

MIRACLES for the miqveh with an exception, especially outside the United

States,

for converts.

See also ABLUTION;

PURITY AND IMPURITY, RITUAL. e Aryeh Kaplan, Waters of Eden: An Exploration of the Concept of Mikvah (New York, 1982). Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York, 1979), pp. 518-522. Mendel] Lewittes, Jewish Marriage: Rabbinic Law, Legend, and Custom (Northvale, N.J., 1994), pp. 126-128. David Miller, The Secret of the Jew (San Francisco, 1930). Shmuel Rubenstein, The Mikvah Anthology (New York, 1968). Rahel Wasserfall, Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law (Hanover, N. H., 1999). -DANIEL

SINCLAIR

MIR, a small town in Lithuania famous for *yeshivah. The yeshivah, which was founded

its in

approximately 1815 and flourished until World War Il, blended Talmudic scholarship with the Musar teachings of R. Yisra’el *Salanter. During World War II, most of the yeshivah’s students managed to flee through Siberia to Japan and ultimately to Shanghai, China, where they reconstituted the yeshivah. To meet the dearth of Jewish religious texts in that part of the world, the Shanghai Yeshivah reprinted many of the classics. After the war, teachers and students migrated to various Western countries, especially the United States and Israel, where they founded successor schools to the original yeshivah. —~SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN

MIRACLES. The more fully developed concept of miracles presupposes a fixed natural order from which the miraculous event is a departure. The religious belief in miracles assumes that God can set aside the order

of nature

that he has created,

so as to

reveal his saving presence or his omnipotence. Many miracles are recorded in scripture, mainly for the benefit of the Jewish people, including the splitting of the sea after the *Exodus from Egypt, the divine revelation at Sinai, Joshua’s stopping of the sun, or the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha. Miracles are also recorded

in rabbinic literature, though the

miqveh is used for spiritual ablution and the ritual purification of utensils. In Talmudic times it was also

rabbis do not offer a systematic theory or doctrine of the phenomenon. Thus the Mishnah lists a number of miraculous things that were created on the eve of the first Sabbath, that is, before the work of creation ended, and of miraculous phenomena in the Temple. The Talmud recounts miracles performed by saintly men (e.g., *Honiha-Me‘aggel, *Hanina’ ben

used by men, after intercourse or other emissions of

Dosa’), and many

sperm, but this custom was almost totally abandoned subsequently. Maimonides emphasizes the spiritual nature of miqveh immersion and states categorically that “uncleanliness is not mud or filth which water can remove but is dependent upon the intention of

“experienced in miracles.” However, not everything called a miracle by the rabbis is a spectacular or manifestly supernatural event, and the term is sometimes used to denote God's salvation in everyday matters, such as the finding of daily bread or recovery after an illness, as in the language of the *‘Amidah prayer, “the miracles that are daily with us—morning, noon, and night.” The rabbis emphasize that people are surrounded at all times by miracles, although they may be unaware of many of them. Both usages of

environs. In addition to menstruant women, women after childbirth, and converts (see PROSELYTE), the

the heart. Therefore, the sages said: Ifa man immerses

himself but lacks special intention, then it is as though he has not immersed himself at all” (Hilkhot Miqva’ot 11.12). Regular immersion in a miqveh is a practice of some pious ascetics, and it is a Hasidic custom for

men to immerse themselves before the Sabbath. The Conservative movement upholds the principle of ritual immersion, although it is not widely observed, except for converts. Reform Judaism does not accept the need

Talmudic

rabbis are described as

the term, however, refer to the work of God, either

directly executed by him or through the mediation of a human or natural agency. With the development of the philosophical concepts of natural order and causality,

it became

increasingly difficult to defend miracles,

and the more rationalist medieval thinkers, such as Moses *Maimonides and *Levi ben Gershom, tried

to reduce the significance of even biblical miracles to a minimum, explaining most of them as symbolic allegories or dreams. This cautious rationalism of the philosophers stands in marked contrast to the belief in miracles that characterizes popular religion and certain forms of mysticism. Belief in miracles has often bordered on *magic and superstition, and it flourished in the Hasidic movement,

which ascribed

the power to work miracles to the saintly leader or *tsaddiq. See also Ba’AL SHEM. e Allan Arkush in Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr, eds., Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought (New York, 1987), pp. 621-625. Isaac Husik, A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 358-361. Mordecai M. Kaplan, “Introduction,” in The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion (New York, 1947). Kaufmann Kohler, “Miracles and the Cosmic Order,” in Jewish Theology (Cincinnati, 1943), chap. 27. Franz Rosenzweig, “On the Possibility of Experiencing Miracles,” in The Star of Redemption, translated by William W. Hallo (New York, 1971). Solomon

Schechter, “On the Study of the Talmud,” in Studies in Judaism (Philadelphia, 1945).

MIRIAM (Heb. Miriyam), sister of “Aaron and *Moses (Nm. 26.59; Mi. 6.4; 1 Chr. 6.3), who is also

called a prophet (Ex. 15.20). She helped to save the life of Moses in his infancy (Ex. 2.4-8). A competition over leadership and the status of a prophet seems to inform the incident in Numbers

12, where Moses’

superiority as prophet and leader is challenged on two counts: his marriage to a Cushite woman and Miriam and Aaron’s claim that their own prophetic powers are analogous to his. When God supports Moses’ superiority as prophet and leader, Miriam is punished by a skin disease, and only after a period of isolation does she rejoin the camp. Another indication of her prominence is the attribution of a victory song to her and a women’s choir (Ex. 15.20-21) after the Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds (Ex. 14), paralleling

the recital of a poem by Moses and the [male] Israelites (Ex. 15.1-19).

The figure of Miriam has been embraced by contemporary Jewish feminists, especially in the ritual of the Miriam’s

cup, which is filled with water and

placed on the Passover seder table. The use of an elaborately decorated cup, and the ritual of pouring associated with it, are designed to remind participants of the well of life-giving water that midrash associates with Miriam. The Reconstructionist movement also recognizes Miriam by including her name, along with

that of Moses,

in the liturgical

recitation

of

the mi ka-mokha, commemorating the song that the Israelites sang after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. * Bernhard W. Anderson, “The Song of Miriam Poetically and Theologically Considered,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, edited by Elaine R. Follis (Sheffield, UK, 1987), pp. 285-296. J. Gerald Janzen, “Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Who Is Seconding Whom?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 211-220. Ilana Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, Mass., 1992). Phyllis Trible, “Bringing Miriam Out of the Shadows,” Bible Review 2 (Feb 1989): 14-25, 34. -ATHALYA

MIRIAM’S

MISHNAH

502

MIRACLES

CUP. See Miriam.

BRENNER

MI SHE-BERAKH (712U ‘2; “He who blessed”), the opening words of a synagogal prayer, in various forms, in which God’s blessing is requested for any individuals. Its recitation is customary in most rites during the *geri’at ha-Torah (reading of the Torah); it is offered by the reader for each person called to the reading, after which that person may request prayers to be added in honor of his (or, in nonOrthodox congregations, her) relations or anyone else. The prayer frequently (although less so today) states that the one requesting it has vowed a sum for charity. Special formulas are introduced for sick people, baby namings, boys at the time of their circumcision, and so on. Variations were also composed to fit different historical circumstances. A general Mi she-Berakh prayer dating from the geonic period calls on God to bless members of the congregation—together with other congregations—and is recited in the morning prayer service on Sabbaths and festivals. While the traditional version of Mi she-Berakh refers to the three *patriarchs, the Sephardi rite has a parallel version for the blessing of women that invokes the four matriarchs. In Israeli and some diaspora synagogues an additional Mi she-Berakh prayer has been added for the welfare of Israel’s soldiers. e

Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:

Raymond

P. Scheindlin

A Comprehensive History, translated by

(Philadelphia,

1993), Abraham

Idelsohn, Jewish

Liturgy and Its Development (New York, 1932). Macy Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale, N.J., 1993).

Nulman,

The

MI SHE-BERAKH LE-HOLIM (0°91n5 Frau 9; He Who Blesses the Sick), a common form of prayer for the sick. In addition to the eighth blessing of the weekday *‘Amidah, which is a petition for the healing of the sick, any individual may offer prayers for sick friends or relatives. These prayers can be added to the above blessing or else to the sixteenth blessing of the ‘Amidah (which is used freely as a framework into which personal requests may be inserted). Prayers for the sick may also be offered in the synagogue after the reading of the Torah; it is usual for the person

requesting such a prayer to promise to contribute to charity (see MI SHE-BERAKH). It is also read psalms for the sake of the sick. recited by a sick person, incorporating brief confession of sin, were composed were gravely ill, as were special prayers solemn change of *name.

customary to Prayers to be psalms and a for those who including the

° Jeffrey Glickman, “The Prayers and Praxis of Healing for the Contemporary Rabbinate,” thesis, Hebrew Union College, 1987. Hirshel L. Jaffe, Gates of Healing (New York,

1988). Joseph S. Ozarowski,

To Walk in God’s Ways:

Jewish Pastoral Perspectives on Illness and Bereavement

1995).

MISHKAN.

(Northvale, N.J.,

See TABERNACLE; TEMPLE.

MISHMAROT.

See Ma‘amap.

MISHNAH (772079; oral instruction), oral law compilation dating from approximately 200 ck, which serves as the foundation text for Talmudic law and tradition. The Hebrew verb shanah (repeat) came to be applied

MISHNAH

503

specifically to the repetition and memorization of oral traditions, hence to the study of oral law. The

term mishnah may designate the method of oral study (in contra-distinction to migra’, that is, study of scripture), a specific unit of oral instruction, or a compilation oforal instruction. A sage who expounded mishnah was designated in Talmudic literature as a tanna’, deriving from the root teni, the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew shanah. During the second century, mishnah collections abounded among the sages of Erets Yisra’el. However, by the turn of the century, one collection, that of R. *Yehuda ha-Nasi’— known as Rabbi—had achieved recognition as the authoritative compilation. From that time forward, the term

Mishnah

referred to this compilation,

and

material from all other compilations came to be known as baraiytot (external mishnayyot; from Aram. bar [outside]). The Mishnah consists of six sedarim (orders), each

of which

deals

with

a major

division

of the oral

law: *Zera‘im (Seeds), *Mo‘ed (Appointed Time), *Nashim (Women), *Neziqin (Damages), *Qodashim (Holy Things), and *Tohorot (Purities). Each of these divisions is subdivided into massekhtot (tractates; from massekhet [woven fabric]), which in turn are

divided into chapters and into individual pericopes, called halakhot, or more popularly, mishnayyot. Because of the frequently illogical nature of the division into chapters and halakhot, J. N. Epstein has argued that these divisions are not an organic part of the original Mishnah composition but that they were introduced by the Mishnah reciters of post-Mishnaic times, who needed to break Mishnah into smaller units

MISHNAH

to the order of the Torah. A central figure in the history of Mishnah redaction was R. ‘Aqiva’, whose major contributions to both forms of arranging oral law generated intensive work by his disciples. Rabbi Me’ir’s Mishnah arrangement served as the main basis for the Mishnah of Yehuda ha-Nasi’. Since the medieval period, there have been two schools of thought, based on two conflicting versions of Iggeret Rav Sherira’ Ga’on, about whether the Mishnah was redacted orally or was committed to writing. Current scholarly opinion follows the view of Saul Lieberman, who argued that even though there may have been written exemplars of Mishnah, it was transmitted orally throughout the Talmudic and most of the geonic periods and was first published in written form during the geonic period. Following the widespread acceptance of the Mishnah of R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’, the emphasis of the study of oral law shifted to the interpretation and application of the Mishnah, together with other tannaitic materials, focusing not on the mere formulation of the law, as in Mishnah, but on the dialectical and hermeneutical

principles on which the law is based (see TALMUD). Inasmuch as the Mishnah’s formulations and structures do not correspond to those that would be expected in a legal codex, scholars have debated issues of the logic and purpose of Mishnaic redaction. Some, such as J. N. Epstein and E. E. Urbach, have sought explanations based on higher criticism for divergences in the Mishnah from the logical order one would expect. Others, such as H. Albeck and A. Goldberg,

have suggested that the Mishnah was designed not as a legal code but as an educational

device, such

more recent scholarship has suggested that these divisions are significant in understanding the literary and conceptual structure of Mishnah. Most scholars, following Iggeret Rav Sherira’ Ga'on

that its order is dictated by pedagogic concerns, for example, ease in memorization. Some recent scholars suggest that Mishnaic forms and principles reflect the conceptual foundations of the Mishnah’s halakhic thinking. The frequent aggadic pronouncements and

(10th cent.), understand the Mishnah to be the product

anecdotes within the Mishnah, which are interwoven

of successive stages of redaction, originating around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, prior to which oral law was transmitted from master to disciple without fixed formulations or fixed order. The late Second Temple origin of Mishnaic forms is

with the halakhic material in a highly sophisticated literary manner, may be seen as supporting this last viewpoint. There are frequent differences between the text of the Mishnah as preserved in the Talmud Bavli and the Talmud Yerushalmi and in manuscript versions of the Mishnah, which modern linguistic scholarship has traced to Palestinian and Babylonian versions of Mishnaic Hebrew. Insofar as the Mishnah was not, in the Babylonian tradition, studied as an independent

to ease their memorization

and recitation. However,

based partly on external evidence, such as Talmudic statements (Y., Yoma’ 2.3, 39d; Yoma’ 16a) attributing

tractates Tamid and Middot to tanna’im who lived at the end of the Second Temple period and a statement in the Tosefta’ (T., “Eduy. 1.1) that may be understood as attributing tractate ‘Eduyyot to the high court of Yavneh. Internal evidence is also cited, such as the list of names of Temple functionaries in Shegalim 5.1, which appears to portray the situation existing most probably at the time immediately preceding the Second Temple’s destruction.

text

but

rather

as

a part

of Talmud

study,

the

Babylonian version of the Mishnah was preserved primarily in manuscripts of the Talmud Bavli. The Palestinian version has been best preserved in three complete Mishnah manuscripts, known as the Kauf-

the Midrashic arrangement, based on associating oral

man MS (in the library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), the Parma MS 138, and the Cambridge MS 73 (published by W. H. Lowe as Matnita’ deTalmuda’ di-Venei Ma‘arav’a). The editio princeps of the Mishnah is the Naples edition of 1492, containing

traditions with scriptural verses, arranged according

Maimonides’ commentary. Modern editions are based

In the initial stages of formulating and organizing the

oral law, the Mishnaic arrangement of material, based on form and content, contended for supremacy with

on the Mishnah text as corrected by R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, who printed the Mishnah together with his commentary, Tosafot Yom Tov, in Prague from 1614 through 1617. There is as yet no critical edition of the Mishnah as a whole, although critical editions exist for Zera‘im, as well as for several tractates from other Mishnah orders. Other important Mishnah commentators include: R. ‘Ovadyah Bertinoro (15th cent.), R. Shelomo Adeni (Melekhet Shelomo, 17th cent.), R. Yisra’el Lipschutz (Tiferet Yisra’el, 19th cent.), and H. Albeck (1958-1959).

English translations include those by H. Danby (1933), P. Blackman

(1951-1956),

and

J. Neusner

(1988).

In addition, the Mishnah may be found in English translation in the Soncino Talmud translation, as well

as in a recent English translation of the commentary to the Mishnah by P. Kehati. ¢

Chanoch

MITSRANUT

504

MISHNAH

Albeck, Mavo’ la-Mishnah

(Jerusalem,

1959). Jacob Nahum

Epstein, Mavo’ le-Nusah ha-Mishnah, 2d ed. (Tel Aviv, 1964). Jacob Nahum Epstein, Mevo’ot le-Sifrut ha-Tanna’im (Jerusalem, 1957). Abraham

Goldberg, “The Mishna: A Study Book of Halakhah,” in The Literature of the Sages, edited by Shmuel Safrai (Assen and Philadelphia, 1987), pt. 1, pp. 211-262. David Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1986). Jacob David Herzog, ed, and trans., Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1945). Benjamin Manasseh Lewin, ed., Iggeret Rav Sherira’ Ga’on (1921; Jerusalem, 1982). Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950). Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, pt. 21, The Redaction and Formulation of the Order of Purities in Mishnah and Tosefta (Leiden, 1977). Jacob Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago and London, 1981).

MITNAGGEDIM (0°72273; opponents), opponents of Hasidism. The first bans of excommunication against Hasidim were issued in 1772 by *Eliyyahu ben Shelomo Zalman of Vilna, the Vilna Ga’on. A second wave of bans followed the year after the first Hasidic publication, Toledot Ya‘agov Yosef (1780). A third cycle of excommunications ensued after the expansion of Hasidic influence and the publication of the Tanya’ by Shneur Zalman of Lyady in 1796. In this last phase, the Hasidim and then their opponents sought to enlist the support of Russian government officials. During the 1790s, pamphlets attacking Hasidism were written by two itinerant preachers and zealous opponents of the movement, David of Makéw and Israel Lobel of Sluck. A pamphlet published in 1772 contained most of the key objections of the Mitnaggedim to Hasidic practice: the displacement by simple piety of Talmudic erudition in the hierarchy of values; the establishment of separate places of prayer where a different liturgy was followed and the fixed times of prayer sometimes were not fixed; changes in the method of ritual slaughter of animals (shehitah); excessive lightheartedness

(“all their days are like holidays”) and consumption of alcohol; a certain Shabbatean

aroma;

attribution

of supernatural powers to their leaders, who bilked

to the

their followers of contributions; and the hubris of the

Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

Hasidim, who “have little of the bread of oral Torah,” yet “enter the rose garden of the Kabbalah.” On a different plane, there was the Mitnaggedic perception of the theological dangers associated with Hasidic doctrine and practice: the notion that divinity could be worshiped through material deeds; that “strange thoughts” could be elevated; and that God should be sought through both the evil and the good inclination.

Hermann

Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger,

Introduction

1992). Yaacov Sussman, “Kitvei Yad u-Mesorot Nusah shel ha-Mishnah,” World Congress of Jewish Studies 7 (1981). Dov Zlotnick, The Iron Pillar: Mishnah; Redaction, Form, and Intent (Jerusalem, 1988). -AVRAHAM

MISHNEH

TORAH.

MISHPAT

‘IVRI. See JEwisH Law.

WALFISH

See MaImMonipEs, MOSsEs.

In a word,

MI-SINAI (*2°0?3; from Sinai), a body of fixed melodies constituting a significant segment of Ashkenazi synagogue tradition that emerged in southwest Germany between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries. The term is used interchangeably with the Yiddish expression scarbova niggunim. Ya‘aqov ben Moshe haLevi *Molin, a renowned fourteenth-century rabbinic authority and hazzan, decreed that local custom and universal Jewish traditional melodies may not be changed. Most of the mi-Sinai melodies are associated with the High Holy Days and festivals. The melody that pervades the High Holy Day Ma(‘ariv service, the chant for Kol Nidrei, and the melody for the Qaddish preceding the prayers for rain and dew (among others) became familiar tunes. The liberal reforms of the nineteenth century removed traditional nussah from the vocabulary of synagogue music, but the mi-Sinai melodies retained their place in the service, even when the texts associated with them were translated or otherwise altered. ¢ Eric Werner, A Voice Still Heard: The Sacred Songs of the Ashkenazic Jews (University Park, Pa., 1976), pp. 26-45.

-MARSHA

BRYAN

EDELMAN

the almost

pantheistic

teachings

of the

Hasidic leaders tended toward the confusion of the realms of the sacred and the profane, of good and evil. During the nineteenth century, the challenge of modernizing trends of thought muted the divisions within the traditional community; being a Mitnagged became merely a private preference within Orthodoxy. ¢ Gershon Hundert, Essential Papers on Hasidism: Origins to Present (New York, 1991). Norman Lamm, Torah Lishmah: Torah for Torah’s Sake in the Works of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin and His Contemporaries (New York, 1989). Gloria Pollack, Eli‘ezer Zweifel and the Intellectual Defense of Hasidism (Hoboken, N.J., 1995). Elijah Judah Schochet, The Hasidic Movement and the Gaon of Vilna (Northvale, N.J., 1994). Mordecai Wilensky, Hasidim

u-Mitnaggedim: Le-Toledot ha-Pulmus she-Beineihem 2 vols. (Jerusalem,

1970).

-GERSHON

ba-Shanim DAVID

532-535,

HUNDERT

MITSRANUT (139873; abutter’s rights). In Jewish law, one who owns a property has the right to purchase the property abutting it from the neighbor when the neighbor wishes to or is forced for some reason to sell (B.M. 108a). The neighbor may be compelled to sell to the abutter at the market price; the neighbor may not demanda higher price from an abutter merely because the abutter may be more anxious to buy. On the other hand, Talmudic sages rule that the abutter must

purchase the land for personal use and not merely to take advantage of a pressing financial need of the

MITSRANUT neighbor. When multiple neighbors abut, the one who plans to use the land in the same manner as the seller has precedence. ¢ Shalom Albeck, Dinei ha-Mamonot ba-Talmud (Tel Aviv, 1976). Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, 4 vols. (Philadelphia, 1994), Raymond Westbrook, Property and Family in Biblical Law, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 113 (Sheffield, UK, 1991). —~MICHAEL

BROYDE

MITSVAH (773813; commandment), religious *duty or obligation; the term also came to mean a good deed. The word applies especially to the biblical “commandments and the statutes and the ordinances which I command you” (Dt. 7.11), which in their totality make up the *Torah. They form the basis of Jewish law (*halakhah) and behavior. The number of biblical mitsvot is 613, according to the traditional count (see COMMANDMENTS, 613), consisting of 365 prohibitions

MIZRAH

505

(mitsvot

lo’ ta‘aseh

or

lav)

and

248

positive precepts (mitsvot ‘aseh). In addition to the biblical mitsvot (known as de-’oraita’ [from the Torah]), there are innumerable mitsvot of rabbinic origin (de-rabbanan; Pes. 10a; Suk. 44a). Some of the rabbinic ordinances are treated as if they had divine authority, and the blessing recited prior to their performance contains the formula otherwise confined to biblical precepts (“Blessed are you, our God, who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to ...”). These include the mitsvot

of washing the hands before meals, kindling the Sabbath and festival lights, making the *‘eruwv, reciting Hallel on festival days, lighting the Hanukkah lights, and reading the scroll of Esther on Purim. The rabbis allow that there may be gradations of importance between various mitsvot (of certain mitsvot, such as tsitsit [Ned. 25a], circumcision [Ned. 32a], and charity [B.B. 9a], it is said that their performance

is equal to the observance of the entire Torah) but nevertheless enjoin that one must “be as heedful of a light mitsvah as of an important one, for you never know the reward for the performance of a mitsvah”

A person already engaged in performing a mitsvah is exempt from performing another one that should be done at the same time (Ber. 4a). The sages suggested that mitsvot should be performed aesthetically, *hiddur mitsvah (in the biblical phrase “This is my God and I will glorify him” [Ex. 15.2], glorify can also be interpreted as beautify). From this derived the traditions, for example, of decorating the sukkah or making Torah scrolls beautiful (Shab. 133b),

which inspired Jewish ritual *art. Whether a mitsvah requires kavvanah (*intent), or whether the mere act is sufficient in itself, is a matter of dispute in the Talmud (Ber. 13a).

The question of the meaning and purpose of the mitsvot gave rise to discussion in Talmudic literature and in medieval and subsequent Jewish thought. A distinction was made between hugqim (ordinances or laws), for which no rational explanation could be given,

and

commandments,

for which

reasons

could be adduced and that would be observed even without divine revelation as expressions of natural morality (for example, honoring one’s parents or the prohibitions against murder, theft, and dishonesty; see

COMMANDMENTS, REASONS FOR). Starting with Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitsvot cent.),

which

divided

the

mitsvot

into

(12th

fourteen

categories following the divisions of books in his Mishneh Torah, various works were written listing the mitsvot, including Sefer Mitsvot Gadol by Moshe ben Ya‘agov of Coucy (13th cent.) and the shorter Sefer Mitsvot Qatan by Yitshaq ben Yosef of Corbeil (13th cent.). See also ‘ASEH; Lo’ TA‘ASEH *

Gersion

Appel, A Philosophy of Mitzvot (New York,

Blech, Understanding Judaism:

1975). Benjamin

The Basics of Deed and Creed (New York,

1991), Abraham Chill, The Mitzvot: The Commandments and Their Rationale (Jerusalem, 1974). Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb: A Philosophy of Jewish Laws and Observations, translated by Isidor Grunfeld (London, 1962). Herbert Samuel Goldstein, Between the Lines of the Bible: A Modern Commentary on the 613 Commandments (New York, 1959). Moses

Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvoth: The Book of Mitzvoth, translated by Shraga Silverstein (New York, 1993). Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “Commandments,”

in

Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, edited by Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (New York, 1987), pp. 67-80.

(Avot 2.1). Mitsvot are classified in several ways, such

as those between humans and God and those between one human and another. Mitsvot are also classified by the severity of punishment legislated for their transgression (capital punishment, flogging, sacrifice, etc.). Another distinction is made between mitsvot that

can be performed at any time and those that must be fulfilled at a fixed hour (women are exempt from the positive commandments that are time-bound, because

of household duties). Another category of mitsvot is those that can be performed only in Erets Yisra’el. The opposite of a mitsvah is an ‘averah (transgres-

MIXED

KINDS.

See KiL’ayim.

MIXED

MARRIAGE.

See INTERMARRIAGE.

MIZMOR (7713173; song), a word that occurs in the superscriptionsof more than a third of all psalms, and, hence, is synonymous with psalm. See also ZEMIROT. -SHALOM PAUL MIZRACHI.

See RELIGIOUS PARTIES IN ISRAEL.

sion; see SIN). The rabbis said that a mitsvah that is

fulfilled through an ‘averah is reckoned as an ‘averah (Suk. 30a); that is, with regard to mitsvot, the end does

not justify the means. One becomes responsible for the performance of mitsvot when one attains his or her religious majority: for a boy, his *bar mitsvah; for a girl her *bat mitsvah (see ADULT). A father is obligated to prepare his children for this responsibility.

MIZRAH (713; east), a plaque, often highly artistic, frequently with only the word mizrah on it, hung on the eastern wall of a synagogue or in a private home when west of Erets Yisra’el, indicating the direction

of Jerusalem. Jewish law requires the worshiper when standing in prayer, and especially when reciting the ‘Amidah,

to face Jerusalem.

This

is in fulfillment

MIZRAH of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the First Temple: “They shall pray to you toward their land which you gave their fathers, the city which you have chosen and the house which I have built to your name” (/ Kgs. 8.48). Arks in synagogues that are to the west of Erets Yisra’el are traditionally built on the eastern wall, so that worshipers will face the ark and,

by extension, Jerusalem, when they pray. To avoid the accusation of worshiping the sun by turning east, the *Shulhan ‘Arukh advocates turning in a south easterly direction (Orah Hayyim 94.2). Because of the significance of the east in Jewish ritual, the most prized seats in synagogues were generally those “on the mizrah wall,” and these were often reserved for

the rabbi and dignitaries. ¢ F. Landsberger, “The Sacred Direction in Synagogue and Church,” Hebrew Union College Annual 28 (1957): 181-203; reprinted in The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture, edited by Joseph Gutmann (New York, 1975), pp. 239-261.

MIZRAHI, ELTYYAHU

-SHMUEL

(i.e.,

of Turkish,

HIMELSTEIN

(1450-1526), rabbi in Con-

stantinople. Born in Constantinople family

not

to a Romaniot

Spanish,

origin),

he

was recognized at the end of the century, after the death of Moshe Capsali, by both the Romaniot and Sephardi Jews as the supreme authority in the Ottoman empire. Highly regarded for his comprehensive general knowledge and for his halakhic expertise, he also welcomed

the refugees

from

Spain, whose

contribution to Jewish culture he greatly appreciated. His approach to the community was democratic; he rejected conferring any special status on the rich and the learned. He ruled that taxation should be based on socioeconomic considerations. He advocated a rapprochement with the Karaites, despite their rejection of rabbinic teachings, and taught them the oral law, although he strictly prohibited intermarriage between Rabbanites and Karaites. His best-known work is his supercommentary on Rashi (Venice, 1527).

He also wrote a book on mathematics, Sefer ha-Mispar (Constantinople,

1533), and was versed in Greek and

Arabic philosophy. He opposed Kabbalah, especially as a basis for halakhic decisions. In his responsa (Constantinople, 1560) he describes his busy daily life, including his rabbinic duties, heading a yeshivah, and teaching. ¢ J. R. Hacker, “Ottoman Policy toward Jews,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York, 1982), pp. 117-126. -SHALOM

MLOKHIM

MODENA, LEONE

506

BAR-ASHER

BUKH, a major Yiddish poetic work,

setting biblical narrative in a European form, in the

manner of the *Shemu’el Bukh. Believed to have been composed in the fifteenth century, and framed in Nibelungen (Hildebrand) stanza, the Mlokhim

Bukh comprises stories derived from / and 2 Kings, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The anonymous author draws copiously from later Jewish sources as well as his own sense of humor. The language employed is sophisticated

and forward-looking. The first printed edition is from Augsburg in 1543. * Max Erik, Di geshikhte fun der yidisher literatur: fun di eltste haskalah-tekufah, (Warsaw, 1928; repr. New York, 1979), pp. Lajb Fuks, Das Altjiddische Epos Melokim-Buk, 2 vols. (Assen, Shmeruk, Prokim fun der yidisher literatur-geshikhte (Tel Aviv, 118, 160, 179, 183, 194, 197, 198.

MNEMONICS,

actual

tsaytn biz der 121-122, 222. 1965). Chone 1988), pp. 97,

—DOVID

or artificial

words

KATZ

used

as

aids in memorizing. A favorite approach was creating an acronym,

by which

the initial letters of various

words would form a single word (see ABBREVIATIONS AND

ACRONYMS).

Mnemonics

were

important

in the

transmission of oral traditions and the liturgy at a time when the ordinary worshiper did not have a prayer book. Mnemonics were common both in literary compositions (for example, alphabetic and other *acrostics in Psalms and Lamentations and in *piyyut) and for memorizing halakhic discussions and conclusions (cf. *yaqgnehaz or—a nonhalakhic example—the three meaningless words quoted in the *Seder service, which constitute a mnemonic for the Ten Plagues [see PLAGUES OF EcypT]). Mnemonics are

also used as a device for remembering grammatical rules (e.g., bagad kefat to indicate the letters that take a dagesh lene). The rabbis advocated the use of mnemonics for study and suggested that the scholars of Judah remembered what they had learned while those of Galilee forgot because the former used mnemonics (‘Eruv. 53-54). ¢ Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission

in Rabbinic

Judaism

and

Early Christianity

(Lund,

1964).

Frances Yates, The Art of Memory (London, 1992).

MOAB.

See AMMON AND Moas.

MO‘ADIM LE-SIMHAH. See GREETINGS AND CONGRATULATIONS. MODEH ANI (38 7773; I Give Thanks), a short prayer said immediately upon waking in the morning. It does not appear in medieval sources and seems to have been composed in the seventeenth century to replace Elohay Neshamah (O My God, the Soul That You Gave Me), which is mentioned

in the Talmud,

and which was transferred to the Morning Blessings (*Birkhot ha-Shahar). Modeh Ani does not mention the divine name and could be recited while still in bed and before performing the prescribed morning ablutions. It expresses thanks to the “living and eternal king” for the return of one’s soul after sleep and welcomes the presence of God upon waking. ¢

Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:

1993),

MODENA,

AHARON

A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia,

;

BERAKHYAH.

See AHARON

BEREKHYAH BEN MOSHE OF MODENA.

MODENA, LEONE (1571-1648), Italian rabbi and a versatile writer; also known as Yehuda Aryeh. His literary achievements were especially outstanding,

and he was one of the most colorful figures in the

MODENA, LEONE

507

Venice ghetto. In his apologetic work Historia de’ riti Ebraici

(Paris,

1637),

he wrote

as a proud

resident

of the ghetto but was also influenced by external culture, advocating the introduction of polyphony into synagogue music. He also advocated the harmonization of Jewish and Catholic sensibilities. His sermons attracted distinguished gentile audiences, and helped to alter Christian stereotypes of Judaism by explaining Jewish ritual. His Hayyei Yehuda was translated into English by Mark R. Cohen as The Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi: Leon Modena’s Life of Judah (Princeton, 1988). Modena’s responsa, She'elot u-Teshuvot Ziqnei Yehuda, were edited by Shelomo Simonson (Jerusalem, 1956). * Howard Adelman, “Success and Failure in the Seventeenth Century Ghetto

of Venice: The Life and Thought of Leon Modena,” Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1985. Mare R. Cohen, “Leone da Modena’s Ritti, a Seventeenth-Century Plea for Social Toleration of Jews,” in Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, edited by David B. Ruderman (New York, 1992), pp. 429-473. E. Horowitz, “The Eve of the Circumcision: A Chapter in the History of Jewish Nightlife,” in Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, edited by David B. Ruderman (New York, 1992), pp. 554-588.

MODERN

ORTHODOXY.

-SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

See NEo-orRTHODOXxY; OR-

THODOXY.

MO‘ED (713; Appointed Time), second order of the Mishnah, dealing with the laws of Sabbath and festivals. It has twelve tractates, each of which has related

material in the Tosefta’ as well as in both Talmuds

(except *Sheqalim, which lacks gemara’ in the Talmud Bavli). The twelve tractates are *Shabbat, *‘Eruvin, *Pesahim, *Sheqalim, *Yoma’, *Sukkah, *Beitsah, *Ro’sh ha-Shanah, *Ta‘anit, *Megillah; *Mo‘ed Qatan,

and *Hagigah.

-AVRAHAM WALFISH

MO‘ED QATAN (]¥pP 11); Minor Appointed Time), tractate consisting of three chapters in Mishnah order *Mo‘ed, with related material in the Tosefta’ and both

MOHILEVER,

SHEMU’EL

The Talmud Bavli tractate was translated into English by H. M. Lazarus in the Soncino Talmud (London,

1938).

¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Mo‘ed (Jerusalem, 1952). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 2, Order Moed (Gateshead, 1973). Pinhas Kehati, ed., Mishnah: A New Translation with a Commentary, Seder Moed, vol. 5, Ta‘anit, Megillah, Moed Katan, Haggigah (Jerusalem, 1991). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

1992),

MOHAMMED. MOHEL

-AVRAHAM

See MuHAmmap.

min: circumciser), a person authorized to

perform a *circumcision. newborn

WALFISH

The duty to circumcise a

male rests with the father, but the actual

operation is entrusted to a person duly trained and declared competent both in theory and practice. The mohel thus acts as the agent of the parent. Although according to law any competent Jew may perform a circumcision, preference is given to one of genuine piety who performs the act “for the sake of heaven.” According to Maimonides (Hilkhot Milah 2.1), a woman,

a non-Jew, or even a competent minor

may act as mohel where no competent male Jew is available. The Talmud states that a “sage should be able to perform ritual slaughter and circumcision” (Mul. 9a). Many Jews now prefer a mohel who is also a medical

doctor.

In the U.S., non-physician

circumcisers often receive quasi-medical training in the procedure. ¢

Michael

A. Grodin,

“Professional

Issues

for the Physician

Mohel,”

Conservative Judaism 42 (1990): 46-53. Paysach J. Krohn, Bris Milah: Circumcision, the Covenant of Abraham: A Compendium (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1986).

MOHILEVER, SHEMU’EL (1824-1898), Russian Zionist and rabbi of Bialystok. He used his considerable rabbinic reputation, enhanced by his wide general knowledge,

to

unite

both

secular

and

Orthodox

the laws of mo‘ed, a term used in Mo‘ed Qatan to indicate the intermediate days of Pesah and Sukkot. Whereas biblical law characterizes only the first and the last days of these festivals as days

nationalists in founding the pre-Herzlian Zionist movement of Hibbat Tsiyyon in Warsaw in 1882, convening the first conference of the Hovevei Tsiyyon at Kattowitz in 1884. He succeeded in persuading the Parisian philanthropist Baron Edmond de Rothschild to support their agricultural settlements, monitoring their progress himself in a visit to Palestine in 1890. He headed a rabbinic campaign in 1882 calling on the Jewish masses fleeing from the Russian pogroms

of refraining from

to the West to settle instead the ancestral homeland,

Talmuds. An early name for the tractate, taken from its first word, was Mashqin. The name Mo‘ed Qatan

(in early sources, simply Mo‘ed) refers to the subject of the tractate,

work

(Lv. 23.39; cf. Lv. 23.7-8),

the rabbinic tradition characterizes the intermediate days as *hol ha-mo‘ed (the secular portion of the appointed time), requiring a partial restriction of work activities during these days as well. Mo‘ed Qatan outlines the categories of work that are exempted from this prohibition, including activities that are essential to prevent financial loss, as well as activities that are

necessary for public welfare or for proper enjoyment of the festival. The prohibition of mourning the death of a relative during the festival leads Mo‘ed Qatan, particularly in the Talmud, into a lengthy excursus on the laws of mourning.

echoing a Midrashic statement to the effect that God preferred his children to live in their land even without due observance of the Torah than have them observe it properly in the Diaspora. In 1893 he founded Merkaz Ruhani to spread Zionism among Orthodox Jewry from which the Religious Zionist movement Mizrachi took its name. He enthusiastically supported the political Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and helped him organize the First Zionist Congress in 1897. His message of Zionist ecumenism sent to the congress, which he was too ill to attend, deeply impressed the delegates.

MOHILEVER, ©

Mordecai

Ben Zvi, Rabbi Samuel Mohilever

(London,

1945). Ha-Ga’on

Rabbi Shemu’el Mohilever: She'elot u-Teshuvot ve-Higrei Halakhah, Responsa and Halakhic Studies, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1974 and 1980). Arthur Hertzberg, ed., The Zionist Idea (Cleveland, 1959), pp. 398-405. Leo Jung, ed., Men of the Spirit (New York, 1964), pp. 417-436. Nahum Sokolow, Hibbat Zion (Jerusalem,

1935), pp. 221-225.

-ARYEH

NEWMAN

MOLECH, Semitic deity worshiped in biblical times, known from Ugaritic and Mesopotamian sources as Malik. It is likely that Molech figured among the chthonic gods (gods associated with death and the underworld). According to biblical tradition, Molech was worshiped by means of child sacrifice, a practice abhorred and strictly forbidden by Israelite belief and law (Ez. 16.21, 20.26, 31, 23.39; Ps. 106.37-38). Child

sacrifice is condemned in the Bible, without mention of the god Molech, as a characteristically repulsive form of Canaanite religion, to be shunned by the Israelites (Dt. 12.30-31, 18.10); explicit prohibitions

against the worship of Molech are found in Leviticus 18.21 and 20.2-5. Sacrificing to Molech is called “whoring

after’ him; it desecrates

God’s

name

and

pollutes his sanctuary. The penalty is death by stoning for the perpetrator and all of his followers; if the court fails to carry out the sentence, the perpetrator and his family are liable to divine punishment. Though the idolatrous practice of child sacrifice seems to have been introduced into Judah under the reign of Ahaz (2 Kgs. 16.3, 2 Chr. 28.3) and is referred to in connection with Manasseh as well as Hoshea, king of Israel (2 Kgs. 17.7-12, 21.6; 2 Chr. 33.6), the god

Molech is mentioned by name in this connection only from the time of Josiah (2 Kgs. 23.10). There seems to have arisen then an institutionalized Molech cult, centered at Topheth in Gei Ben Hinnom near Jerusalem, and despite Josiah’s efforts to eliminate it, it may

have

continued

for

some

time.

Some

Israelites seem to have seen it as an acceptable form of worshiping the God of Israel; others connected it with Baal Ver. 7.31-32, 19.5-6, 32.35). According to some rabbinic interpretation, and a few modern scholars,

the burning of children in fire to Molech was symbolic rather than real. Molech is not to be identified with Milcom, god of the Ammonites;

though the biblical

text mistakenly confused them once (/ Kgs. 11.7), they are everywhere else kept distinct. ¢

John

Day, Molech: A God of Human

MONEYLENDING

508

SHEMU’EL

Sacrifice in the Old Testament,

University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, no. 41 (Cambridge, 1989). George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 43 (Sheffield, UK, 1985). Geza Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis,” Studies ... in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 108-124. -BARUCH

J. SCHWARTZ

yeshivah attracted many students. He was a renowned exponent of minhag Ashkenaz, the customary religious practices

of central

of minhag

European

Ashkenaz

Jewry.

is preserved

His

version

largely in Sefer

[Minhagei] ha-Maharil (Sabionetta, 1556), compiled by his student R. Zalman of Saint Goar. The book,

which served as a major source for the rulings of R. Moshe Isserles in his glosses on the Shulhan ‘Arukh, also contains some of the teachings of Molin’s teacher, R. Shalom, and of his student, R. Ya‘akov ben Yehuda

Weil. Molin was

the author of numerous

halakhic

responsa, which have appeared in several recensions,

most recently in a critical edition published by Yitshaq Satz in 1979; others remain in manuscript. e

Yedidyah

Dinari,

Hakhmei

Ashkenaz

be-Shilhei

Yemei

ha-Beinayim

(Jerusalem, 1984). Leopold Greenwald, Maharil u-Zemano (New York, 1944).

Sidney Steiman, Custom and Survival: The Life and Work of Rabbi Jacob Molin ... (New York, 1963).

—-MARK

WASHOFSKY

MOLKHO, SHELOMO (c.1500-1532), kabbalist, messianic enthusiast, and martyr. Born to a Marrano family in Portugal, he attained a high position at court but returned to Judaism after his meeting in 1525 with David *Re’uveni. He circumcised himself and subsequently experienced visions. From Lisbon, Molkho escaped to Salonika where he joined Shelomo *Alkabez and other followers of kabbalist Yosef *Taitazak. From Turkey, Molkho went to Italy. Convinced that he was the Messiah, he spent thirty days in Rome in prayer and fasting among the beggars in front of the pope’s palace, in fulfillment of a Talmudic legend recounting the suffering of the Messiah. This and other messianic gestures alarmed some Jewish leaders, but many Jews and Christians revered

Molkho

as a man

of God

and

a prophet,

especially when his predictions about the flooding of Rome by the Tiber in 1530 and the earthquake in Lisbon in 1531 came to pass. Even Pope Clement VII was greatly impressed by Molkho and protected him from the Inquisition. From Italy Molkho traveled to Regensburg with David Re’uveni to seek an audience with Emperor Charles V to persuade him to arm Marranos to fight against the Turks in Palestine. Charles V had both of them arrested and delivered to the Inquisition. Molkho was burned at the stake in Mantua. His kabbalistic homilies are printed in his Sefer ha-Mefo‘ar (first published as Derashot [Salonika, 1529]), which includes his forecast that the Messiah

would appear in the year 1540. ¢ Abraham M. Habermann, Sippur Rabbi Yosi Dilah Reynah u-Ma‘aseh Nora’ mi-Shelomo Molkho (Jerusalem, 1942-1943). Julius Voos, David Reubeni und

Salomo Molcho: Ein Beitrage zur Geschichte der messianischen Bewegung im Judentum in der ersten Hiéilfte des 16 Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1933).

MOLIN,

YASAQOV

(c.1360-1427),

German

BEN rabbi;

MOSHE also

HA-LEVI

known

as the Maharil or Mahari Siegel. He was prominent in rebuilding the Jewish community following the Black Death persecutions of 1348 and 1349. Born in Mainz, he studied there with his father and with R. Avraham Klausner and R. Shalom ben Yitshaq in Vienna. Molin became the rabbi of Mainz upon his father’s death and served there for the rest of his life; his

MOLOCH.

MONDAYS HaMISHI.

See MoLecu.

AND

MONEYLENDING.

THURSDAYS.

Charging

See

SHENI

va-

interest on loans is

forbidden in the Bible (Ex. 22.24; Lv. 25.36-37° Dt. 23.20-21). There are two words used for interest,

MONEYLENDING

509

both found in Leviticus 25.36—neshekh

(biting) and

tarbit (increase). The Mishnah (B.M. 5.1) differentiates

between the two, saying that the former refers to a direct addition to the money or produce lent, the latter to an increase in the value of the produce. The prohibition against interest seems to have been frequently disregarded in biblical times; Psalms 15.5 enumerates among the qualities of the virtuous man that “he puts not out his money on interest.” The law against both accepting and paying interest applies only to Jews, non-Jews being explicitly excluded from the prohibition

(Dt. 23.21).

Jews

circumvented

the

law by using non-Jews as straw men (cf. B.M. 5.6). The biblical prohibition against moneylending reflects the simple economy of an agricultural society where *loans were needed to provide immediate relief in moments of distress (e.g., failure of crops). The rabbis saw the taking of interest as the transgression of a negative commandment and even developed the concept of avag ribbit (dust of interest) to prevent the lender from receiving any advantage from a loan, even if he did not receive actual interest. With the development of a money economy, industry, and trade, the ancient prohibitions became economically obsolete. Unable to disregard a plain biblical prohibition, Jewish practice evolved—against long resistance—the legal fiction known as hetter ‘isqa’, by which a loan is contracted in the form of a partnership. Although this procedure is considered legitimate for business transactions and investments,

loans to a fellow man

in need should

be free of interest (see GEMILUT HESED). The Catholic church in the Middle Ages enforced a prohibition against moneylending between Christians; hence, the Jews, debarred from other occupations, often became

moneylenders and usurers. The financial operations of all banks in Israel are covered by a general hetter “isqa’. ¢ Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton, 2010). Joseph Shatzmiller, Shylock Reconsidered: Jews, Moneylending, and Medieval Society (Berkeley, 1990).

MONOTHEISM

just as this deity created all of nature and rules over it. The defining factor of polytheism is not simply that there are many deities, but that these deities are

subject to forces stronger than they are—specifically, the forces of fate and/or nature. In contrast, in biblical

monotheism YHVH is subject to no restrictions, except insofar as YHVH has voluntarily limited YHVH’s own power by granting free will to human beings. In polytheism, there are two kinds of beings: the gods, and everyone else, including humans. Both kinds of beings are subject to fate and nature, but the gods are especially adept at magic and thus more capable of mitigating (though not overcoming) nature or fate than humans

are. In monotheism,

again two kinds of beings:

God

there are

(who is the only

member of this class), and everyone else, including angels/gods, human beings, dogs, fleas, and the like.

All the latter are subject to nature, though God has granted humans some ability to alter nature and to choose.

Consequently,

humans,

to a limited degree,

are given a god-like status; see on this Gn. 1:26-27 and Ps. 8. Unlike the deities of a polytheistic system, the God of biblical and rabbinic literature is older than the universe (or perhaps as old as the universe). This God was not born, does not beget other divinities, and

is independent of matter or other beings. God cannot be coerced by magic, is omnipotent, and depends on no sacrificial cult for sustenance. Thus for biblical and rabbinic religion, the core theological belief involves what the early twentieth-century GermanJewish philosopher Hermann “Cohen termed the qualitative uniqueness of God (die Einzigkeit Gottes) rather than the quantitative oneness of God (die Einheit Gottes). While the Bible is a thoroughly monotheistic document

(in the sense of the term used here), the

Bible itself informs us that a great many ancient Israelites were polytheistic, much to the chagrin of biblical prophets and historiographers. Archaeological evidence

is less clear;

some

archaeological

number of gods but a particular relationship between

evidence (for example, documents containing the names Israelites gave their children) suggests that most Israelites worshiped only one God, while other evidence (for example, clay figurines that might or might not represent fertility goddesses) is difficult to interpret. The fight against Israelite/Jewish polytheism was largely won by the mid-Second Temple period, and the Talmuds and Midrashim do not need to devote as much attention to the fight against polytheism as the Bible does. With the rise of Jewish philosophy in the Middle Ages, new understandings of monotheism entered Judaism. For many medieval thinkers (starting with *Sa‘adyah Gaon), central to monotheism is that God had no body. For *Maimonides and other medieval Jewish philosophers, the denial of God’s corporeality was a crucial aspect of monotheism; a

asupreme deity and all creation. For biblical, rabbinic,

God with a body was a God who could be divided,

and many post-rabbinic texts, many heavenly beings

and for these philosophers the belief in a divisible God constituted what one might call internal polytheism. The internal polytheism implied by the belief in a

MONOGAMY.

See PoLycamy.

MONOTHEISM is often defined as the belief that one God exists and that no deities exist other than this one God. This definition is problematic because most

forms of the religions widely viewed as monotheistic (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam) attest to belief in

beings who reside in heaven and who do not normally die, usually termed angels. These beings are often referred to in the Bible as “gods” (elohim, elim, benei elim; see Gn. 6.2, Ex. 15.11, Pss. 29.1, 82.6, 86.8, 89.7,

Job

1.6). In fact the essence

of monotheism,

as the

influential twentieth-century Israeli scholar Yehezkel *Kaufmann

pointed out, involves not a limit on the

exist, but one God (whose personal name is YHVH; see Gop, NAMES OF) created them and rules over them,

physical God was even more objectionable to these thinkers than the belief in many gods. The central work of Jewish philosophy, Maimonides’ twelfthcentury Guide of the Perplexed, therefore devotes a great deal of attention (its first seventy chapters) to the question of why the Bible speaks so often in corporeal (or anthropomorphic) terms of a deity who

is (Maimonides

believes) incorporeal.

(On the

embodied nature of the biblical and rabbinic God, see Gop.) The Maimonidean idea that the monotheistic God must be incorporeal eventually became standard in most forms of Judaism. All formulations of the Jewish

*creed stressed monotheism,

which was

the

second of Maimonides’ *Thirteen Principles of Faith. Medieval apologists frequently contrasted the pure and uncompromising monotheism of Judaism with what seemed to them the polytheism implicit in the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. The

kabbalistic

doctrine

of God

(see SEFIROT)

has

been criticized by its opponents as a departure from strict Jewish monotheism, but the kabbalists held that their mystical theology, which described the dynamic unity of the Godhead in symbolic language, was perfectly monotheistic. Under the influence of Enlightenment rationalism, which emphasized the moral aspects of religion to the neglect of its ritual and irrational aspects, Jewish modernists often described their religion as “ethical monotheism” (see SHEMA‘).

See also IDOLATRY. ¢ Hermann Cohen, Religion of Reason Out of the Sources of Judaism, trans. by Simon Kaplan (Atlanta, 1995), pp. 35-49. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York, 1992), pp. 83-107. Lenn Goodman, The God of Abraham

(New

MOON

510

MONOTHEISM

York,

1996).

Alon

Goshen-Gottstein,

“Other

Gods

in

MONTEFIORE, 1938),

English

CLAUDE scholar,

GOLDSMID

theologian,

and

(1858-

leader

of

the *World Union for Progressive Judaism. He was educated at Oxford and the Hochschule fiir die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. A man of means, he took Solomon *Schechter to England as his private tutor. He founded, funded, and edited,

together with Israel Abrahams, the scholarly journal the Jewish Quarterly Review. He also founded the Jewish Religious Union, which brought radical Reform to England. From 1926 to 1938 he headed the World Union for Progressive Judaism. He wrote many works on Jewish and Christian topics and was one of the first Jewish scholars to write sympathetically of Jesus

and

the

New

Testament,

notably

in his

Synoptic Gospels (2 vols. [1909]), a commentary on the New Testament utilizing Jewish sources, and Judaism and St. Paul (1914). Together with Herbert Loewe, he published A Rabbinic Theology (1938),

in which the two men, in addition to presenting a systematized account of rabbinic teachers, conducted an Orthodox-Reform dialogue on the subject matter. Montefiore’s emphasis on the universalism of Judaism led him to oppose Zionism as a narrow nationalist particularism. He argued for a progressive Judaism that was ethically compatible with other world religions and collaborated with the Catholic thinker Baron Friedrich von Hiigel. ¢ Norman Bentwich, Claude Montefiore and His Tutor in Rabbinics: Founders ofLiberal and Conservative Judaism (Southampton, UK, 1966), with

bibliography. Edward Kessler, An English Jew: The Life and Writings of Claude Montefiore

(London,

1989). Joshua B. Stein, Claude

Goldsmid

Montefiore

on the Ancient Rabbis: The Second Generation of Reform Judaism in Britain (Missoula, Mont., 1977).

—EUGENE

R. SHEPPARD

Ramban’s Thought: Adapted Conceptions and Their Implications for Possible Connections

to Other Religions” [in Hebrew.],

in ‘Al Pi Ha-Be’er: Studies

in Jewish Philosophy and in Halakhic Thought Presented to Gerald Blidstein, edited by U. Ehrlich, H. Kreisel, and D. Lasker (Beersheba, 2008), pp. 28-62. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago, 1960), pp. 7-148, 212-242. Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York, 2009), pp. 145-174. Jeffrey Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, edited by P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 157-194. -REVISED

BY

BENJAMIN

D. SOMMER

MONTH. MOON.

See CALENpDAR. According

to Genesis

1.16, the moon

was

the “lesser light,” created together with the *sun on the fourth day of Creation. The moon was regarded throughout the ancient Near East as a deity. Moon worship was, however, strictly forbidden to the Israelites (Dt. 4.19, 17.3). Nevertheless under Assyrian

MONTAGU, LILIAN (1873-1963), British social worker and progressive Jewish leader. A daughter of Baron Swaythling, she was by birth a member of the small, interrelated Anglo-Jewish aristocracy. She was closely involved with the activities of the Women’s Industrial Council and the National Council of Women and served as president of both the West Central Jewish Club and the West Central Jewish Day Settlement. With Claude Montefiore, she was a founder of the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues of Great Britain, the more reformed branch of British non-Orthodox Judaism, and was the

first chair of its main synagogue, the Liberal Jewish Synagogue of St. John’s Wood, London. She wrote Thoughts on Judaism in 1943. * Eric Conrad, Lily H. Montagu: Prophet of a Living Judaism (New York, 1953), Ellen M. Umansky, Lily Montagu and the Advancement of Liberal Judaism (New York, 1983). —-LAVINIA COHN-SHERBOK

influence, King Manasseh moon

of Judah introduced the

cult (2 Kgs. 21.3-5); the altars he built were

subsequently destroyed by Josiah (2 Kgs. 23.12). In popular belief, the moon was thought to influence fertility, and women wore moon-shaped pendants along with other finery (Js. 3.18). The observance of Ro’sh Hodesh, the celebration of. the new moon, was

historically associated with women’s ritual practice. Some contemporary Jewish feminists have reclaimed the observance of Ro’sh Hodesh as an occasion to bring women together for study sessions, ritual activities, or even social gatherings. The lunar cycle formed the basis of the monthly *calendar reckoning, and the proclamation of the new moon (see Ro’sH HODESH) was a prerogative of the *Sanhedrin. Two maior festivals, Pesah and Sukkot, begin on the night of the full moon. The monthly ceremony of blessing the moon (*Qiddush Levanah)

MOON

511

generally takes place between the third and fifteenth day of each month when the light of the moon is regarded as being at its strongest. In superstitious beliefs, an eclipse of the moon was regarded as a bad omen (Suk. 29a), and it was believed that the waning and waxing of the moon could affect the human mind, while the period of a waxing moon was deemed auspicious for marriages. ¢ Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (New York, 1939).

MOREH TSEDEO

master and of the Ashkenazi sages of earlier generations based loosely upon Halakhot by R. Yitshaq Alfasi. Sefer ha-Mordekhai underwent significant alteration at the hands of students and copyists and exists in two primary recensions, the Rhenish and the Austrian,

based on the dominant traditions in each. The book was widely quoted by subsequent authorities, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi. It was printed in the very first edition of the Talmud (Soncino, 1483-1484) and

also appeared separately (Riva di Trento, 1559-1560). MOON,

BLESSING

OF

THE.

See

QIDDUSH

LEVANAH.

MOON,

* Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles (Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 1249-1250. Efraim E. Urbach, Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 556-561.

NEW.

MORAIS,

See Ro’sH HopEsu.

SABATO

(1823-1897),

American

rabbi

and communal leader. Born in Leghorn, Italy, Morais served as director of the orphans’ school of the Spanish and Portuguese congregation in London. Following five years of service in England, he became the spiritual leader of Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia in 1851, succeeding Isaac Leeser. Morais served Mikveh Israel for forty-seven years until his death. He was an eloquent spokesman for American Orthodoxy, well-known for his conciliatory spirit; for example, in unifying Sephardim and Ashkenazim. He was the founding president of the *Jewish Theological Seminary of America (1887-1897) and wrote numerous articles on various aspects of Jewish life and culture. He was a noted Hebraist and biblical scholar. He wrote Italian Hebrew Literature (New York, 1926; repr., 1970). * Moshe Davis, The Emergence of Conservative Judaism (Philadelphia, 1965). Henry Samuel Morais, The Jews of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1894). —MARC

MORALISTS.

MORDECAI

D. ANGEL

Mordekhai).

According

MOREDET (7773; rebellious wife), a wife who persistently refuses to cohabit with her husband. She may be divorced by her husband after a period of twelve months and also forfeits her ketubbah. The twelve-month period is designated by the Talmud as a “cooling off’ period aimed at allowing the wife to reconsider her “rebelliousness” in case it was prompted by sudden anger which she later regrets (Ket. 63b). Under early Talmudic law, there were certain procedural distinctions between a wife who refused to engage in sexual relations with her husband as a result of anger and one who claimed that her husband was physically repulsive to her. In later times, however, the halakhah governing both types of moredet

followed

the same

to

the

of *Haman, the vizier of King Ahasuerus, when he bid

Queen *Esther, his daughter by adoption, to intercede with the king. Mordecai became viceroy of Persia and conferred considerable benefits upon his brethren. To mark the celebration of the victory of the Jews over their enemies, Mordecai sent letters to all of the Jewish communities to celebrate annually on 13 and 14 Adar,

which is the holiday of Purim. Talmudic aggadah identified Mordecai with the prophet Malachi (Meg. 10b). e Adele Berlin, Esther, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia, 2001). Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia, S.C., 1991),

—~SHALOM PAUL

BEN

HILLEL (d.1298),

that is, a

without a ketubbah (Shulhan ‘Arukh, Even ha-‘Ezer 77.2). Though it was Maimonides’ view that, in the

case of physical repulsiveness, pressure ought to be applied to the husband to divorce his wife, following the mandatory twelve-month period, on the grounds that “she is not like a captive to have to submit to intercourse with a man whose physical presence she

ha-‘Ezer 77.23). ¢ Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, 4 vols. (Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 658-665, 851. Shlomo Riskin, The Rebellious Wife, the Agunah and the Right of Women to Initiate Divorce in Jewish Law: A Halakhic Solution (New York, 1989). -DANIEL SINCLAIR

MOREH,

HAYYIM

(1872-1945),

Persian

rabbi.

With the revival of rabbinical learning in Persia at the beginning of the twentieth century, Hayyim Moreh was its most distinguished representative. His special interest was the education of the Jewish community. He published Derekh Hayyim (Teheran, 1919) in Judeo-Persian, a review of Jewish history; Gedulat Mordekhai (Teheran, 1934), a collection of

post-biblical texts translated into Judeo-Persian; and Yedei Eliyahu conduct.

(Teheran,

1929),

a work

on

ethical

¢ David Benvenisti, Darko shel Moreh: Pirqei Hayyim be-Hora‘ah (Jerusalem, 1990).

MORDEKHAI

procedure;

twelve-month mandatory waiting period and divorce

accepted by the majority of authorities (Rema’, Even

Book of Esther (see ESTHER, SCROLL oF), he was a descendant of a Benjamite family of Babylonian exiles who saved Persian Jewry from the anti-Jewish scheme

pp. 185-195.

WASHOFSKY

finds unbearable” (Law of Marriage 14.18), this was not

See Etnics; MusarR MOVEMENT.

(Heb.

—-MARK

-SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

German

rabbi and halakhist; student of R. Meir ben Barukh

MOREH

NEVUKHIM.

of Rothenburg. He is known chiefly for his Sefer ha-Mordekhai, a digest of the halakhic teachings of his

MOREH

TSEDEQ.

See MAIMoniIpEs, MOSEs.

See TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.

MORE

JUDAICO.

MORENU

(139773;

chief rabbi. He was steeped in classical, medieval, and Renaissance literature and had a fine Hebrew style.

See OATH MorE JuDaIco.

our

teacher),

title

originally

bestowed in Germany (14th cent.) upon exceptionally learned men and upon Torah scholars on their wedding day. Morenu may originally have applied to those learned in the laws of marriage and divorce. Some communities required knowledge of the entire Talmud and Shulhan ‘Arukh before one could be granted the title. In some communities, the title could

be revoked if the recipient proved unworthy by his In more recent times in eastern Europe, the title was used broadly as an honorific, though in Germany it was bestowed only by a rabbi upon exceptionally learned and pious laymen. -SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN conduct.

MORIAH, a land described in Genesis 22.2 as a mountainous area, a three-day journey from Beersheba, where Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac. According to later Jewish tradition,

Moriah was identified as the hilltop in Jerusalem where Solomon built the Temple (2 Chr. 3.1). This identification is also found in the Book of Jubilees (18.13) and is accepted by Josephus (Antiquities ofthe Jews 1.13.2.226), the Targum, and the Talmud (Ta‘an. 16a). e

Nahum

M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary

1989), pp. 391-392.

-SHALOM

be in the

morning

when

the

PAUL

sun

rises”),

halakhically, morning is considered to begin with the appearance of the morning star, even though the sun has not yet risen. This dawn is referred to as “the morning of the night” (Yoma’ 20b); that is, the sign

of morning that marks the end of the night. There is a difference of opinion in the Talmud as to when morning ends. According to the majority opinion it continues until midday, but R. Yohanan ben Zakk’ai holds that it extends only to the end of the fourth hour—the hour in this case being a twelfth part of the period of daylight (Ber. 26b-27a) and, hence, variable with the seasons. The obligatory morning reading, or the Shema‘, can be carried out from the beginning of daylight until a quarter of the day, that is, a quarter of the hours of daylight, depending on the season of the year. See also Day AND NIGHT. ¢ Joseph Ascoly, The Calendar (Tallahassee, 1990). Ellen Robbins, “Studies

in the Prehistory of the Jewish Calendar,” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1989.

-CHAIM

MORNING

BLESSINGS.

MORNING

SERVICE.

PEARL

See BirkHorT HA-SHAHAR.

1569

and

went

to

Mantua,

where

Impressed by classical rhetoric, he looked for similar features in biblical and rabbinic sources. An excellent writer and preacher, he modeled himself on Greek and Roman philosophers such as Plato and Seneca. In his sermon on music, for example, Moscato demonstrates how the fundamental concepts of Renaissance music were based on the terms and formulas found in the Book of Psalms. He drew on his extensive knowledge of Torah, Philo, and Kabbalah in order to identify ethical ideas common to different cultures. He was fond of syncretistic etymology, and he saw Hebrew as the original language of the human race, a natural bridge between civilizations. ¢ Alexander Altmann, “Ars Rhetorica as Reflected in Some Jewish Figures of

the Italian Renaissance” in Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, edited by David B. Ruderman (New York, 1992), pp. 62-84. Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (London, 1993), pp. 298-316. Elliot Horowitz, “The Way We Were: Jewish Life in the Middle Ages,” Jewish History 1 (1986): 75-90. Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance (Philadelphia, 1959), pp. 21-43, 271-304. Moses A. Shulvass, Hayyei ha-Yehudim be-'Italyah bi-Tequfat ha-Renesans (New York, 1955), pp. 37-314.

MOSER.

-SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

See DENUNCIATION.

MOSES

(Heb. Moshe), founder and leader of the Israelite nation. The Bible portrays Moses as the greatest of all prophets (a belief formulated in Maimonides’ *Thirteen Principles of Faith), who, alone among men, knew God “face to face” (Ex. 33.11) and whom God chose to be the mediator of his revelation on Mount Sinai and the leader who would transform a horde of slaves into a potential “kingdom of priests” and “a treasured people” (Ex. 19.5-6). Moses’ life, from birth to death, is depicted as an integral part of the divine design of redemption. According to the biblical account, the future liberator of Israel, son of Amram and Jochebed of the tribe of Levi, was born at the

height of the Egyptian persecution (dated by scholars to the 13th cent. BCE), when Hebrew male infants were

drowned (or abandoned on the Nile to die of exposure) at birth. After hiding him for a while, Jochebed placed Moses in a basket among the Nile reeds, entrusting

his life to providence, a well-known example of the widespread motif of the abandoned hero. Moses was rescued by Pharaoh’s own daughter and brought up in the royal palace. But heredity triumphed over environment; when seeing an Egyptian taskmaster mistreat a Hebrew, Moses slew the Egyptian. The next day he beheld an Israelite smiting a fellow Israelite. When he intervened, his Hebrew brother betrayed him, and he had to flee to Midian, where he

See SHAHarIt.

MOSCATO, YEHUDA (c.1530-1593), Italian rabbinical authority and preacher. Born in Osimo, he had to leave when the Jews were expelled in

His major works were Qol Yehuda (Venice, 1594), a commentary on Yehuda ha-Levi’s Kuzari, and a sermonic collection, Nefutsot Yehuda (Venice, 1589).

(Philadelphia,

MORNING. Despite the fact that in the Bible the morning actually begins at sunrise (cf. Jgs. 9.33, “And it shall

MOSES

512

MORE JUDAICO

he became

married Zipporah, the daughter of *Jethro, priest of Midian (Ex. 2). At the age of eighty, he was vouchsafed a theophany in the form of a *burning bush that was not consumed, and in which the God of his fathers laid upon him the mission to lead his people out of Egypt.

MOSES

513

In vain Moses attempted to resist the call (Ex. 3), but finally accepting the divine charge, he appeared, together with his brother Aaron, before Pharaoh and demanded in the Lord’s name, “Let my people go!” Ten plagues (see PLAGUES OF EGypt) reinforced his demand; the last plague, the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn, brought

the Hebrews

freedom

(Ex. 7-11).

The urgency with which the Israelites left Egypt was matched by the haste with which Pharaoh sought to recapture his erstwhile bondmen, whom he overtook at the shore of the Sea of Reeds, misnamed the Red Sea. There an event occurred that left an indelible mark on Jewish tradition: the Israelites crossed dryshod, while the pursuing Egyptians were drowned (Ex. 14-15). The *Exodus was the beginning of the journey that was to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land. The next major event was the giving of the Torah at Mount

*Sinai. There the *Ten Commandments,

and

other legislation, were promulgated, and Moses bound the people in a solemn covenant to the Lord (Ex. 19-24). He also built the first national sanctuary, the *Tabernacle or Tent of Meeting, which was to serve

as the visible symbol of the invisible God’s presence in their midst (Ex. 25ff.). The unique theophany at Mount Sinai was followed by the anticlimactic sin of the *golden calf. In a burst of anger,

Moses

shattered the *tablets of the Law but subsequently interceded

with

God,

obtained

his pardon

for the

people, and carved the tablets anew (Ex. 32-34). The camp, however, continued to simmer with rebellion.

The tragic climax came when ten of the twelve spies sent to reconnoiter the Promised Land brought back a discouraging report, saying that the Israelites would be unable to defeat the Canaanites (Nm. 13-14). Moses led Israel for forty years through the wilderness, until the elder generation died and a new generation had grown up. After annexing the lands of Sihon and Og in Transjordan, Moses’ work drew to its close (Nm. 21). The Lord forbade him to cross the Jordan in punishment for an act of disobedience (Nm. 20.1-13). In three valedictory addresses, delivered on the Plains

of Moab, Moses reviewed the story of the Exodus and recapitulated the terms and the laws of the covenant. Then, having exhorted and blessed his people (see Moses, SONG oF), he died on Mount Nebo in the land of Moab,

“but no one knows

his burial place to this

day” (Dt. 34.6) so that no cult could ever become attached to his person. The aggadah embellished the biography of Moses more than that of any other biblical personage. But through all the variegated and often contradictory legends runs the assumption that in spite of his unique career as the faithful “servant of

MOSES, BLESSING OF hypothesis can in any way affect the towering image

of Moses as it has developed in biblical, rabbinic, and

kabbalistic tradition. Both a historical personality and a spiritual symbol, Moses represents the passionate and self-sacrificing leader, liberator, intercessor, lawgiver, teacher (Moshe Rabbenu [Moses Our Master]),

“faithful shepherd,” founder of Judaism, and prophet of monotheism. Tradition attributes to him the authorship of the entire Torah and regards him as the fountainhead of the oral law. Eschatological speculation also ascribed to him a role in the future, messianic redemption. ¢ Martin Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (New York, 1958).

Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, translated by Israel Abrahams

(Jerusalem,

1967). Brevard

S. Childs, The Book

of Exodus:

A

Critical, Theological Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, 1974). Solomon Goldman, From Slavery to Freedom (Philadelphia, 1949). Moshe Greenberg, Understanding Exodus (New York, 1969). André Neher, Moses and the Vocation of the Jewish People (New York, 1959). Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1991). Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew

Bible, translated by James D. Nogalski (Winona Lake, Ind. 2010). -SHALOM

MOSES,

ASSUMPTION

OF. See

PAUL

ASSUMPTION

OF

MOSEs.

MOSES, BLESSING OF, the poetic blessing in which *Moses bids farewell to the people of Israel (Dt. 33). The poem views Israel’s history from the perspective of later times, after the people had settled in the Promised Land. The core of the poem is the blessings of the individual tribes, describing the lives of the tribes in their territories and focusing primarily on the resources and abundance they enjoy and on their security and military prowess (Dt. 33.6-25).

Framing

this core

are

an

exordium

and a coda (Dt. 33.2-5 and 26-29, respectively) that speak of the people as a whole, placing their security and prosperity in the broader context of God’s benefactions to Israel. Moses’ blessing has little in common with the rest of Deuteronomy, and critical scholars suggest that it was probably composed independently of Deuteronomy. Its psalmodic style indicates that it originally had a liturgical function and was perhaps recited at a festival at which all the tribes, or their representatives,

gathered.

From

its language and content, it seems to have been composed sometime between Israel’s settlement in the Promised Land, in approximately 1200 BcE, and

the exile of the northern tribes in 721 BcE. It would have been incorporated into Deuteronomy because it was

attributed to Moses

and, by looking back on a

the Exodus tradition as a whole—has been challenged;

successful conquest of the Promised Land, because it foretells the conquest. As one of the last two chapters in the Torah, the blessing is read in the synagogue on *Simhat Torah.

but many scholars agree that some of the tribes were in fact enslaved in Egypt and freed, that the Israelite religion was founded in law by a solemn covenant, and that a heroic figure like Moses played

Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 47-70. Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series, no. 21 (Missoula, Mont., 1975), pp. 97-122. Alexander Rofé, Mavo’ le-Sefer Devarim (Jerusalem, 1988), vol. 1, chap. 20. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1996).

God,” Moses always remained a mortal, fallible human

being. In modern times the historicity of Moses—and

a central role in these events.

However,

no critical

e¢

Umberto

Cassuto,

Biblical and

Oriental

Studies,

translated

-JEFFREY

by Israel

H. TIGAY

MOSES,

SEAT

OF. In Matthew

23.2 Jesus

refers

to the scribes and Pharisees as “sitting in the seat of Moses”; a further reference to the seat of Moses is found

in the Pesigta’ de-Rav

Kahana’

12, quoted

in the name of the fourth-century R. Aha’. Opinions differed as to the significance of the term—some scholars maintained that the reference was to a place of honor; others, that it was the stand on which the Torah scroll was placed during the service. Examples of seats designated for the most distinguished elder and placed close to the ark have been discovered in ancient synagogues in Dura-Europos, Hammath (near Tiberias), and Chorazin. A *bimah referred to as “the

seat of Moses” was found in the synagogue in K’aifeng, China, and described as “a large elevated seat in

the middle of the synagogue, from which the Torah is read every Sabbath day.” ¢ Lee I. Levine, ed., The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 12, 25.

-SHMUEL

HIMELSTEIN

MOSES, SONG OF, poem in Deuteronomy 32.1-43, known

in Hebrew

MOSHE BEN YEHOSHU‘A OF NARBONNE

514

MOSES, SEAT OF

as Ha’azinu

(Give Ear) from

its

opening word. The poem describes the history of God’s relations with Israel, emphasizing God’s kindness and faithfulness, Israel’s betrayal of him after settling in the Promised Land by worshiping other deities, and his decision to send an enemy to punish Israel but not to obliterate her, lest the enemy infer that its own gods, and not God (YHVH), gave it victory. The poem concludes by inviting listeners to celebrate God’s deliverance of Israel and his punishment of the enemy. According to Deuteronomy 31.16-30, this poem was to be memorized by the people in order to serve as a “witness,” warning Israel in advance

and

then attesting to God’s justice and Israel’s guilt when punishment came. Critical scholarship considers the poem post-Mosaic since it refers to the settlement in the Promised Land and Israel’s apostasy as past events, is addressed to the guilty generation, and describes the ultimate punishment of the enemy as imminent. Language and content suggest that the poem was composed prior to the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel, in approximately 721 BCE, perhaps as early as the period of the judges (c.1200-1020) or shortly thereafter. It was probably composed after a particular invasion to offer an explanation and hope of deliverance. It could have been incorporated into Deuteronomy because it explained the disaster in theologically meaningful terms. In Second Temple times, the Levites read parts of the poem in the Temple while the additional sacrificial offering (musaf) was

being made on the Sabbath. Nowadays, it is read on the Sabbath between Ro’sh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur. In the Sephardi liturgy, it is recited during the morning service on 9 Av, the anniversary of the destruction of both Temples. ¢ Umberto Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, translated by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1973-1975), vol. 1, pp. 41-46, 95-100. Yehezkel Kaufmann, Toledot ha-’Emunah ha-Yisre’elit, 4 vols. (Jerusalem, 1955), vol. 2, pp. 287-290. Alexander Rofé, Mavo’ le-Sefer Devarim (Jerusalem, 1988), vol. 1, chap. 20. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1996), esp. excursuses 30-31. -JEFFREY H. TIGAY

MOSES, SONS OF, legendary Jewish tribe, having their own independent kingdom in some faraway country. According to the ninth century traveler *Eldad ha-Dani, they lived beyond the river *Sambatyon. The legend of the sons of Moses is similar to that of the ten lost tribes (see TRIBES OF ISRAEL). ¢ Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1946), vol. 4, pp. 317— 318; vol. 6, pp. 407, 409.

MOSHAV

ZEQENIM.

See AGED.

MOSHE BEN HANOKH (died c.965), Spanish rabbi. He was one of the four rabbis who, according to a famous story (see Four CapTIVES), were captured by pirates in the Mediterranean and sold to foreign lands, where they spread rabbinic learning. Moshe brought Talmudic knowledge to Spain, where he founded a yeshivah. Separating truth from legend, it appears that Moshe reached Spain after 950 and established a yeshivah in Cordova. His authority was regarded as no less than that of the Babylonian ge’onim, and with his arrival the rabbis of Spain curtailed their dependence on the Babylonian academies. Many of Moshe’s responsa have survived. He was the father of *Hanokh ben Moshe. ¢ Eliyahu Ashtor, The Jews of Moslem Spain (Philadelphia, 1992). Gerson D. Cohen, ed. and trans., A Critical Edition with a Translation and Notes on The Book of Tradition (Sefer ha-~-Qabbalah) (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 64ff., 200f.

MOSHE

BEN MAIMON.

See MarmoniDEs, MOSES.

MOSHE

BEN NAHMAN.

See NAHMANIDES, MOSES.

MOSHE BEN YA‘AQOV OF COUCY (13th cent.), codifier and preacher. He is best known for his code Sefer Mitsvot Gadol, popularly known by its acronym as Semag; arranged according to the 613 commandments, it presents the Jewish law applicable to each of them. Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah served as the major source for the work, but Moshe of Coucy added and gave precedence to his native French and German Jewish traditions. Semag achieved wide popularity and was one of the first Hebrew incunabula (it was

published

preacher, Moshe

before

1480).

As

an_

itinerant

of Coucy traveled from France to

Spain to urge Spanish Jewry to repent.

Lax sexual

morality in Spain and the abandonment of Torah study and daily ritual practices prompted his mission. In 1240 he participated in the Disputation of *Paris. ¢

Chaim

Tchernowitz,

Toledot

ha-Posegim,

vol.

2 (New

York,

1946-

1947), pp. 87-92. Efraim E. Urbach, Ba“alei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1955),

pp. 384-395.

MOSHE

-~MICHAEL CHERNICK

BEN

YEHOSHU‘A

OF

NARBONNE

(died 1362), philosopher. He was born in Perpignan, where he was educated in Bible, rabbinic literature,

medicine, and philosophy. In 1344 he moved to Spain and lived in several cities, dying in Soria. An accomplished physician and philosopher, he was the author of over twenty works, including a medical treatise (Orah Hayyim) as well as numerous commentaries on Arabic and Jewish philosophy,

MOSHE BEN YEHOSHU‘A OF NARBONNE

515

most notably his commentary on Maimonides’ Moreh Nevukhim (Vienna, 1852; repr. Jerusalem, 1961) and three works that detail his own opinions on the philosophic questions of his day: Iggeret Shi‘ur Qomah, Ma’amar ha-Behirah, and Pirgei Moshe. He knew Arabic and probably Latin as well. His writings combine philosophy, astrology, and Kabbalah. * Alexander Altmann, “Moses Narboni's ‘Epistle on Shi’ur Qoma,”’ in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 225-288. Kalman P. Bland, ed. and trans., The Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect by Ibn Rushd with the Commentary of Moses Narboni (New York, 1982). Maurice R. Hayoun, “L’Epitre du libre arbitre de Moise de Narbonne,” in Revue des études juives 141 (1982): 139-167. Alfred L. Ivry, ed., Ma‘amar bi-Shelemut ha-Nefesh (Jerusalem, 1977). Colette Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 332-341, 444445.

-STEVEN

BALLABAN

MOSHE BEN YOSEF HA-LEVI (fl. 13th cent.), philosopher. His principal work, Ma’amar Elohi, was originally written in Arabic in Seville. According to Neubauer (Catalogue of Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, no. 1324.5), he relied exclusively on Islamic philosophers such as al-Farabi and Averroés. He was well regarded by several Spanish-Jewish philosophers, including Yitshaq Abravanel, Hasda’i ben Avraham

Crescas,

and Yosef Albo, all of whom

cite him. His treatise deals with the motion outermost

of the

sphere and the First Cause, which Moshe

contends is the active intellect. Three manuscripts of his work are known to exist, one of which is accompanied by a commentary that is often abusive of his opinions. * Colette Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1990), p. 266. Harry A. Wolfson, “Averroés’ Lost Treatise on the Prime Mover,” in Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, edited by Isadore Twersky and George H. Williams (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), vol. 1, pp. 402-429.

-STEVEN

MOSHE

HALFON HA-KOHEN

c.1291, and were intended to publicize the teachings of the Zohar. Tishby believed that Moshe de Leon continued to write portions of the Zohar until his death and that the Hebrew works were written parallel to the Zohar. Altmann pointed out that there is evidence that some of the Hebrew works were written before the main part of the Zohar. The most important of his Hebrew works are HaNefesh ha-Hakhamah, concerning the nature of the soul; Sefer ha-Rimmon,

a kabbalistic presentation of

the reasons for the commandments; Maskiyyot Kesef, commentary on the prayers; Shegel ha-Qodesh, on the *sefirot; at least two

commentaries

on

the ten

sefirot; and collections of responsa on kabbalistic matters. All these works use terminology and ideas very close to those of the Zohar, and sometimes whole sentences and paragraphs seem to be Hebrew versions of passages in the Zohar. Concerning the nature of his work, Moshe de Leon

insisted that the Zohar sections which he published were copied from an old manuscript which reached him from Erets Yisra’el; he offered to show this manuscript to R. Yitshaq ben Shemu’el of Acre, but he died before this could be done. His widow and daughter claimed that there was no such manuscript, and that Moshe wrote “from his head.” No evidence of the existence of a manuscript of the Zohar before Moshe de Leén’s has been found, and he should be regarded as an original, visionary and creative mystic. * Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York,

1954), chap. 5. Isaiah Tishby et al., eds., The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 1-92.

-JOSEPH

DAN

BALLABAN

MOSHE DE LEON (c.1240-1305), the leading kab-

MOSHE HA-DARSHAN (11th cent.), teacher and scholar of aggadic midrash; from Narbonne, France.

balist in Spain in the last decades of the thirteenth century and the principal author of the most important work of the *Kabbalah, the *Zohar. He was born in Leon, Castile, and spent many years in other communities in Castile, among them Guadalajara,

He is quoted by Natan ben Yehi’el of Rome (who was his student) in his ‘Arukh and by Rashi. Medieval Midrashic works based on Moshe _ haDarshan’s interpretations or those of his school

Avila, Valladolid, and Arevalo, where he died. During

Ba-Midbar and Naso’), and Midrash Aggadah (edited

his travels he met adherents of the various kabbalistic schools of the time. He was familiar with the teachings

by Solomon Buber [1894]). Steven Ballaban (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College, 1995) suggests that he originally came from Nisibis in Persia, bringing to the West early traditions that were still circulating in the East.

of the Gerona school, Avraham ben Shemu’el Abulafia, and the Kohen brothers (see KABBALAH; YITSHAQ BEN YASAQOV OF CASTILE). Some of the great kabbalists of the day were his personal friends, among them R. Yosef ben Avraham *Gikatilla, Todros ben Yosef *Abulafia, and Yitshag ibn Sahulah. He was familiar with the teachings of Maimonides, and the Guide of the Perplexed was one of his sources of inspiration. Moshe de Leén wrote many kabbalistic treatises in Hebrew. The exact sequence of the writing of the Hebrew works, and their chronological and ideological relationship to the Zohar (which was written in Aramaic), has been presented in different

ways by the modern scholars Gershom Scholem, Isaiah Tishby, and Alexander Altmann. According to Scholem, almost all the Hebrew works were written after the completion of the Zohar, which he dated to

include:

Genesis Rabbati,

Numbers

Rabbah

(Part 1,

e¢ Abraham Grossman, Hakhmei Tsarfat ha-Ri’shonim (Jerusalem, 1995). Hananel Mack, “Madu’ah Nelemu Sefarav shel Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan?” Alpayim, 32 (2008), 149-176.

-MARC

BREGMAN

MOSHE HALFON HA-KOHEN (1874-1949), leading rabbinical authority in Djerba, an island off the coast of Tunisia with an ancient Jewish community. He served as rabbi and from 1935 to 1949 headed the Djerba beit din. He issued responsa on current questions and issued taqqanot for his community. Author of twenty-eight works, some published, some still in manuscript, he was particularly involved in educational programs, preparing curricula for rabbinical teachers, homiletic criteria, and a reader

MOSHE

for Talmud study. He insisted on the comprehensive study of the Talmud and the aggadah. e Abraham L. Udovitch and Lucette Valensi, The Last Arab Jews: The Communities ofJerba, Tunisia (Chur, Switzerland, and New York, 1984), -SHALOM BAR-ASHER

MOSHE

HAYYIM

EFRAYIM

OF

SUDYLKOW

(c.1748-1788),

Hasidic author. Rabbi Efrayim, as he

is called, was

the elder son of Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer

*Ba‘al Shem Tov’s daughter *Odel. Almost nothing is known of his life. He was rabbi of Sudylkow and is known for his book Degel Mahaneh Efrayim (Korzec [Korets],

1810). Some have sought in this work a direct

version of the Ba‘al Shem Tov’s teachings, that is, one relatively uninfluenced by either *Ya‘aqov Yosef ha-Kohen of Polonnoye or *Dov Ber of Mezhirech, but it is difficult to determine whether this is the case. Rabbi Efrayim devoted much attention to key themes of his grandfather’s thought: the uplifting of sparks, the raising up of distracting thoughts, and the study of Torah for the sake of God. His book also contains important quotations from other early figures of Hasidism. A brief dream diary is appended to the work. ¢ Mattathias Y. Guttman, Geza’ Qodesh: Pe’ulotehem ve-Toratam shel Rabbi Efrayim mi-Sudilkov ve-Rabbi Barukh mi-Mezhibuh (Tel Aviv, 1950). -ARTHUR

GREEN

MOSHE LEIB OF SASOV (1745-1807), Hasidic master. Although he was considered a disciple of *Dov Ber of Mezhirech

and *Elimelekh

MOUNT OF OLIVES

516

HALFON HA-KOHEN

of Lyzhansk,

his

principal teacher was Shemu’el Shmelke Horowitz of Nikolsburg, and his leading disciples were Menahem Mendel of Kosov and Tsevi Hirsh of Zhidachov. He also had a profound influence on the young *Ya‘agov Yitshaq of Przysucha. Several collections of Moshe Leib’s teachings were published posthumously and include both halakhic and Hasidic subjects. As a Hasidic teacher, his approach tended toward the early Hasidic extreme of viewing the material world as not ultimately real. Nevertheless, in many tales told concerning him, an active, compassionate approach toward relieving the sufferings of others predominates. His teachings appear in Hiddushei ha-Ramal (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1991). ¢ Martin Buber, Tales of the Hasidim (New York, 1946). Rivka Schatz Uffenheimer, Hasidism as Mysticism (Princeton, 1993). -MILES KRASSEN

mother, the order in each case is reversed in order to

teach the duty of equal reverence and honor to both parents (Qid. 30b-3 1a). Similarly, the dire punishment for smiting or cursing parents specifically mentions both father and mother (Ex. 21.15-17). The four mothers, or *matriarchs (Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and

Leah), rank equally in Jewish sentiment with the three patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).

In valid marriages the child is accorded the status of his father (for example, the son of a priest and an Israelite mother is a priest; the son of an Israelite

father and the daughter of a priest is an Israelite [Qid. 3.12]), but with regard to mixed marriages, the child receives the status of the mother (the

son of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother is considered Jewish). Halakhah recognizes only the woman bearing the child as the mother, since *adoption is not recognized in Jewish law. Assisted reproduction (in particular, gestational *surrogacy and egg donation) creates a problem by producing a child who may have two “biological” mothers. See ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTION TECHNIQUES. The Talmud contains many stories of the extreme respect paid by the rabbis to their mothers; it is related of one rabbi that “when he heard his mother’s footsteps, he used to remark, ‘I stand up before the divine

presence”

(Qid. 31b),

and

several

medieval

rabbis declared that their best teachers had been their mothers. Throughout Jewish history, the mother has

symbolized home

and *family life, which

revolved

around her and which, to a great extent, was regarded

as her responsibility. See also CHILDREN; PATRILINEAL DESCENT; WOMEN. ¢

Eliezer Berkovits,

Jewish

Women

in Time

and Torah

(Hoboken,

N.J.,

1990). Pieter Arie Hendrik de Boer, Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judean Piety (Leiden, 1974). Mayer I. Gruber, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, vol. 57 (Atlanta, 1992). Michael Kaufman, The Woman in Jewish Law and Tradition (Northvale, N.J., 1993).

MOTSA’EI MOTSI

MOUNT

SHABBAT.

See HavpaLaH; SABBATH.

’. See BirKat HA-Motsr.

OF OLIVES,

mount east of Jerusalem and

overlooking the city. The Kidron Valley separates it from the Temple mount. In Second Temple times, the *red heifer was burned on its crest (Mid. 2.6) and a

MOTHER (Heb. em; Aram. imma’). Although legally “the *father takes precedence over the mother in all matters”

(Ker. 28a), both the Bible and Talmud

emphatically insist upon the equality of both *parents in the moral and ethical sphere. The Fifth Commandment, which enjoins the duty of honoring one’s parents, mentions the father before the mother; in Leviticus 19.3, which enjoins fear (or reverence) for

one’s parents, the mother is mentioned before the father. This difference in phraseology forms the basis for the rabbinic statement that since God knows that the natural tendency of a child is to honor the mother more than the father and fear the father more than the

bridge connected it to the Temple. It was regarded as holy by both Jews and Christians, based on the prophecy in Zechariah 14.3-4. On it was lit the first of the chain of beacons that brought the official confirmation of the sighting of the new moon to the Diaspora (see Ro’sH Hopgsu; R. ha-Sh. 2.4). In the tenth century, the hill (or part of it) was in Jewish possession and was the site of pilgrimages and prayers. From

the hill, the Jews

could see into the Temple

area, although they were not allowed access to it. On *Hosha‘na’ Rabbah, seven festive circuits were made round the Mount of Olives. By the Second Temple period, the Mount of Olives was a Jewish burial place;

MOUNT OF OLIVES

Sul7/

from the Middle Ages onward, it became a major Jewish cemetery. This was linked to the tradition that at the end of days the Messiah would appear on the Mount of Olives, and there Elijah would blow the trumpet heralding the resurrection of the dead; while all other bodies will have to roll from their burial place, those on the Mount of Olives would merely have to arise. Special piyyutim were composed for recitation upon ascending the Mount of Olives. ¢ Dan Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem (New York, 1990).

MUELHAUSEN,

YOM TOV LIPMANN

that “it is forbidden to overstress mourning for the departed” (Mo‘ed Q. 27b), and the Talmud rules that

“the law in matters pertaining to mourning is decided in accordance with the more lenient opinion” (Mo‘ed Q. 26b). See also SHELOSHIM; SHIV‘AH; YAHRZEIT. * Hayyim Halevy Donin, To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life (New York, 1991). Hyman Goldin, Hamadrikh: The Rabbi's Guide (New York, 1956). Jules Harlow, ed., Ligqutei Tefillah: A Rabbi's

Manual (New York, 1965). Judith Hauptman, “Death and Mourning: A Time for Weeping, a Time for Healing,” in Celebration and Renewal, edited by Rela M. Geffen (Philadelphia, 1993), pp. 226-251. Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York,

1992). Peter Knobel,

“Rites of Passage,” in

Judaism: A People and Its History, edited by Robert Seltzer (New York, 1987).

MOUNT

ZION.

Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning (New York, 1969).

See ZION.

Simeon Maslin, ed., Gates of Mitzvah: Shaarei Mitzvah, A Guide to the Jewish

Life Cycle (New York, 1979). David Polish, ed., Magle Tsedek: Rabbi's Manual,

MOURNERS

FOR ZION.

with notes by W. Gunther Plaut (New York, 1988). Jack Riemer, ed., Jewish

See AVELE! TSIYYON.

Reflections on Death (New York, 1976). Hayyim Schauss, The Lifetime ofa Jew throughout the Ages ofJewish History (Cincinnati, 1950).

MOURNING (Heb. ‘avelut). Mourning rites are observed in times of both individual loss and national calamity (Jos. 7.6). The Bible first mentions mourning when Abraham

weeps for his wife Sarah (Gn. 23.2).

Isaac’s sense of loss at the death of Sarah is also noted; following his marriage to Rebekah, the text reports, “So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death” (Gn. 24.67). Laments (see QINAH) for the dead are commonly referred to in the Bible; David laments for Jonathan (2 Sm. 1.17—27), Jeremiah laments for

Josiah (2 Chr. 35.25); Ezekiel is told to refrain from excessive lamenting after losing his wife (Ez. 24.1617). The Bible mentions many other mourning rites,

some approvingly, such as rending one’s garments (still symbolically observed), wearing sackcloth, and placing earth or ashes upon the head; and others negatively, such as cutting one’s flesh or tearing out one’s hair. The Bible admonishes mourners against excessive grief, particularly that involving bodily affliction. Various periods for observing mourning are mentioned in the Bible, from thirty days (for Moses, Dt. 34.8) to seven (for Saul,

/ Sm. 31.13). The

Egyptians devoted seventy days of mourning to Jacob, who was also mourned for seven more days at the threshing floor of Atad (Gn. 50.3, 10).

The rabbis build structures for ritual observance of mourning, in part, through their consideration of biblical precedents. Mourning rites are undertaken for immediate

relatives,

one’s

father,

mother,

son,

daughter, brother, sister, or spouse—because these are the relatives on whose behalf a priest is obliged to defile himself in mourning (Lv. 21.2-3). The biblical obligation to mourn is derived from the remarks of Aaron (Maimonides on Lv. 10.3), but it extends only to the onen, that is, to the mourner on the

day of death and burial of a relative (see ANINUT). Periods of mourning are based on the different periods mentioned in the Bible, progressing from more intense to less intense: “Three days for weeping, seven days for eulogy, thirty days for pressing garments and haircutting”

(Mo‘ed

Q. 27b).

treated with compassion

Mourners

are

to be

and care: upon returning

from the *burial, a mourner should be provided with food by others (Se‘udat Havra’ah; see SE‘UDAH). The general rabbinic attitude toward mourning is

—-PETER

KNOBEL

MOVABLE PROPERTY. Because of a debtor's inability to conceal land from a creditor, only land was considered suitable to stand as security for debt. Thus, the older sources classify immovable property as nekhasim she-yesh lahem aharayut (property that is a security), and movable property as nekhasim she-'ein lahem aharayut (property that is not a security). In time, a more general classification was adapted, which distinguished between mitaltelim (movables) and garqa‘ (land). Movable property was further subclassified as either kelim (vessels; utensils, intended for repeated use) or perot (fruits; consumables).

Property that is physically movable but is on or under the surface of the ground in its natural state, such as rocks and minerals, is classified as land rather than as

movable property. This classification applies also to fruits and vegetation, but there remains a difference of opinion as to when the attachment of produce to the soil may be deemed severed. One opinion is that its classification as land holds only so long as the produce has not yet ripened sufficiently to be fit for harvesting, while other authorities have ruled that all unharvested produce, so long as it remains physically attached to its source of growth, remains classified as land; the latter position is based on the principle kol ha-mehubbar leqarqa‘ ke-qarqa‘, all that is connected to garqa‘ is deemed gqarqa‘. e Shalom Albeck, Dinei ha-Mammonot ba-Talmud (Tel Aviv, 1976), pp. 9699, 110, 145, 166, 252, 257. Menachem

Elon, ed., The Principles of Jewish Law (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 197, 205, 215, 590. Asher Gulak, Yesodei haMishpat ha-‘Ivri, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv, 1966), pp. 92-106. Isaac Herzog, The Main Institutions of Jewish Law, 2d ed. (London, 1965), vol. 1, pp. 77-117, 163-200, 225-273, 345-360. -BEN TZION GREENBERGER

MUELHAUSEN, cent.), Bohemian

YOM

TOV

LIPMANN

rabbi, philosopher,

(15th

kabbalist, and

theologian. Active in various communities including Erfurt

and

Krakéw,

he

served

as

head

of

the

rabbinical court in Prague. During his lifetime, that city became a center of the revival of interest in the philosophy of Maimonides, a revival sparked by the arrival of exiles from Provence in the wake of the persecutions of 1348 and 1349 and by the general intellectual ferment surrounding the Hussite rebellion

MUELHAUSEN,

MUSAF

518

YOM TOV LIPMANN

Two of Mukammis’ tractates Christianity for maintaining view inconsistent with pure tractate (now lost) argued

in Bohemia. Muelhausen criticized those rabbis who ignored Maimonides’ philosophical writings. He believed that philosophy deserved an honored place in rabbinic study and held the opinion that

cannot affect his unity. are polemic attacks on that God has form, a monotheism; another

Maimonides

against Islam. Mukammis, who wrote in Arabic, cites

was, in fact,

a kabbalist who expressed

his mystical ideas through philosophic rhetoric. A noted theological disputant, Muelhausen wrote Sefer ha-Nitsahon

(Amsterdam,

1701), a work designed to

offer its reader the tools to defend Jewish belief against the attacks of Christian critics. Among his halakhic writings is Tigqun Sefer Torah, on the laws of the scribe and the Torah scroll. ¢ Judah Kaufman, R. Yom Tov Lipmann Mihlhoizn (New York, 1926). Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature (Philadelphia, 1972), vol. 3,

pp. 148-150.

-~MARK

MUHAMMAD

up in Mecca

WASHOFSKY

(570-632), founder of *Islam; he grew

and was

acquainted

with

Jews

and

Christians, whose traditions and lore influenced him.

At first Muhammad had no intention of establishing a new religion. Considering himself the messenger and prophet of God (Allah) to the Arabs, he wished to convert his people to monotheism and to warn them of God’s wrath on the Day of Judgment. He believed his revelations to be identical with those given by earlier prophets to Jews and Christians and was therefore disappointed when they rejected his claims. He consequently accused them of intentionally deleting predictions of his advent from the Bible. Rejected at first by the people of Mecca, he attempted to win the approval of the large Jewish minority in Arabia, especially in the city of Medina. In 622, at the invitation of the people of Medina, he made his famous flight (Hijrah) to Medina and proclaimed Islam

as a new

faith, leaning

heavily

on

Judaism

for its formulation. He turned against his Jewish interlocutors because of their refusal to recognize him, and in battle with several Jewish tribes, he killed the

men and enslaved the women

and children in 625.

Nevertheless, Muhammad legislated that Jews, like Christians, should not be forced to embrace Islam,

but like other “Peoples of the Book,” they should be permitted to practice their religion while suffering certain ignominies. See also DHIMMI; QU’RAN. ¢ Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (London, 1995). Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Making of the Last Prophet: A Reconstruction of the Earliest Biography of Muhammad, translation of part of Sirat Rasul Allah, by Gordon D. Newby (Columbia, S.C., 1989). Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Muhammad, Man of God (Chicago, 1995). F. E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam

Greek and Arab authorities. Excerpts from ‘Esrim Peragim were translated into Hebrew. They were quoted by Yehuda ben Barzillai al-Bargeloni in his commentary on Sefer Yetsirah. Mukammis is cited in works of medieval Jewish thinkers, including Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’, Moshe ibn Ezra, and Ya‘aqov ben Shelomo Sarfati, as well as some Karaites.

According to Yaqub Qirgisani, Mukammis translated a commentary on Genesis called Book of Creation and a commentary on Ecclesiastes from Christian sources, to whom he was close during part of his life. ¢ Sarah Stroumsa, ed. and trans., Dawud ibn Marwan al-Mugammis' Twenty Chapters (Ishrun Magala) (Leiden, 1989), see introduction. Georges Vajda, “Le Probléme de I’unité de Dieu d’aprés Dawud Ibn Marwan Al-Mugammis,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, edited by Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 49-73. —-FRANCISCO

MORENO

CARVALHO

MUMAR (7/3113; apostate), one who has forsaken Judaism for a different faith (also called meshummad). At the behest of Christian censors, mumar has often

been substituted for the original meshummad

to be

found in the rabbinic texts. See also APOSTASY. MUOQTSEH

(73/9; set aside, excluded), objects that

cannot be moved on Sabbaths and festivals because they are not intended for use on those days. The Talmud enumerates twelve categories of mugtseh, including objects whose nature renders them unfit for use on the Sabbath (for example, tools or money, because of their connection with secular work); objects not normally used at all (for example, broken crockery or pebbles); nolad, that is, objects that were not in existence or were inaccessible at the commencement of the Sabbath (for example, a newly

laid egg or fruit fallen from a tree on the Sabbath); and any object that at the commencement of the Sabbath served as a base for an object forbidden on the Sabbath (for example, a tray upon which the Friday night candles were placed). Although it is forbidden to move a muqtseh object directly, it may be moved indirectly; for example, broken crockery may be cleared away by the use of a broom. ¢ Yisroel Pinchos Bodner, The Halachos of Muktza (Lakewood, N.J., 1981).

(Albany, 1994),

MURDER.

MUKAMMIS, DAVID IBN MARWAN (9th-10th cent.), a Babylonian philosopher also known as David ha-Bavli. He was one of the first thinkers to introduce the philosophy of the Arab Kalam school into Jewish thought. His ‘Esrim Peragim (translated into English by Sarah Stroumsa [Leiden, 1989]) deals

primarily with proofs for the existence of God, clearly following the Kalam doctrine of divine attributes, which stresses their difference from human attributes. God's attributes are identical with his being and

See Homicipe.

MUSAF (F513; Supplement), the name for the additional Temple sacrifice prescribed for Sabbath and festivals (see BURNT OFFERING); in the liturgy it is the name for the additional Sabbath and festival (Ro’sh Hodesh, the Shalosh Regalim, Ro’sh ha-Shanah, Yom Kippur) service. It is usually recited immediately after Shaharit and consists of the *‘Amidah and various concluding prayers, including the *Qaddish. The Musaf ‘Amidah is first recited silently by the

MUSAF

519

congregation and then repeated aloud by the reader. It contains only one intermediate blessing referring to the special significance of the day, and special mention is made of the Musaf sacrifices in the Temple. On Ro’sh ha-Shanah, the Musaf ‘Amidah contains three intermediate blessings: Malkuhyyot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot. Numerous and sometimes voluminous

poetic embellishments (see PlyyuT) were written for the Musaf ‘Amidah, but the recent tendency has been to reduce or discard them. On Yom Kippur, the *‘Avodah, a poetic description of the atonement service in the Temple, introduced by a detailed story of the creation of the world that demonstrates the cosmic dimension of the act of worship, is recited during the repetition of the Musaf ‘Amidah. On the first day of Pesah a prayer for dew (*Tefillat Tal) is inserted into the Musaf ‘Amidah; on Shemini ‘Atseret a similar

prayer for rain (*Tefillat Geshem) is inserted. In the Ashkenazi rite, the priests recite *Birkat ha-Kohanim (Nm. 6.22-24) before the repetition of the last blessing

on festival days, whereas in Erets Yisra’el Birkat haKohanim is said on all occasions when Musaf is recited. This emphasizes the way in which the Musaf service was designed to resemble the Temple service and its ideal of worship by offerings. The Musaf is subject to altered formulations or to omission in Reform congregations. ¢ Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, 1993), pp. 91-128, 170-176. Abraham Millgram, Jewish Worship (Philadelphia, 1971). Jakob J. Petuchowski, Prayerbook Reform in Europe: The Liturgy of European Liberal and Reform Judaism (New York, 1968), pp. 240-264. —-PETER LENHARDT

MUSAR

LITERATURE.

See Etuics; Musar

MOoveE-

MENT.

MUSAR MOVEMENT, nineteenth-century movement founded by R. Yisra’el *Salanter in Lithuania to promote the deliberate pursuit of piety (musar means ethics) in the spirit of halakhah among the masses. The movement has been viewed historically as the answer of *Mitnaggedim (opponents of Hasidism) to the various weaknesses in the social and religious fabric of Lithuanian Jewry (e.g., arid intellectualism and the gap between elitist Talmudic scholars and the masses) highlighted by the rise of Hasidism. It has also been understood as Salanter’s attempt to fortify

MUSIC

the Tels Yeshivah and R. Eliyyahu Dessler (1892-1954)

of the Gateshead Kolel in England, who later served as a mashgiah ruhani (spiritual guide) of the Ponevezh Yeshivah in Israel. Initially the Musar movement encountered sharp opposition from some of the traditional yeshivah leadership, who felt that the new emphasis on conscious spiritual exercise detracted from the primacy of Torah learning as the supreme religious activity. But by the beginning of the twentieth century, Musar had become a prevailing trend in the Lithuanian yeshivot. To this day many yeshivah students regard themselves as disciples of this or that variant of Musar and conduct their lives in accordance with its teachings. The vitality of the movement continues more indirectly in the very structure of contemporary Lithuanian-style yeshivot, in their more or less universal acceptance of periodic Musar sessions as an integral part of the curriculum and in the general practice of appointing a mashgiah ruhani as an indispensable member of the educational staff, whose task is to offer sihot Musar (Musar talks) and to

supervise the spiritual development of each student, as distinct from his intellectual growth. The development and significance attached to what has come to be known as yeshivah ideology (yeshivishe hashkofah), the set of beliefs and attitudes most conducive to ensuring normative behavior, can also be attributed

to the influence of Musar teachings. In addition to the living influence of the Musar movement within the confines of the yeshivot, at least a hundred books have been produced since the original writings of Salanter, which are usually transcripts of the discourses of subsequent generations of Musar leaders who have built upon his teachings. ¢ I. Etkes, Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Musar Movement: Seeking the Torah of Truth (Philadelphia, 1993), contains extensive bibliographic resources. Dov Katz, Tenu‘at ha-Musar: Toledoteha, Ishehah ve-Shitoteha, 6 vols. (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1945-1974), the most comprehensive study of the movement to date. Mordechai Pachter, ed., Kitvei Rav Yisra’el Salanter (Jerusalem, 1972), introduction, pp. 7-71. Tamar Ross, “Ha-'Adam ve-Koakh Behirato ha-Musarit be-Mahshevet ha-Rav Dessler,” Da’at 12 (Winter 1984): 111-126.

Tamar Ross, “Ha-Megamah ha-’Anti-ratsionalit bi-Tenu‘at ha-Musar,” Alei Shefer: Mehqarim be-Sifrut he-Hagut ha-Yehudit: Muggashim li-Khevod haRav Dr. Aleksander Safran, edited by Moshe Halamish (Ramat Gan, 1990), pp. 145-162. Tamar Ross, “Tenu‘at ha-Musar ve-ha-Ba‘yah ha-Hermenoytit be-Talmud Torah,” Tarbitz 59 (1990): 191-214. J. J. Weinberg, in Men ofthe Spirit, edited by Leo Jung (New York, 1964), pp. 213-283. -TAMAR

ROSS

Jewish tradition in Lithuania from within, to aid it in

withstanding the pervasive influence of the Haskalah (the Jewish Enlightenment movement). Although the Musar movement never achieved the widespread popular appeal envisioned by Salanter, it did gain a foothold in the Lithuanian-style Talmudic academies,

where

it branched

into several streams,

each of which stressed some aspect of Salanter’s teachings, thereby lending them new directions and interpretations. The most prominent schools are those of R. Simhah Zissel of Kelme (1829-1898), R. Yosef Yozel Hurwitz of Novogrudok (1848-1890), and

R. Natan Tsevi Finkel of Slobodka (1849-1927). Later representatives include R. Yosef Bloch (1859-1930) of

MUSIC. The earliest recorded references show that music has played an integral role in Jewish religious life. Temple and synagogue worship, home-based ritual and life-cycle celebrations of all Jewish communities have used music in styles and genres reflecting the variety of cultures in which Jews have lived. The first biblical reference is the identification of Jubal as “father of those who handle the harp and the pipe” (Gn. 4.21). Biblical figures including Moses (Song of Moses, Ex. 15.1-18) and Deborah (/gs. 5.2-31) express

their gratitude for divine help through song; other biblical references note the use of music in celebrating military victory (e.g., Jgs. 11; 1 Sm. 18.6). Psalms extols

God for a variety of blessings bestowed on the Israelite nation, and Psalm 150 exhorts “everything that has breath” to praise God using all manner of musical instruments. The first regular use of music in national religious life appears in the context of the *Temple in Jerusalem. King David appointed the *Levites to preside over elaborate musical ceremonies surrounding the placement of the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem (/ Chr. 15.16-25). Later, when the Jerusalem Temple became the center of Israel’s spiritual life, sacrificial rites were, according to the view in Chronicles, accompanied by the choral chanting of antiphonal and responsorial psalms and other passages, and a Temple orchestra of harps and lyres. (By the time of the Second Temple, a water-powered organ, trumpets, and flutes had been added). A minimum of twelve singers and twelve stringed instruments accompanied daily rites, while seemingly unlimited numbers of musicians enhanced the ritual on festive occasions; some four thousand singers and one hundred twenty trumpeters presided at the Temple’s dedication (2 Chr. 5.12-13). Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 cE, the rabbis imposed a national state of mourning,

proscribing the use of instruments and attempting to forbid vocal music as well. Though the latter ban was not fully enforced, Jewish musical expression was curtailed: only perfunctory chants were permitted to accompany synagogue rites, and fully joyous musical displays were allowed only for weddings and for the dedication of synagogues and Torah scrolls. Despite these limitations, evolving synagogue rites invited the creation of certain musical forms. The application of particular modes and patterned motives came to be known as *nussah, which, together with the public chanting of specified biblical books (cantillation; see ACCENTS; CANTORIAL Music), defined the musical parameters of Jewish worship. At the same time, the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction saw the dispersion of the Jewish people throughout the nations, and this brought Jewish ritual practice into contact with a vast repertoire of musical influences. As each community borrowed both consciously and subconsciously from its surrounding culture, Jewish music took on increasing diversity. The one unified musical tradition of the Jerusalem Temple yielded to hundreds of local variants. Over

MUSIC

520

MUSIC

time,

three

overarching

ethnic

traditions

emerged within the Diaspora. Those Jews who remained in the Middle East experienced the least challenge to their existing customs. Surrounded by a similarly inclined Muslim community, the ‘Adot ha-Mizrah exploited the improvisational possibilities of melodies influenced by Arabic magamot (rhymed prose). The musical repertoire of the “‘Adot ha-Mizrah focused on liturgical song and the chanting of quasi-liturgical poetry, and, honoring the prohibition against the use of instruments, they developed elaborate rhythmic accompaniments to Sabbath songs and life-cycle ceremonies.

Jews who made their way to the Iberian Peninsula brought with them the traditions of the Middle East, but those came under Western influence with the flowering of secular culture in Europe. The Spanish romancero dominated musical life and entered the repertoire of Sabbath table songs and synagogue chants, even over rabbinic objection. The expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 saw a bifurcation of Sephardi musical traditions. Those whose exile took a more southern route (into the Balkan and Mediterranean countries) maintained the Eastern flavors of their forebears, favoring melismatic melodies over harmonic

invention. Others, whose paths took them

to Amsterdam and from there to England and South America, perpetuated a less ornate ritual tradition; their hymns and liturgical tunes combined the flowing melodies of their Eastern roots with the Western penchant for regular metrical patterns and harmonic accompaniment.

The first challenge to the notion that Jewish religious music must necessarily be limited to simple chants came from the Italian composer Salamone *Rossi in the early seventeenth century. A court musician, Rossi was eager to exalt his God with all the musical expertise at his disposal. His friend R. Leone *Modena,

himself an amateur musician, issued a responsum in 1605 that permitted unaccompanied choral singing in the synagogue, and Rossi later published thirty-three settings of liturgical texts for combinations of three to eight voices. By the end of the seventeenth century, vocal and instrumental works by both Jewish and gentile composers were accepted ingredients in the celebration of synagogue dedications, the founding of fraternal societies, and the observance of special Sabbaths and festivals in Sephardi communities in Italy, France, and Amsterdam. In some cases, the regular performance of such works resulted in their assimilation into the popular liturgy, albeit in folklore form. Between

the eleventh

and fifteenth centuries,

the

musical motives and styles of German plainsong provided the inspiration for Ashkenazi nussah and for the *mi-Sinai melodies that became an integral part of the musical culture of Jewish communities from central and eastern Europe. While many of these new traditions emulated the Western penchant for metrical melodies built of disjunct intervals, the hazzanic recitative and at least some of the newly popular melodies of these Ashkenazi communities retained the ornate, melismatic singing of the East. From the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, itinerant hazzanim carried this music throughout the region, often with boy sopranos and bass accompanists in tow, giving concerts and making themselves available to officiate at services on festivals and special Sabbaths. In eastern Europe, Hasidim stressed the role of music in prayer and other religious contexts. Many hasidic leaders created niggunim (see NIGGUN) for their followers to sing. In the aftermath of political emancipation and the Enlightenment in the late eighteenth and early

MUSIC

521

nineteenth centuries, French and German Jews were exposed to a variety of new musical forms. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven provided new cultural standards, and the seemingly backward Eastern nuances of monophonic synagogue song (and the inability of Western music to accommodate them for harmonic purposes) were driven entirely from the musical vocabulary of new Reform congregations. Having declared most of rabbinic law irrelevant to modern times, the path was paved for *cantors in modern temples to produce their own music, complete with the accompaniment of *organs. Many cantors were musically untrained. Salomon *Sulzer (1804-1890)

provided

the

direction

that

¢ A.W. Binder, “Jewish Music: An Encyclopedic Survey,” in Studies in Jewish Music: Collected Writings of A. W. Binder, edited by Irene Heskers (New York, 1971). Joachim Braun, Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine, translated by Douglas W. Stott (Grand Rapids, Mich. /Cambridge, 2002). Irene Heskes, Passport to Jewish Music: Its History, Traditions, and Culture (Westport, Conn., 1994). Abraham Zebi Idelsohn, Jewish Music in Its Historical Development (New York, 1929; repr. New York, 1967; Westport, Conn., 1981). Joseph A. Levine, Synagogue Song in America (Crown Point, Ind., 1989). Macy Nulman, The Concise Encyclopedia of Jewish Music (New York, 1975). Aron Marko Rothmuller,

The Music of the Jews: An Historical Perspective,

rev. ed, (Cranbury, N.J., 1967). Amnon Shiloah, Jewish Musical Traditions (Detroit, 1992). Eric Werner, “Jewish Music, Liturgical,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie (New York, 1980), vol. 9, pp. 614-634. Eric Werner, A Voice Still Heard: The Sacred Songs ofthe Ashkenazic Jews (University Park, Pa., 1976). Eric Werner, The Sacred Bridge: The Interdependence ofLiturgy and Music in Synagogue and Church during the First Millennium (New York, 1959; repr. New York, 1984). -~MARSHA

BRYAN

EDELMAN

Reform

music needed. A talented musician with a traditional religious background, Sulzer served as cantor in the Stadttempel of Vienna from 1826; his Shir Tsiyyon (published in 1840 and 1866) contained musical settings for every text of the liturgical year, which were eagerly adopted by contemporary cantors. Compositions by Sulzer and his student, Louis *Lewandowski, a choral conductor from Berlin, retain a significant role in Ashkenazi services to the present. While not adopting the liberal reforms of their German coreligionists, composers from _ eastern Europe also began writing works for (male) choirs featuring virtuosic hazzanic performances. The turn of the century marked the golden age of hazzanut, in which gifted cantor-composers performed their own works, popularizing cantorial music outside the synagogue as well as within it. The wave of east European immigrants to North American shores in the period from 1880 to 1920 brought this new tradition with it, providing an alternative to the music of Reform and even gentile composers that had predominated in America since the German immigration of the mid-nineteenth century. Josef *Rosenblatt, Gershon Sirota, and the Kussevitsky brothers were among the many whose concertizing on both sides of the Atlantic brought renown to themselves and new opportunities for the music of their tradition. The American synagogue underwent profound changes in the period following World War II. As the number of Orthodox congregations became

MYSTICISM

smaller,

the musical styles of the Reform and the Conservative movements gained prominence. Worshipers eager for amore active role in the prayer experience encouraged the creation of singable congregational melodies, and the somewhat exclusive role of the cantor and choir was diminished. This trend accelerated in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967, with a strong identification with the music of Israel, in particular,

and various new forms of Jewish music in general. The coincident attempt to attract younger worshipers to synagogues saw the emulation of jazz, folk, and rock genres in new liturgical settings. The newly accepted voice of Jewish women as cantors and composers has also brought new dimensions to ancient views of music and spirituality.

MUSIC, CANTORIAL. MYRTLE.

See CantoriaL Music.

See Four SPECIEs.

MYSTICISM

(from

Gr.

muein

[close]),

originally,

in religious terminology, secret teachings or rituals which the initiated (mzystes) was not allowed to divulge to others. The term is now generally taken to refer to the inner, more intense and spiritual dimension of religious life on the intellectual (e.g., knowledge of God) or experiential (e.g., union or communion with God) level. Mystical traditions can be found, in varying degrees and in a variety of forms, in most of the known religious traditions. Traditional Hebrew has no equivalent term rendering this specific sense. Some of the experiences recounted by the prophets, in Psalms, and in later literature are sometimes described as “mystical,” but this obscures a decisive difference between mysticism and biblical prophecy: the latter was never sought for its own sake. The prophets were, often against their will, recipients of a message from God which they had to transmit to the people. Some prophets received the message by means of visions. The non-prophetic type of visionary experience or revelation seems to have developed in the Second Temple period (see APOCALYPSE; APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA; ENOCH; Ezra.) The Mishnah (Hag. 2.1) mentions two esoteric disciplines, *Ma‘aseh Merkavah and *Ma‘aseh Be-Re’shit (see HEIKHALOT). The medieval terms torat ha-sod or torat ha-nistar, that is, secret, hidden, and “esoteric” lore that must

not be divulged, seem to be closer to the original meaning of the Greek word. Whether the cosmogonic speculations and teachings of the *Sefer Yetsirah should be considered as mystical is an open question, but there is no doubt that the book greatly influenced later mystical literature. Many mystical systems aspire to the total union of the soul with, and its absorption in, the Godhead as the highest goal. It has been argued that God’s utter transcendence was so basic a tenet of Judaism that it inhibited on both the theoretical and the experiential level the more extreme forms of mystical union. *Devequt therefore meant close adherence to and communion with God. While this observation seems correct as a general characterization, there is evidence of contemplatives and mystics experiencing

more radical forms of ecstasy and mystical union. The extant accounts of mystical experiences cover a wide gamut, ranging from the Ma‘aseh Merkavahtype of awe and trembling at the vision of the divine glory to the illuminations and light-experiences of the so-called ecstatic and prophetic Kabbalah associated with Avraham *Abulafia. Forms of spiritual life that were neither ecstatic nor visionary but rather ascetic and contemplative were influenced, especially in Muslim Spain, by *Sufism, with *Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’ being the most influential representative of this trend. A different type of theological speculation, devotional life, and mystical piety developed in Germany and western Europe, in the twelfth century (see HASIDEI ASHKENAZ).

R. *Yehuda

ben Shemu’el

he-Hasid and

R. *El‘azar ben Yehuda of Worms taught an otherworldly asceticism, humility, and equanimity in the face of worldly joys and trials, and the importance of mystical kavvanot (devotions, intentions) accompanying prayer. Their theological speculations centered on the divine light of the “Created Glory” and the mystery of the *cherubim as the manifestations of the otherwise utterly hidden and transcendent *God. A new

spiritual

MYSTICISM

522

MYSTICISM

movement,

the origins

of which

are still obscure, emerged in the twelfth century in rabbinic-pietistic circles in the Languedoc area of Provence (southern France), where its first major text,

the *Sefer ha-Bahir, made its appearance. From there it passed to northern Spain, where its further evolution

culminated in the *Zohar. This particular theosophical system was subsequently called *Kabbalah. Opposed at first by Talmudic orthodoxy as a nearheretical

innovation,

gradually

dominating

ulation

and

it nevertheless

all forms

practice,

and

as

succeeded

of mystical a

result

the

in

specterm,

which strictly speaking applies to only one phase of medieval Jewish spirituality, erroneously came to be used as synonymous with Jewish mysticism in general. In the sixteenth century—that is, after the expulsion from Spain and probably not unrelated to that traumatic event—Yitshaq “Luria developed a novel form

of Kabbalah

which,

unlike most

forms

of mysticism which are supratemporal and hence ahistorical, gave the process of creation and history a mystical interpretation with a powerful messianic charge. The seventeenth century messianic movement unleashed by *Shabbetai Tsevi had Lurianic Kabbalah as its background. Lurianic concepts and terminology also permeate *Hasidism, the novel form of eighteenth

century mystical revival in eastern Europe initiated by Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer *Ba‘al Shem Tov. The mystical theology of R. Avraham Kook (see Kook FAMILy) also bears the imprint of the kabbalistic heritage. e Dan Cohn-Sherbok, ed., Jewish Mysticism: An Anthology (Oxford, 1995). Joseph Dan, The Ancient Jewish Mysticism (Tel Aviv, 1993). Joseph Dan, Jewish Mysticism and Jewish Ethics, 2d ed. (Northvale, N.J., 1996). Moshe

Idel, Messianic Mystics (New Haven, 1998). Moshe Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah (Albany, 2007). Peter Schafer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tiibingen,

2009).

Gershom

Gerhard

Scholem,

Major

Trends

in Jewish

Mysticism (New York, 1954), pp. 1-39. Margaret Smith, Studies in Early Mysticism in the Near and Middle East (Oxford, 1995).

N NAHAWENDI,

BINYAMIN.

See

BINYAMIN'

evil intentions

(Naz. 23b) and that where there is rejoicing, there must also be reverence (lit., trembling;

BEN

MOosHE NAHAWENDI.

cf. Ber. 30b to Ps. 2.11).

NAHEM (87); Comfort), prayer instituted in amoraic times and recited in the afternoon service ‘Amidah on Tish‘ah be-’Av asking for comfort for those who mourn Zion and for the rebuilding of the city. The original version appears in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Y., Ber. 4.1) and underwent various changes in geonic and later prayer books. Yosef *Karo suggested that it is recited at the afternoon service to correspond to the time of the actual destruction of the Temple. ¢ Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale, N.J., and London, 1993), p. 254.

NAHMAN

BAR

YA‘AQOV

(3d-4th cent.), Babylo-

nian amora’. He was born in Nehardea. His father was the scribe of R. Shemu’el and his primary teacher was

R.

Abba’

ben

Avuha.

He

married

Yalta’,

the

daughter of R. Abbahu, the exilarch. Known as one of “the pious ones of Babylonia,” he is mentioned countless times in the Talmud Bavli and frequently in the Talmud Yerushalmi. As a highly regarded dayyan (R. Huna’

considered

him

Shemu’el’s

equal in civil

matters), he issued opinions in legal disputes that were viewed as authoritative by sages in subsequent generations (Ket. 13a). He regarded himself as an expert in judgment, whose opinion could outweigh that of the majority (San. 5a), but he was respected

for answering questions honestly with, “I don’t know”

¢ Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der babylonischen Amorder (1913; Hildesheim, 1967). Aaron 1987).

Hyman,

Toledot

NAHMANIDES, exegete, kabbalist,

Tanna'im

ve-'Amora'im (1910; Jerusalem, -MICHAEL L. BROWN

MOSES (1194-1270), biblical halakhist, poet, and physician;

also known as Moshe ben Nahman, Nahmani, Ramban, and Bonastrug da Porta. Nahmanides was

an intellectual and communal leader of the Jewish community in Catalonia during a crucial period of change. His writings reflect a major synthesis of the two most significant schools of thought: the dialectical tradition of northern French Jewry and the analytic-praxis orientation of Andalusian Jewry. The broad scope of Nahmanides’ learning enabled him to work for peace and stability within communities which were torn by conflicting ideas, originating both from within the Jewish world and from the larger Christian society. In 1232 he attempted to resolve a conflict over the use of the writings of Maimonides

(see

MAIMONIDEAN

CONTROVERSY).

He

attempted to influence the rabbis of northern France not to enforce a ban, declared by rabbis in southern France, on the study of the writings of Maimonides and other philosophy. He suggested a program to regulate the study of philosophy by restricting the age when students could begin to engage in philosophical

(Shab. 66a; cf. also ‘Eruv. 16b).

studies. However, because of the heightened emotions

¢ Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der babylonischen Amorder (1913; Hildesheim, 1967). Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tanna’im ve-’Amoraiim (1910; Jerusalem, 1987). Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden, 1969).

on the part of rabbis in southern France and Spain, Nahmanides was unsuccessful in preventing the bans.

-~MICHAEL

Between

L. BROWN

NAHMAN BEN YITSHAQ (died 356), Babylonian amora’. He is sometimes mistaken in the sources (in

particular, the Talmud Yerushalmi) for his contemporary R. Nahman bar Ya‘aqov, since both are often referred to without patronymic. His teachers included his uncle, R. Aha’ ben Yosef, and R. Hiyya’ ben Avin. Referred to as one of the masters of the Masorah (e.g., Yoma’ 38b), he is mentioned frequently in the Talmud in halakhic matters; he taught that “a legal ruling should be as clear as a day when the north wind blows” (‘Eruv. 65a). He served as the principal lecturer at the semiannual *kallah month sessions in the academy of Rava’ in Mahoza and was the head of the academy in Pumbedita from 352 to 356 (according to the Iggeret Rav Sherira’ Ga’on). The Talmud records that his mother, having been warned by astrologers that her son would be a thief, determined that his head would always be covered “so that the fear of Heaven may be upon you” (Shab. 156b). This account was later used in the argument for covering the head. He taught that a transgression performed with good intentions was better than a precept performed with

523

1263 and

1265, Nahmanides,

as the rep-

resentative of Catalonian Jewry, was called upon by King James I (1213-1267) with regard to the attempts by the mendicant orders to evangelize the Jewish communities by preaching in synagogues. King

James

invited Nahmanides to defend the Talmud against the accusations

of Pablo Christiani,

a Dominican

friar,

who sought to demonstrate that passages in rabbinic literature revealed Christian truth (see BARCELONA, DISPUTATION OF). Afterwards Nahmanides summarized his view of the issues raised in the debate, in his book Sefer ha-Vikkuah. In this book, he defended his

proposition that although the legal portions of the Talmud were obligatory upon all Jews, the speculative views of the aggadah were not. The stories and explanations contained in the aggadah provided useful teachings, but no Jew was obliged to believe them. By April 1265, the Dominicans requested Pope Clement IV to ask the king to punish Nahmanides for the views expressed in Sefer ha-Vikkuah. With the help of the king, Nahmanides left Spain for Erets Yisra’el. After his arrival there in 1267, Nahmanides proceeded to Jerusalem, where he found the community in ruins. His letter to his son Nahman elaborates on his sorrow

NAHMANIDES,

NAHMAN OF BRATSLAV

524

MOSES

at the sad state of the Jews in Jerusalem, and on his efforts to acquire property for a synagogue, set up a yeshivah, and organize the community. One year

application of, and release from, the ban administered by the community; and Torat ha-’Adam, on the laws relating to illness and death.

later Nahmanides moved to Acre, where he succeeded

° Nina Caputo, Nahmanides in Medieval Catalonia: History, Community, and Messianism (Notre Dame, Ind., 2007). Robert Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of1263 and Its Aftermath (Berkeley, 1992). Yaakov Elman, “Moses ben Nahman,” Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, The History of Its Interpretation 1/2, edited by Magne Sebo (Géttingen, 2000), pp. 416-432. Marvin Fox, “Nachmanides on the Status of Aggadot: Perspectives on the Disputation at Barcelona, 1263,” Journal ofJewish Studies 40 (1989): 95-109. Amos Funkenstein, “Nahmanides’ Symbolical Reading of History,” in Studies in Jewish Mysticism, edited by Joseph Dan and Frank Talmage (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), pp. 129-150. Isadore Twersky, ed., Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Cambridge,

R. Yehi’el ben Yosef of Paris as head of the community. Nahmanides’ literary productivity was prolific. More than fifty authentic works of his are extant, the majority relating to Talmudic and legal literature. In the area of *Bible exegesis, Nahmanides

wrote commentaries

on the Torah, on the messianic passages in Daniel (called Sefer ha-Ge’ullah), and on the Book of Job. His Torah commentary, which received its final form

after he moved to Erets Yisra’el, reveals respect for the writings of Rashi and Avraham ibn Ezra, but moves beyond their interests in linguistic matters and the synthesis of classical rabbinic literature with the text of scripture. In his commentary, Nahmanides explicated both the plain meaning of the text and the deepest meaning of its laws and narratives—its mystical dimension. He held that the description of the creation of the world in the early chapters of Genesis reveals the six ages of world history and the future

day of the Lord,

and

that the sequence

of

the Torah narratives reveals the meaning of Israel’s existence. He opposed Maimonides’ attempt to provide rational explanations of miracles wholly within the natural order; rather, Nahmanides

saw miracles

as manifest proof of the reality of God’s action within creation. The Torah commentary is the primary source for Nahmanides’ kabbalistic thinking. Despite his insistence on Kabbalah as esoteric knowledge, which ought to be confined only to a few initiates, his commentary was the first to reveal theosophic doctrines by explication of Talmudic aggadah. Nahmanides’

concern

with

theodicy,

on the level

both of the individual and of the people of Israel, is expressed in the commentary on Job and the Sefer ha-Ge’ullah. The suffering of the individual may be explained, according to the Job commentary, by the doctrine of *transmigration of the soul (gilgul nefashot). Israel's suffering in exile among the nations of the world will ultimately be rectified through the coming of the Messiah. In Sefer ha-Ge’ullah, Nahmanides provided a sustained commentary on the messianic passages in Daniel, and calculated a date for the arrival of redemption. Nahmanides’ extensive halakhic writings reveal his mastery of the Talmudic text and of the history of post-Talmudic dialectical and juridical traditions. In his novellae (hiddushim) on the three most frequently studied orders of the Mishnah—Mo‘ed,

Nashim, and

Neziqin—he utilized the sources of the Spanish community, in combination with the dialectical methods

of the northern French tosafists. He also incorporated the teachings of the halakhists of Provence. Nahmanides also wrote works of criticism in which he defended earlier legal authorities against later views. Some of his monographs codified significant areas of Jewish law: Dinei de-Garmei, on the laws regarding disturbances to neighbors; Mishpetei ha-Herem, on the

Mass., 1983). Elliot R. Wolfson, “By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides’ Kabbalistic Hermeneutic,” AJS Review 14 (1989): 103-178. —MICHAEL

A, SIGNER

NAHMAN OF BRATSLAV (1772-1810), Hasidic master. One of the most enigmatic figures in the history of Hasidism, R. Nahman has long been viewed with suspicion by Hasidim outside the Bratslav camp, while he has been the subject of intense fascination for moderns attracted to the Hasidic world. A greatgrandson of Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer *Ba‘al Shem Tov, Nahman grew up during the period when his uncle *Barukh of Medzhibozh was working to create the first Hasidic dynasty. Since R. Baruch had no sons, Nahman would have been the natural dynastic heir to the Ba‘al Shem Tov’s mantle. But even in his youth the deeply introspective Nahman felt that he would not be fit to lead others until he had become a perfect *tsaddiq. This required constant struggle against the dark forces of temptation, doubt, and depression that ever sought to overwhelm him. He also came to see the Hasidism of his uncle’s court as superficial and inauthentic. Only after a dramatic and transforming journey to Erets Yisra’el between 1798 and 1799 did Nahman feel prepared to accept disciples, of whom he required an unusually high degree of intense mortification, self-examination, and loyalty to himself as master. There was a deep communion of soul between Nahman and his disciples that formed the very essence of Bratslav Hasidism. Binding themselves to their master, they gained the ability through him to overcome the obstacles that stood before them. In his more elated moments,

Nahman

came to see himself

as the tsaddiq ha-dor, the unique figure within his generation who could solve the world’s ills. Nahman’s Hasidim,

unlike

others,

refused

to crown

another

master upon his death from tuberculosis at the age of thirty-eight (he did have a son in 1806). They remain forever his personal disciples; he alone can help them in their constant struggles for perfection. Signs posted in Bratslav prayer rooms still ask that prayers recited there be bound especially to the soul of this singular master. Nahman insisted that his disciples engage in daily hitbodedut (a state of being alone), which in his case meant

an hour-long

conversation with God in which the Hasid, speaking aloud and in his native language, would “break his heart” before God. Nahman’s teachings are collected in Liqqutei Moharan (Ostrdg, 1809; Mogilev, 1811). Nahman is the first (and perhaps the only) Hasidic

NAHMAN OF BRATSLAV

spp

master to make room for doubt and questioning, even of the most basic sort, within the religious life. Nahman is the author of the fantastic Sippurei Ma‘astyyot (Ostrég, 1816), a collection of thirteen stories that sought to create in their hearers a new sort of sacred imagination. His stories have been hailed as classics of Jewish literature. Along with his teachings, these are still studied and venerated by Bratslav Hasidim, today centered in Jerusalem. Rabbi Nahman’s grave in Uman, Ukraine, has again become a pilgrimage site, especially on Ro’sh ha-Shanah. The contemporary “Na Nah” movement in Israel uses bumper stickers, billboards, and widespread graffiti to encourage people to engage in the practice of chanting meditation (“Na Nah Nahma Nahman me-'Uman’). e Arthur Green, Tormented Master: A Life of Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav (New York, 1979). Mendel Piekarz, Hasidut Braslav (Jerusalem, 1972). Joseph G. Weiss, Mehgarim be-Hasidut Braslav (Jerusalem, 1974). —-ARTHUR

GREEN

NAHOTEI (Aram.; vabiarh those who descend), sages who traveled from Erets Yisra’el to Babylonia, that is, sages who descended from the Holy Land to a place of lesser spiritual status. Their travels may have been for business reasons or to study with Babylonia’s rabbinic scholars. Babylonian scholars who went to Erets Yisra’el to study the teachings and traditions of its academies,

and who then reported them back to

Babylonia, are also called nahotei. They are primarily significant for their transmission of amoraic traditions between the two main centers of the Talmudic period and are credited with maintaining a living connection between the rabbinic circles of Erets Yisra’el and those of Babylonia. The nahotei were active in the third and fourth centuries CE, and the best-known nahotei include ‘Ulla, Dimi, and Ravin. ¢ Nosson Dovid Rabinowich, ed. and trans., The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon (Jerusalem,

1988). Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud (New York, 1976). -~MICHAEL CHERNICK

NAHUM (Heb. Nahum; 7th cent. BcE), prophet in the kingdom of Judah. The superscription of the Book of Nahum identifies him as an “Elkoshite” (1.1; the location of this place is unknown). The seventh book of the Minor Prophets, Nahum emphasizes God’s action in history by describing the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, in 612 BCE, as a divine act. The book is divided into two parts: God’s holiness and judgment against Assyria (vv. 2-10 contain in Hebrew a partially preserved alphabetical acrostic) and consolatory promises of protection to Judah (1.2-15); and a long vivid description of the downfall, sacking of, and curse upon Nineveh, which ends with

a song taunting the doomed city (chaps. 2-3). Similar to the tradition preserved by the Greek historians Diodorus and Xenophon, Nahum

2.7 assumes that a

flood (of the Tigris) was a major factor in the fall of the city. A *pesher or commentary on the Book of Nahum was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, Nahum is represented in the Hebrew Minor Prophets

NAJARA, YISRA’EL BEN MOSHE

scroll from Wadi

Murabba‘at

and the Greek Minor

Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever in the Judean desert. ¢ Shmuel Ahituvy, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Mikra Le-Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 2007). Richard J. Coggins, /srael among the Nations: A Commentary on

the Books of Nahum and Obadiah, International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1985). Alfred Ossian Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum, Uppsala universitets arsskrift, 1946:7 (Uppsala, 1947). J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville, 1991). Marvin A. Sweeney, “Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum,” Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104 (1992): 364-377. Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minn., 2000). —-MARVIN A. SWEENEY

NAHUM OF CHERNOBYL (c.1730-1797), Hasidic author. He was a disciple of *Dov Ber of Mezhirech and progenitor of the Twersky dynasty (see TWERSKY FAMILY). He lived a life of simplicity and poverty, traveling to preach in towns in the northern and western Ukraine. His teachings are collected in Me’or ‘Einayim

(1798),

one

of the

classics

of Hasidic

literature. Though a disciple of Dov Ber, many of Nahum’s homilies reflect the somewhat simpler mysticism of Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer *Ba‘al Shem Tov. The presence of God everywhere and at all times and the human obligation to serve God in every way, both through the commandments and beyond them, are the

key themes of Nahum’s work. There is also a great emphasis in his homilies on the cultivation of da‘at (mindfulness) as the chief purpose of religious life. ¢ Beit Tsernobil: Beit Nahum (Warsaw, 1927). Arthur Green, ed. and trans., Upright Practices: The Light of the Eyes (New York, 1982). -ARTHUR

GREEN

NAHUM OF GIMZO (ist—2d cent.), tanna’ noted for his learning, poverty, and pious resignation in the face of misfortune (which he accepted with the phrase gam zu le-tovah, “this too is for the best,” a pun on the name of his Judean village, Gimzo, near Lydda). Several

miraculous events are reported as having happened to him, as a result of his extreme piety. His teachings became influential through his pupil R. *‘Aqiva’, who was responsible for the general acceptance of Nahum’s methods for the halakhic interpretation of scripture (see HERMENEUTICS). ¢

Gershom

Bader,

The Encyclopedia

of Talmudic

Sages, translated

Solomon Katz (Northvale, N.J., 1993), pp. 172-174, 258. —-DANIEL

NAJARA, YISRA’EL BEN MOSHE rabbi,

kabbalist,

and

poet

in Erets

by

SPERBER

(c.1555-1628), Yisra’el.

The

outstanding Jewish poet of his period, he composed sacred and secular poems

in Hebrew and Aramaic, restoring *piyyut to its former importance. His main themes were praise for God, laments for the sufferings of Israel, and longing for redemption. His poetic description of the mystical union between God and Israel often resorted to erotic imagery that was condemned by other rabbis. Several hundred of his religious poems are extant, including piyyutim for

each Sabbath and festival. Many passed into the liturgy, particularly in Italy and Muslim lands. Best known is *Yah Ribbon ‘Olam, which was incorporated into the Sabbath *zemirot in all rites. The outstanding collection of his poems is Zemirot Yisra’el.

* Tovah Bari, “Behinot Tsurah ve-Tokhen be-Shirei “Olat Hodesh’ le-Yisra’el Nag’arah,” master’s thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983. Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Shir shel Yisra’el Najarah be-fi ha-Shabta'im (Jerusalem, 1948-1949).

NAMES. In many ancient cultures personal names had great significance. Names represented one’s essence, and a person was often given a new name upon entering a new phase of life. The Bible often explains why individuals were called by certain names or why their names were changed (Abram, Sarai, Jacob, and Hoshea were changed to Abraham, Sarah,

Israel, and Joshua); the change of name symbolically invests a person’s life with new significance. Names of gods often formed a part of personal names, and it was not uncommon at first also for Israelite names to contain the element baal (see BAAL WorsHIP), although this was discontinued under the influence of monotheism,

when the elements el, eli, and yeho were substituted. Rabbinic literature abounds in etymologies for the names of biblical persons, places and even animals (who were named by Adam; Gn. 2.19-20). Rabbinic law requires meticulous care in

the correct spelling of all names in documents, particularly in bills of divorce, which would be invalidated by a misspelling or an omission. A Jew is known by a Hebrew name plus the name of the father (X son or daughter of Y) and in this form is “called up” to the reading of the Law in the synagogue. A growing custom in the West is to add the mother’s name. A baby boy is named at the *circumcision ceremony and a girl in the synagogue and/or in a home ceremony shortly after her birth (see BaBy NAMING). The Talmud states that “the majority of Jews

in the Diaspora adopt the non-Jewish names of their environment”

(Git. 11a), but the rabbis saw

special

virtue in the fact that “the people of Israel did not change their names in Egypt; as Reuben and Simeon they descended and as Reuben and Simeon they went out.” During the period of the Second Temple, certain non-Jewish names (e.g., Alexander, Hyrcanus) became accepted among Jews. Rabbi El‘azar states that a person’s name is determined by God and influences his destiny (Ber. 7b); for this reason,

NASHIM

526

NAJARA, YISRA’EL BEN MOSHE

names

of ill-

fated biblical persons were avoided (Gn. Rab. 49.1). The notion of a connection between name and essence also underlies the rabbinic statement (R. ha-Sh. 16b)

that a change of name was one of the four things that could avert the evil decree. This gave rise to the ritual of changing the name of a gravely ill person, usually by adding an auspicious name such as Hayyim (Life) or Yehoshu‘a (Salvation). Where this custom is still extant, the change is conferred at a short ceremony in which charity is donated on behalf of the invalid, a blessing is recited, a formula (which differs in the Ashkenazi and Sephardi rites) is read announcing the new (additional) name, and a prayer is recited asking for “new life” for the bearer of the new name. The custom originally had a superstitious element in the belief that the change of name would mislead the angel of death. See also Gop, NAMES OF.

* Aaron Demsky, Joseph A. Reif, Joseph Tabory, eds., These Are the Names. Studies

in Jewish

Onomastics

(Ramat

Gan,

1997).

Jeaneane

D. Fowler,

Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 49 (Sheffield, UK, 1988). Heinrich W. and Eva H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and Their Origins: An Etymological Dictionary (Hoboken, N.J., 1992). Tal Han, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity (multi-volume; Tubingen, 2002-). Benzion C. Kaganoff, A Dictionary of Jewish Names and Their History (New York, 1977). Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “The Naming of Children in Jewish

Folklore, Ritual and Practice,” in Studies in Jewish Law, Custom and Folklore (New York, 1970), pp. 30-74. Michael H. Silverman, Religious Values in the Jewish Proper Names at Elephantine (Kevelaer, 1985).

NAMES

OF GOD.

See Gob, NAMES OF,

NAPHTALI, the sixth son born second son of Bilhah, Rachel’s

to Jacob and the maidservant, and

the eponymous ancestor of the tribe and territory of Naphtali. Rachel named Naphtali to reflect her trials with her sister Leah: “With wrestlings of God I have wrestled [naftulei elohim niftalti] with my sister, and I have prevailed” (Gn. 30.8). During the period of the Judges, the tribe of Naphtali fought, sometimes

Canaanites occurred at the military the prophet

unsuccessfully,

against the local

(Jgs. 1.33). Its most noted campaign Mount Tabor under the leadership of figure Barak ben Avinoam. Supported by and judge *Deborah, Barak defeated the

northern Canaanite confederation led by Sisera, the

general of Jabin who was the king of Hazor, a major city-state in the territory of Naphtali (/gs. 4-5). The territory of Naphtali was bordered to the north by Dan, to the east by the Jordan River, to the west by Asher, and to the south by Lake Kinneret and the territory of Issachar-Zebulun (Jos 19.32-39). The city of Kedesh-

naphtali was the northernmost Cisjordanian city of refuge (see ASYLUM). During the Solomonic monarchy, Naphtali was an administrative district, governed by the king’s son-in-law, an indication of its importance

for the Israelite kingdom. Situated on the northern border, it was conquered by Ben-hadad I, the king of Damascus (/ Kgs. 15.20). The Assyrian monarch, Tiglath-pileser III captured “all the land of Naphtali and carried off the people captive to Assyria” (2 Kgs. 15.29). The Second Temple author of the apocryphal Book of *Tobit identifies its hero as a Naphtalian exile dwelling in Nineveh in the time of Sennacherib. ¢

Yohanan

Aharoni,

The Land

of the Bible: A Historical

Geography

(Philadelphia, 1967). J. W. Hirschberg, ed., Kol Erets Naftali (Jerusalem, 1967). Benjamin Mazar, “Kol Erets Naftali,” in ‘Arim u-Gelilot be-’Erets

Yisra’el (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 203-213.

NAQQEDANIM

-AARON

DEMSKY

(B° 1? 3;punctuators), scholars who

punctuated and accented biblical manuscripts. They were the successors of the Masoretes (see MASORAH),

whose work they conserved. The naqgedanim flourished from the ninth century until the invention of printing. NASHIM

(O°w); Women), third order of the Mishnah,

dealing with laws concerning betrothal, marriage, divorce, and marital relationships. It has seven tractates:

“Yevamot,

*Ketubbot,

*Nedarim,

*Nazir,

NASHIM

RYai

*Sotah, *Gittin, and *OQiddushin. All have material in the Tosefta’ and both Talmuds.

related

~AVRAHAM WALFISH

NASP (N"W); prince, or patriarch), title given to authority figures from the biblical period forward. In biblical texts, clan heads, tribal leaders, and kings are referred to as nasi’. At Qumran, the term appears with a monarchic meaning or in reference to the leader of the sect. Second-century CE coins and documents refer to Shim‘on *Bar Kokhba’ as nesi’ Yisra’el. In rabbinic sources,

nasi’, an official title meaning

patriarch,

is

applied first to one of each of the *zugot (pairs), beginning with *Yosei ben Yo‘ezer (c.160 BCE), then to the presiding officer of the *Sanhedrin in the Temple, and finally, through the amoraic period, to the head of the court. Most scholars agree that the rabbinic usage in the early period is anachronistic. Some date the patriarchate to Hillel (c.30 ce), others to Gamli’el the Elder (fl. 85 cE), and still others to R. Yehuda

ha-Nasi’ (fl. 190 cE). Certainly the patriarchate was not fully established until R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’, who was recognized as the political head of the Jewish community by the Roman authorities and supported with money, land, and other privileges. Rabbinic sources describe the varied activities of the nasi’: he presided

over

the Sanhedrin;

he and

his court

determined the calendar by proclaiming the new moon and leap years; and he proclaimed national fast days in emergencies, led certain public prayers, ordained scholars, and appointed judges. The nasi’ dispatched emissaries to the Diaspora in order to teach, collect funds, and set up courts. The court of the nasi’ possessed legislative powers, and ordinances issued by the court (tagqanot) were credited to the presiding nasi’. Hillel Il’s formulation of the principles of the calendar (c.350 cE) was the last great taqqanah of the nesiim. A tradition attributing Davidic lineage of the patriarchs led to messianic speculation regarding them. Some rabbinic figures attacked this position, as did the church fathers in the Byzantine period. The office, which was held by descendants of Hillel, was abolished by the authorities in Palestine in 425 cE. In the Middle Ages, the term nasi’ was applied to the lay leader of the Jewish community, both within and outside Erets Yisra’el, though at times its usage was honorific. Karaites also used the term to designate their leaders, and in Modern Hebrew, nasi’ means president. ¢

Samuel Abramsky, Bar Kokhva’, Nesi’ Yisra’el (Tel Aviv, 1961). Gedaliah

Alon. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, translated by Gershon

NATAN HA-BAVLI

one of the few medieval dictionaries of the Talmud and Midrash. A comprehensive and alphabetically arranged work, it explains unclear words in a variety of languages, while also elucidating many difficult passages in rabbinic literature. It is a unique source of geonic and early Ashkenazi literature, containing sources otherwise unknown. Among these are sections of the Mainz

Commentaries on the Talmud, which served as a basis for Rashi’s commentary. The “‘Arukh also preserves variant readings of many classic rabbinic works, as well as important information on contemporary customs. The work was extensively cited in medieval literature and provided one of the bases of subsequent Talmudic lexicography. First published in Rome in 1469, it was edited with an introduction by A. Kohut under the title Arukh Completum (Vienna, 1878-1892).

e I. A. Agus, in World History of the Jewish People, vol. 2, 2d ser., The Dark Ages, edited by Cecil Roth (New Brunswick, N.J., 1966), pp. 182-184. Avraham

Grossman,

Hakhmei

(Vienna, 1937).

M.

Goodblatt,

“Re’shitah

shel

ha-Nesi’ut

ha-Erets-Yisra’elit

(Jerusalem,

1989).

NATAN BEN YITSHAQ HA-KOHEN

R. WOOLF

HA-BAVLI

(10th cent.), chronicler. He is known for his account

of Babylonian Jewry’s primary governing institutions, the gaonate and the exilarchate. Theoretically, the gaonate had legislative and judicial authority, while the exilarchate was the executive power; in fact, some

of these powers overlapped. The gaonate was divided between the academies of Sura and Pumbedita, although during Natan’s time, Sura was the stronger center. Natan’s account gives some information about the exilarch ‘Uqba’, who left Baghdad for North Africa. It focuses in greater detail, however, on the disputes between the ga’on Kohen Tsedeq and the exilarch David ben Zakk’ai (909-916), and between David ben Zakk’ai and Sa‘adyah Ga’on (c.930). The disputes centered on both political and financial prerogatives, according to Natan. His account also describes in some

detail

the exilarch’s

“reception

Sabbath,”

attended by the ge’onim of Sura and Pumbedita and their entourages, and the hierarchical arrangements of the geonic academies. While Natan ha-Bavli’s account is relatively short, it is one of the few reports about the later geonic period. It has been used by modern scholars, like Louis

Ginzberg, to reconstruct the relationship between the gaonate and the exilarchate. ¢ Louis Ginzberg, Geonica, vol. 1 (New York, 1909), pp. 22-37, 55-66. Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World (New York, 1938), pp. 287-292. —-~MICHAEL

CHERNICK

ha-

Mukeret,” in Mehgarim ba-Toledot “Am Erets Yisra’el (Haifa, 1978), vol. 3, pp. 89-102. Hugo Mantel, Studies in the History ofthe Sanhedrin (Cambridge, 1961). Ben Tsiyon Rosenfeld, “The Crisis of the Patriarchate in Eretz Israel in the Fourth Century,” Zion 53 (1988): 239-257. Zvi Taubes, Ha-Nasi’ baSanhedrin ha-Gedolah (Vienna, 1925). Solomon Zeitlin, Religious and Secular

Leadership (Philadelphia, 1943), pp. 7-15.

ha-Ri’shonim

-JEFFREY

Levi (Jerusalem, 1980-1984), vol. 2, pp. 456-466, 626-628, 663-673, 705-737.

David

Ashkenaz

Samuel Krauss, Additamenta ad Librum Aruch Completum Alexandri Kohut

-CHRISTINE E. HAYES

NATAN HA-BAVLI (2d-3d cent.), fourth- through fifth-generation tanna’. Rabbi Natan migrated from Babylonia to Erets Yisra’el, where he served as av beit

din of the Sanhedrin during R. Shim‘on ben Gamli’el’s presidency (Hor. 13b). The Talmud identifies Natan

NATAN BEN YEHITEL OF ROME (1035-1106), Talmudic lexicographer and, along with his brothers, head of the Roman Talmudic academy. His ‘Arukh was

and Yehuda

ha-Nasi’

as the last of the tanna’im

(B. M. 86b). Many scholars believe that Natan was

an exilarch’s son. He is mentioned only twice in the

Mishnah (Ber. 9.5 and Shegq. 2.5); however, he appears frequently in the Tosefta’, Mekhilta’, and Sifrei on Numbers. An extracanonical tractate similar to Avot is attributed to him: *Avot de-Rabbi Natan. Modern scholars have revised their assessment of the state and nature of rabbinic learning in Babylonia during the tannaitic period based on R. Natan’s scholarship. * Gershom Bader, The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, translated from the Yiddish by Solomon

Katz (Northvale, N.J., and London,

1988). Menahem

Ben-Sasson, “Ha-Mivneh, ha-Megammot veha-Tokhen shel Hibbur Rav Natan ha-Bavli,” in Tarbut ve-Hevrah be-Toledot Yisra’el bi-Yemei haBeinayim: Qovets Ma’amarim le-Zikhero shel Hayyim Hillel Ben-Sasson, edited by Robert Bonfil et al. (Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 137-196. Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tanna'im

ve-'Amora'im

NATRONA’ BAR HILAT

528

NATAN HA-BAVLI

(1910; Jerusalem,

1987). Mordecai

Margaliot, ed.,

Entsiqlopediyyah le-Hakhmei ha-Talmud veha-Ge-'onim (Jerusalem, 1946). -MICHAEL

CHERNICK

Ze’ev Ettinger. The pair published a number of halakhic and Talmudic works. They eventually parted ways and even competed against each other for the post of rabbi of Lwow, to which Nathanson was named in 1857. Independently wealthy, Nathanson received no salary from the community. He was involved in all aspects of communal life, from Jewish

education to support for the poor. He opposed both Hasidism and the Haskalah, although he maintained

cordial Reform leaders his own

relations with the preachers of the local congregation and with some of the Hasidic of the time, quoting the works of the latter in books. Nathanson is famed as a decisor in

halakhic matters, and he wrote thousands of responsa

to questioners around the globe. He participated in NATAN

OF

GAZA

(c.1644-1690),

kabbalist

and

messianic enthusiast. He met *Shabbetai Tsevi in 1665 and became his prophet and the theologian of his messianic movement. In his tracts and epistles, Natan of Gaza proclaimed Shabbetai Tsevi’s messiahship and the imminence of redemption. Natan traveled extensively on behalf of the Shabbatean movement and remained faithful to Shabbetai Tsevi even after the latter’s conversion to Islam, spending his last years in misery and poverty among fellow Shabbateans in Macedonia. His doctrines were based on a new interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah (see Luria,

YiTSHAQ). Natan of Gaza taught that the soul of the Messiah must first descend to the realm of darkness and impurity in order to redeem the divine sparks imprisoned there, thereby accomplishing the process of restoration (*tigqun); only then would the soul of the Messiah be fully revealed in its earthly incarnation. This theory provided an explanation for Shabbetai Tsevi’s apostasy and the movement’s antinomianism. ¢

Abraham

(Jerusalem,

Elgayam, 1993).

Sod

Gershom

ha-“Azzati (Tel Aviv, 1941).

ha-’Emunah Gerhard

be-Khitvei

Scholem,

Natan

Shabbetai

Tsevi

ha-“Azzati ve-Natan

NATHAN (Heb. Natan), prophet ministering during the reigns of David and Solomon. His parable of the ewe lamb brought home to King David the wickedness of his crimes of adultery with Bath-sheba and his instigation of her husband Uriah’s death on the battlefield. It was also Nathan who informed David that the Temple would be built by his son and not by himself (2 Sm. 7; 1 Chr. 17) and that his own wives

would be publicly defiled and that the sword would not disappear from his house (i.e, his sons would revolt against him; 2 Sm. 11-12). The prophet’s intervention against Adonijah’s usurpation of the throne ensured the anointing of Solomon as king of Israel (/ Kes. 1.5-39). e P. Kyle McCarter, ed. and trans., JJ Samuel (Garden City, N. Y., 1984), pp. 190-231. -SHALOM PAUL

NATHANSON, YOSEF SHA’UL (c.1808-1875), Galician rabbi and halakhic authority. As a young married man, Nathanson was supported by _ his wealthy in-laws and spent many years in fruitful study and collaboration with his brother-in-law Mordekhai

the major halakhic controversies of his era, such as

those over machine-made matsot and etrogim from Corfu (both of which he permitted). His voluminous responsa appeared under the title Sho’el u-Meshiv (6 vols. [1865-1890]). His other works include Divrei Shaul and commentaries on the Torah and Five Scrolls (1877-1878), on the aggadot of the Talmud Bavli (1877), and on the Haggadah of Pesah (1879). e¢ Avraham Bromberg, Mi-Gedolei ha-Torah ve-ha-hasidut: Ha-Ga’on Rabbi Yosef Sha’ul Natanson (Jerusalem, 1981). Abraham Stern, Melitsei Esh (New York, 1962), vol. 3. Meir Wunder, Me’orei Galitsyah (Jerusalem, 1986), vol. 3. —-GERSHON BACON

NATIONS, SEVENTY, a rabbinic term referring to the totality of humankind (Gn. Rab. 39.11; compare this to the parallel term seventy tongues, Sot. 36b). The concept of seventy distinctive ethno-linguistic groups is based on the number of Noah’s descendants listed in Genesis 10. Each of Noah’s three sons branched out into particular areas of the ancient Near East. The tradition of seventy primary descendants is also echoed in Canaanite mythology, referring to the sons of the gods E] and Asherah. ¢ Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt. 2, From Noah to Abraham, translated by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 172-225. Ephraim Avigdor Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes, The Anchor Bible, vol. 1 (Garden City, N.Y., 1964), pp. 64-73. -DAVID

NATOREI

A. GLATT-GILAD

QARTA’. See NETUREI OARTA’.

NATRONA’I BAR HILA’I (9th cent.), ga’on of *Sura, perhaps the most prolific and influential ga’on in the period preceding Sa‘adyah ben Yosef Ga’on, during which the literary activity of the ge’onim was restricted to the writing of *responsa. Over five hundred of the responsa of Natrona’i bar Hila’i have survived; particularly noteworthy are his numerous letters dealing with liturgical customs and those devoted to Talmudic exegesis. He was fiercely opposed to the *Karaites but seems to have had little firsthand knowledge of their practices; he attacked a Seder ritual that he thought was of Karaite origin but that in actuality was probably Palestinian. His responsa were published in 1994 in two volumes by Robert Brody (Teshuvot Rav Natrona’i bar Hila’). ¢ Simha Assaf, ed., Teshuvot ha-Ge'onim (1928; Jerusalem, 1986). Louis Ginzberg, Geonica (1909; Jerusalem, 1986). —-ROBERT BRODY

NATURE

529

NATURE. The concept of nature as a system operating independently according to fixed laws of its own derives from Greek philosophy. The biblical writers, while evincing an appreciation of the regular workings

of the universe

(cf. Ps. 104 and

148), are

nevertheless primarily concerned with the acts of the Creator and his permanent and direct responsibility for the cosmic order (see also Ps. 19), There is a natural order, but it exists not by itself but because God

created

it (cf. Gn.

8.22

and Jer. 31.34,

33.20,

NECROMANCY

variations of standard Nazirite formulae and their ramifications. Opening with a discussion of the Nazirite in the mold of Samson (Naz. 1.2) and closing with the Nazirite status of Samuel, Nazir alludes

to a tension within rabbinic thought between the majestic devotion (Samuel) and the uneasy asceticism (Samson) represented by the figure of the Nazirite. An English translation of the tractate by B. D. Klien appears in the Soncino Talmud (London, 1936).

33.25). The rabbis held a similar view: the regularity of natural phenomena was an expression of God’s will, just as were *miracles. Some medieval thinkers

¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Nashim (Jerusalem, 1954). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 2, Order Nashim (Gateshead, 1973). Pinhas Kehati, ed., Mishnah: A New Translation with a Commentary, Seder Nashim, vol. 2, Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah (Jerusalem, 1992). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Ginter Stemberger, Introduc-

(e.g., *“Bahya

(1931; Minneapolis,

ben

Yosef

ibn

Paquda’)

held—under

the influence of Sufi thought—that admitting the existence of nature and an autonomous natural law was tantamount to denying the exclusive role of God’s will and providence. However, most philosophers argued that there was no contradiction between belief in God as the “First Cause” of all things and an established secondary order (“creation”) that he had

made to function according to a causality of its own. It was generally admitted that the Creator could suspend or “break through” the natural order by miracles. Modern philosophers of nature often require a theological reformulation of the relationship of nature to God. Whereas most traditional systems agreed that God was “outside’—namely, “above’—nature, some modern “naturalistic” (that is, antisupernaturalistic)

doctrines take a different view. *Spinoza’s pantheism identified God with nature. The ancient rabbis and medieval thinkers insisted that the contemplation of nature led to a recognition of God, and Abraham is said by the Midrash to have become convinced of the existence of God by speculating on the nature and origin of the universe. He therefore possessed a natural religion, arrived at by natural theology, even before God manifested himself to Abraham and introduced him to the order of revealed religion. See also ECOLOGY. ¢

Markus Bockmuehl,

Testamentum

45

“Natural Law in Second Temple Judaism,”

(1995):

17-44.

Avigdor

Miller,

The

Universe

Vetus

Testifies

(New York, 1995). Aubrey Rose, Judaism and Ecology (New York, 1992). Paul T. Sagal, “Maimonides, Natural Law, and Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” Scottish Journal of Religious Studies 12 (1991): 29-45. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul (Tiibingen, 1985). Marc Swetlitz, Judaism and Ecology, 1970-1986: A Sourcebook of Readings (New York, 1989).

NAZARENES.

NAZIR

See JEWISH CHRISTIANS.

(971); Nazirite),

tractate

consisting

of nine

chapters in Mishnah order Nashim, with related material in the Tosefta’ and both Talmuds, dealing with the rules of the *Nazirite (Nm. 6.1-21). Nazir’s treatment

of this topic largely follows the biblical presentation, discussing in turn the three central prohibitions of the Nazirite: contracting ritual impurity through contact with a corpse; consumption of wine or grape

products; and cutting hair (Naz. 6.1). Nazir devotes much attention to the definition and formulation of the Nazirite vow, examining permutations and

tion

to

the

Talmud

NAZIRITE

and 1992).

Midrash,

translated

by Markus

Bockmuehl

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

(Heb. nazir [one who abstains]),

a man

or woman who takes a vow consecrating him- or herself to God by accepting prohibitions beyond those observed by all other Israelites (Nm. 6.1-21). These are prohibitions against drinking wine, products of the vine, or other intoxicants; a prohibition against cutting one’s hair; and a prohibition against contracting ritual impurity by contact with a corpse, even that of a close relative. Most Nazirites’ vows were taken for a designated period, usually a month, but there are biblical examples of a person becoming a Nazirite for life (nezir ‘olam), namely, Samuel and Samson, who were dedicated from before birth VJ/gs. 13.7; 1 Sm. 1.11,

22, especially as stated in the Qumran text; Ben Sira 46.13). The lifelong Nazirite was not subject to the prohibition against corpse contamination (Jgs. 13.14). The Nazirite is consecrated (gadosh) to the Lord (Nm. 6.5, 8), an expression elsewhere used of priests, and

the Nazirite’s prohibitions resemble those pertaining to a priest. Thus, a male Israelite aspiring to greater sanctity and nearness to God could assume the priestly severities, even though he could not perform priestly functions. The unique, distinctive characteristic of the

Nazirite is his uncut hair, featuring prominently in the story of Samson (Jgs. 16); the term nazir is connected with nezer, which can also refer to the Nazirite’s hair (see Nm. 6.6-7, 12, 18; Jer. 7.29). Biblical legislation

concerning the Nazirite deals primarily with two matters: the unexpected interruption of a Nazirite’s vow by sudden contamination from a corpse (Nm. 6.9-12) and the sacrificial procedure followed by Nazirites at the end of their terms (Nm. 13-20), by which the Nazirites are desacralized. Nazirites in Judaism do not withdraw from community life nor are they celibate. Nonetheless, the rabbis recommended moderation rather than abstention and limited to a minimum the situations in which a Nazirite vow was desirable. The rabbinic laws concerning the Nazirite are contained in the Talmudic tractate *Nazir. ¢ Baruch A. Levine, ed., Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, vol. 4a (New York, 1993), pp. 218-226, 229-236. Jacob Milgrom, ed., Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 43-50, 355-358. -BARUCH

J. SCHWARTZ

NECROMANCY, divination through communication with the dead. Necromancy is forbidden in the

Bible and is termed “an abomination unto the Lord” (Dt. 18.11-12). The detailed biblical vocabulary suggests the existence of different kinds of necromancy, but the only actual account of its practice is Saul’s resort to the witch of En-dor to raise the dead Samuel (1 Sm.

28.7-20).

Most

earlier

postbiblical

Jewish

authorities regarded the practice as efficacious but forbidden, though the more rationalistically inclined thinkers (Pinhas ben Hofni Ga’on, Maimonides, etc.)

denounced it as gross superstition and explained the story of Saul at En-dor as an anguished dream. See also Macic. e

Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk

Religion (New York, 1974), pp. 61-68.

NEDARIM Nashim,

—SHIFRA

EPSTEIN

(8°77); Vows), tractate in Mishnah order

in eleven

chapters,

with

related

material

in the Tosefta’ and in both Talmuds. The tractate deals with *vows and oaths and their annulment (Nm. 30.2-17). In biblical as well as rabbinic thought, oaths and vows were both widespread and fraught with danger; hence, the regulation of these forms of

speech was a matter of vital importance. Originally a verbal consecration of an object to the Temple, vows were used to prohibit benefit from an object or an action by conferring upon it a quasi-consecrated

status. The often ambiguous or unarticulated language of a vow (Ned. 1.1) was subjected to canons of interpretation. The laws of nedarim seek to strike a balance between the inward intent and the social context of language, enabling the speaker to control his meaning while requiring submissive reverence to the consequences of his utterance. Biblical laws governing annulment of a woman’s vows by her father or husband are rigorously defined. Rabbinic scholars and courts were empowered to annul vows by the creative discovery of ramifications of which the vow’s author was unaware. The tractate in the Talmud Bavli was translated into English by Harry Freedman in the Soncino Talmud (1936). ¢

NEGLIGENCE

530

NECROMANCY

Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Nashim

(Jerusalem,

in Leviticus 13-14, usually translated as *leprosy. Nega‘im discusses the symptoms that render persons, clothing, or houses leprous and therefore ritually impure; the regulations governing the impure person or object; and the rituals of purification for afflicted persons or objects that have been cured. A modification of the biblical discussion of nega‘im relates to the role of the priest in establishing the presence of leprous nega‘im. The biblical priest was assumed to be expert in diagnosing nega‘im. In rabbinic times, the actual diagnosis would normally

be made by a rabbinic expert, while the role of the priest, who was not presumed to possess halakhic expertise, was to issue a ritual proclamation of the patient’s impurity (Neg. 3.1; cf. T., Neg. 1.1-2).

Because of their intricacy, the laws of Nega‘im, together with those of *Ohalot, were used by the rabbis to symbolize halakhic study of the deepest profundity (San. 67b). Accordingly, Nega‘Sim is marked by a high proportion of pericopes that present Midrashic expositions (see especially Neg. 12.5-7) or halakhic argumentation (e.g., Neg. 10.1-2, 9). Several pericopes refer to the relationship between halakhic reasoning and halakhic traditions (Neg. 7.4, 9.3, 11.7). Some rabbis claim (T., Neg. 6.1) that portions of the laws

of nega‘im, the laws of leprous houses, do not apply to real situations and are taught only to derive instruction from them. Based on the assumption that the disease of nega‘im is divine punishment for human wickedness (T., Neg. 6.7), Nega‘im derives from the laws of afflicted houses moral instruction regarding God’s consideration for the property even of wicked Jews (Neg. 12.5) and regarding the dangers of having wicked neighbors (Neg. 12.6).

An English translation of the tractate by I. W. Slotki is in the Soncino Talmud (London, 1948). ¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem,

1958). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Taharoth (Gateshead, 1973). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992). Yehi’el Avraham Zilber, Zer Kesef: Nega‘im Pereq 1-6 (Bene Beragq, 1959).

—-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

1954). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 2, Order Nashim (Gateshead, 1973). Pinhas Kehati, ed., Mishnah: A New Translation with a Commentary, Seder Nashim, vol. 2, Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah (Jerusalem, 1992).

Hermann

Leberecht

Strack and Giinter Stemberger,

Introduction

to the

Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992). -AVRAHAM WALFISH

NEDAVAH. OATHS.

NEDER.

See

FREE-WILL

OFFERING;

VOWS

AND

san or laborer. In addition, the halakhah recognizes

See Vows AND OATHS.

NEDUNYAH.

NEGLIGENCE. Charges of negligence arise when an artisan or laborer performs his work poorly or with disregard for the instructions of the owner, or ruins the material entrusted to him by the owner. In these instances full compensation must be made by the arti-

See Dowry.

NEFILAT APPAYIM. See Tananun. NEGA‘IM (0°39; Plagues), tractate in Mishnah order Toharot, in fourteen chapters, with related material

in the Tosefta’. It has no gemara’ in either Talmud. It deals with the laws concerning the disease described

two other categories of negligence, “negligence that borders upon intention” and “negligence that borders upon accident.” In these cases the ordinary penalty for negligence does not apply—in the former instance because the penalty would be too light; in the latter instance because it would be too severe. In the case of movable property given in trust without payment, the bailee (unpaid guardian) is responsible for criminal negligence (peshi‘ah) only. *

Menachem

(Philadelphia,

Elon, Jewish 1994).

Law:

History,

Sources,

Principles,

4 vols.

NEHARDEA

531

NEHARDEA, Babylonian *academy located ina city of that name near the junction of the Euphrates River and the Malka Canal. The city’s Jewish origins were traditionally traced back to King Jehoiachin, who was said to have erected a synagogue there for which earth and stone were brought from Jerusalem. The ancient academy at Nehardea reached its zenith under the *amora’ *Shemu’el; shortly after his death, the city was destroyed by the Palmyrenes (259 cE). The Nehardean tradition of Jewish scholarship was carried on by the academy of *Pumbedita, which was founded by Shemu’el’s pupil *Yehuda bar Yehezge’l. Although many scholars continued to reside in Nehardea after it was rebuilt, the town never regained its former prominence as a center of Jewish learning. In the geonic period, “Nehardea” was an alternative designation for the academy of Pumbedita. * Solomon Funk, “Die Stadt Nehardea und ihre Hochschule,” in Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage David Hoffmann’s, edited by Simon Eppenstein, Meier Hildesheimer and Joseph Wohlgemuth (Berlin, 1914). Morduch Judelowitz, Hayyei ha-Yehudim bi-Zeman ha-Talmud: Sefer Neharde‘a’ (1906; Jerusalem, 1971). Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden,

1969). Aharon Oppenheimer, (Weisbaden, 1983).

Babylonia

Judaica

in the Talmudic Period -ROBERT BRODY

NEHEMIAH (Heb. Nehemyah; 5th cent. BCE), according to the book of *Ezra-Nehemiah, which

claims to be based in part on the memoirs of Nehemiah, he was cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes I (465-424) by whom he was appointed governor of Judah. Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (444) for the primary purpose of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, but he skillfully established his position as governor in the face of stiff opposition from his two enemies, Sanballat, governor of Samaria, and Tobiah the Ammonite, and from others as well. Nehemiah’s main period of service lasted twelve years (2.1, 13.6),

although the bulk of the narrative in Nehemiah relates only to the activities of his first year or two. Nehemiah’s first and most pressing undertaking was rebuilding the city walls, a project that he directed to successful completion in only fifty-two days (6.15), despite the organized interference mounted by his enemies. The narrative describing the wallbuilding project gives the image of how the builders were “doing work with one hand while the other held a weapon”

(4.11). Next, Nehemiah

turned

his

attention to the socioeconomic ills plaguing the Jewish community, in particular moving to rectify the outrage of children and property being taken by creditors as security deposits (chap. 5). Nehemiah also led the drive to repopulate Jerusalem after the city had been depleted of many of its residents by ordering that one out of ten Jews should take up residence

there

(7.4,

11.1-2).

Finally,

Nehemiah

is mentioned as the first signatory to the famous amanah (pledge, contract) that was drawn up in the wake of *Ezra’s public reading of the Torah (10.2). The amanah included provisions forbidding mixed marriages and business dealings on the Sabbath, canceling of debts owed by the poor, and aiding

NEHUNYA’ BEN HA-OANAH

the smooth operation of the Temple cult. Nehemiah was personally involved in enforcing these matters (chap. 13), though his precise administrative and chronological relationship to Ezra, who was active in the same areas of concern, is debated among scholars.

Nehemiah’s vigor and drive and the success of his campaign testify to a character of singular power, zealously devoted to the cause of God and his people. The Talmud credits Nehemiah with the completion of the Book of Chronicles, started by Ezra (B. B. 15a). ¢ Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, 1988). Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel: Vol. IV, From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy (New York, 1977), pp. 359-430. H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Word

Biblical

Commentary,

vol.

16 (Waco,

Tex.,

1985).

Jacob

Wright,

Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (Berlin and New York, 2004).

NEHEMIAH,

—-DAVID

BOOK

OF. See

A. GLATT-GILAD

EzRra-NEHEMIAH,

BOOK OF.

NEHER, ANDRE (1913-1988), French historian of Jewish thought. He wrote on diverse subjects, ranging from biblical prophecy (Amos, contribution a l'étude du prophétisme [1950]; L’Essence du prophétisme [1955]; Moise et la vocation juive [1956], translated as

Moses and the Vocation of the Jewish People [1959]; The Prophetic Existence [1969]), through Renaissance

thought (David Gans, 1541-1613: Disciple du Maharal [1974], translated as Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century [1986]), and

including the Enlightenment and modern thought (//s ont refait leur Gme [1979], translated as They Made Their Souls Anew [1990]). His L’Exil de la parole (1970;

translated into English in 1981) addresses the theological questions posed by the Holocaust. A leading figure of the post-Holocaust

Jewish community of France, he

taught Jewish studies at the University of Strasbourg until moving to Jerusalem in 1972. He believed that through the berit (covenant) the Hebrews, and through them all humanity, entered a historic dialogue with the divine. e¢ Mélanges André Neher (Paris, bibliography.

1975), in French and English, includes -STEVEN

NEHUNYA’

BEN

HA-QANAH

BALLABAN

(ist cent.), tanna’

quoted frequently in the Talmud, especially as a halakhist, although only a single halakhah has come down

in his

name

(Pes.

29a).

He

was

regarded

as pious and deeply humane, never seeking his own betterment at the expense of others, always forgiving his neighbor before he went to sleep, and forgoing monetary benefits. He may have lived in Emmaus in Judea for some time. He was the teacher of R. *Yishma‘el ben Elisha‘ and taught him the exegetical principle of kelal u-ferat (deducing from the general to the particular). Nehunya’ ben ha-Qanah was highly regarded by kabbalists, who ascribed to him *Sefer ha-Bahir, the prayer *Anna’ be-Koah, and other mystical compositions, such as *Sefer ha-Qanah. e

Gershom

Bader, The Encyclopedia

of Talmudic

Sages, translated

by

Solomon Katz (Northvale, N.J., 1993), pp. 12, 169-171, 237. -DANIEL

SPERBER

NEOLOGY

532

NEHUSHTAN NEHUSHTAN (from Heb. nahash [snake] and nehoshet [copper/bronze]), name of the bronze serpent

NEO-HASIDISM, the application of Hasidic values and teachings to the lives of non-Hasidic, and even

destroyed by King *Hezekiah of Judah (2 Kgs. 18.4) in his campaign for religious reform. Nehushtan was a sacred symbol within Mosaic traditions. Moses fashioned a bronze serpent as a prophylactic agent for the Israelites bitten by serpents (Nm. 21.6-9). By

non-observant, Jews. Among the first Jews in the West

Hezekiah’s time (late 8th cent. BCE), it was no longer an

acceptable object of worship. Snakes are common in ancient Near Eastern iconography, usually associated with fertility cults. A bronze serpent was found at Midianite Timnah in Sinai, others at Canaanite Gezer, Hazor, and Tel Mevorakh. ¢ J. Gray, land II Kings: A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1976). Karen Randolph Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament (Haddonfield, N.J., 1974). Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 173-175,

459-460.

-NILI

SACHER

FOX

to find inspiration in Hasidism was Martin *Buber, who saw in it, and especially in its literature, a great religious creation. Through the influence of Buber and others, attempts were made to bring the spirit of Hasidism to the kibbutz movement, to Zionist youth groups, and to various audiences in Europe and America. In eastern Europe neo-Hasidism was especially the province of Hillel Zeitlin (1872-1943), who sought an authentically Jewish philosophy of life in his rereading of the Hasidic sources. His potentially important contribution was cut off by the Holocaust. Neo-Hasidism has also been important in Jewish literature; many of Jewry’s most important writers in the twentieth century (Peretz, Asch, Agnon,

NETILAH (mya; Closing [of the Gates]), a prayer originally offered on all public fast days at sunset, when the Temple gates were closed; now recited only on Yom Kippur. It is the last of the five prayer services of Yom Kippur, and its recital is concluded at nightfall, when the fast ends. Ne‘ilah is regarded as the last opportunity to pray for forgiveness for transgressions committed during the previous year and is recited with particular solemnity. The medieval poets interpreted the word ne‘ilah as referring to the closing of the heavenly gates at the sealing of divine judgment on Yom Kippur. This is reflected in the *‘Amidah, where the text changes from the previous invocation of the High Holy Days, “inscribe us in the Book of Life,” to “seal us in the Book of Life.” After *Ashrei (Ps. 145) and *U-Va’ le-Tsiyyon, the ‘Amidah, preceded and followed by *Qaddish, is first said silently by each worshiper and then repeated aloud by the reader. It differs from the other ‘Amidot of Yom Kippur in that it contains only the shorter confession of sins (Viddui) and not the long version, which is replaced by *Attah Noten Yad, a prayer extolling God’s mercy in forgiving the repentant sinner. The ark remains open during the reader’s repetition of the ‘Amidah. After the “Amidah, the petition *Avinu Malkeinu is repeated for the last time (even when Yom Kippur coincides with Shabbat), the first verse of the *Shema‘ is proclaimed

once by the reader and repeated by the congregation, followed by *barukh shem kevod malkhuto le-‘olam va-‘ed, said three times, and “the Lord is God” (/ Kgs. 18.39), said seven times. After this (if night has fallen), the shofar is sounded with a single long blast, teqi‘ah gedolah, to indicate the termination of the solemn fast day. The congregation adds *la-shanah ha-ba’ah bi-Yerushalayim, “next year in Jerusalem.” The tallit is worn at Ne‘ilah as at all Yom Kippur services. Ne‘ilah is followed by Ma‘ariv and Havdalah. ¢ Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, 1993). Irving Greenberg, The Jewish Way: Living the Holidays (New York, 1988). Lawrence A. Hoffman, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service (Notre Dame, 1979), Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York, 1992). Abraham Millgram, Jewish Worship (Philadelphia, 1971). -~PETER KNOBEL

Singer, etc.) depicted Hasidim or employed Hasidic themes in their writings. The same is true of Jewish music, in which adaptations from Hasidism have been

widely influential far beyond Hasidic circles. In North America, a neo-Hasidic approach to Judaism began to develop in the 1960s, partly in response to the great interest in meditation and spirituality in the general culture. The two persons most responsible for this growth were rabbi-folk singer Shlomo Carlebach (died

1994)

and

R.

Zalman

Schachter,

a former

Habad Hasid who founded the Pnai Or Religious Fellowship (see JEwISH RENEWAL) and has been called the spiritual grandfather of the Jewish counterculture and *havurah movements. ¢ Martin Buber, “My Way to Hasidism,” in Hasidism and Modern Man, edited and translated by Maurice Friedman (New York, 1958). Zalman Schachter,

Fragments of a Future Scroll (Germantown, Pa., 1975). -ARTHUR

GREEN

NEOLOGY, a term borrowed from enlightened Protestant circles in Germany to characterize the Hungarian brand of *Reform Judaism. During the 1840s, Leopold Léw and other rabbis who followed the example of Aharon ben Kalman *Chorin became dominant in ethnic Hungary and Transylvania. Their pressure for religious change and identification with Magyar nationalism led to a clash with Orthodox Jews, headed by the dynasty of Moshe Sofer (see SOFER FamiLy) in Slovakia and the Hasidim of Galicia. At a rabbinical assembly held in 1865, the traditionalists

banned worship in “choir temples” and many other innovations of the Neologists, some of which (e. g., preaching in the vernacular) had already been adopted by the German *Neo-Orthodoxy movement. Two years later, Baron

J6zsef E6étvés,

the architect

of Jewish

emancipation, who served as minister of religious and educational affairs, helped organize elections to a National Congress of Hungarian Jewry (18681869). Held in the Neologist stronghold of Pest, this congress—far from restoring communal harmony— provoked a three-way split between the Neologist majority, Orthodox “Guardians of the Faith,” and non-aligned, Status Quo Ante traditionalists.

NEOLOGY

533

After Orthodox separatism was recognized by the Hungarian parliament in 1871, leading Neologists feared that their break with the Orthodox might become irreparable. Having thwarted attempts to establish German-style Reform congregations in 1848 and 1884, they sought a modus vivendi with the Orthodox rabbinate by pursuing a discreetly conservative line. Apart from organ accompaniment, Neologist services remained largely traditional, religious observance (e.g., kashrut) was upheld, and graduates of the new Budapest Rabbinical Seminary (1877) often were quite like their Neo-Orthodox counterparts in western Europe. Through Hungarian Neology, during and after World War II, many assimilated Jews rediscovered their traditional roots. The postwar Communist regime brought surviving Neologist and Orthodox communities under one umbrella organization, which

(since the democratic reforms of the late 1980s) has revitalized Jewish life in Hungary. ¢ Moshe Carmilly, ed., The Rabbinical Seminary of Budapest, 1877-1977 (New York, 1986). Yekuti’el Yehuda Greenwald, Le-Toledot ha-Reformatsyah ha-Datit de-Germanyah uve-Ungaryah (Columbus, Ohio, 1948). William O. McCagg, Jr., Jewish Nobles and Geniuses in Modern Hungary (New York, 1972). Michael A. Meyer, Response to the Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York, 1988), pp. 194-196, 440. —-GABRIEL

A. SIVAN

NEO-ORTHODOKXY, term designating the stand taken by “modern” traditionalists against *Reform Judaism in Germany. Their platform combined strict observance of Jewish law with a positive approach to Western society and culture. Architects of Neo-Orthodoxy included Isaac *Bernays (Hamburg), Ya‘aqov *Ettlinger (Altona), Michael

and

Shemu’el

Nathan

Marcus

David

Sachs (Berlin),

*Luzzatto

(Italy), as well as

Adler (Hanover;

see ADLER FAMILY),

who became England’s chief rabbi in 1845. Their enlightened measures ranged from preaching in the vernacular to establishing an Orthodox press (Ettlinger) and one of the first *rabbinical seminaries (Adler).

Samson Raphael *Hirsch, a disciple of Bernays and Ettlinger, created the ideological foundation of NeoOrthodoxy through his own religious accommodation with modernity and its challenges. Turning the Mishnaic concept of “Torah ‘im derekh erets” (Avot 2.2, 3.21) into a doctrinal slogan—“Torah Judaism in

harmony with secular culture’—he aimed to win over middle-class Jews in Frankfurt and elsewhere who were in the process of abandoning traditional norms. While readily adopting the externals of modernism (educational reform, German patriotism, Western dress, and an improvement in the status of women),

Hirsch reemphasized the authority of the *Shulhan ‘Arukh and the importance of Torah study (albeit in a wider form), and he promoted the development of self-contained Orthodox congregations (see ADASS JisROEL). Hirsch’s ideological works and his commentaries on the Bible and prayer book played an especially vital role in this campaign. Some exponents of Neo-Orthodoxy objected to Hirsch’s dogmatic intolerance, his negation of modern

NEOPLATONISM

scholarly research (*Wissenschaft des Judentums), his lack of interest in the fate of Jews abroad, and

his positive view of life in exile (translated into “Israel's universal mission”). From 1876 his advocacy of separatism or secession created a permanent rift not only in the broad communal framework but even within Neo-Orthodoxy itself. Ezriel *Hildesheimer, for

example, split with Hirsch over the issues of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary’s establishment, cooperation with the non-Orthodox in matters of general concern, and renewed Jewish settlement in Erets Yisra’el. These divisions would later be reflected in the rift between

Orthodox

Zionism

(Mizrachi)

and _ anti-

Zionism (Agudat Israel), also giving rise to the uneasy contemporary coexistence of “modern” (centrist) and “right-wing” (see HaREDIM) Orthodox groups. See also ORTHODOXY. e

Hans I. Bach, The German Jew: A Synthesis of Judaism and Western

Civilization,

1730-1930

(Oxford,

1984),

pp.

87-91,

97-98.

Alexander

Carlebach, “The Image of German Orthodoxy,” in Men and Ideas: Selected Writings, 1935-1980 (Jerusalem,

1982), pp. 35-51. Samson Raphael Hirsch,

Horeb: A Philosophy of Jewish Laws and Observances, Isidore

Grunfeld

(New

York,

2002).

Noah

7th ed., trans, by

H. Rosenbloom,

Tradition

in

an Age of Reform: The Religious Philosophy of Samson Raphael Hirsch (Philadelphia, 1976). David Rudavsky, Modern Jewish Religious Movements: A History of Emancipation and Adjustment, 3d ed. (New York, 1979), pp. 218-270. Jonathan Sacks, One People?: Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity (London/Washington, D.C., 1993). Hermann Schwab, The History of Orthodox Jewry in Germany (London, 1950).

-GABRIEL

A. SIVAN

NEOPLATONISM, a modification of Platonism initiated by Plotinus (3d cent. cE) and his successors, and mediated by Islamic and Christian sources, that made a profound and lasting mark on Jewish thought during the Middle Ages. The philosophical systems of Plato (427-347) proved congenial to many religious minds (for example, *Philo of Alexandria, who sought to reconcile Platonic and Jewish traditions through the use of allegory). The Jewish Neoplatonists identified the Platonic “forms” with the creative thoughts of God, and God was defined as the Good, the First Principle, and “The One,” that is, as absolutely singular and self-sufficient. From this ultimate One descended or emanated (see EMANATION; SEFIROT) the world of ideas and the material world. The human soul was a particle from a higher realm of being (the “World Soul” according to Plotinus, the “Throne of Glory” according to the Jewish Neoplatonists) to which it longed to return. Neoplatonism provided a philosophical basis not only for the rational but also for the spiritual and even mystical life. Its aim was to reach the ultimate One lying behind all concrete experience; its method was that of intellectual abstraction (namely, of contemplative ascent), by which it divested experience

of all that was specifically human until nothing was left but God. Medieval Neoplatonism received a powerful impetus through the Liber de causis (attributed to Aristotle but actually written in the ninth century by a Muslim philosopher and containing extracts from the fifth-century Neoplatonist Proclus) and deeply affected Jewish philosophical and religious thought. Beginning with Yitshaq “Israeli (c.850-950), Jewish Neoplatonism reached its height

with Shelomo *ibn Gabirol in the purely philosophical sphere, and with *Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’ and *Yehuda ha-Levi’s Kuzari in the ascetic and theological sphere. Other representatives of Neoplatonism were Avraham *ibn Ezra and Yosef ben Ya’aqov ibn *Zaddik. While Neoplatonism was soon eclipsed by *Aristotelianism in philosophy, Neoplatonism continued to exert a powerful influence on mystical speculation and, in particular, on the emergent *Kabbalah in the thirteenth century, which adapted its theory of emanation. Some modern critics maintain that Neoplatonism,

NETHINIM

534

NEOPLATONISM

with

its monistic

tendency,

its

exaltation of the abstract above the concrete, and its hostility to the material order of creation, is essentially incompatible with biblical teaching and spirituality. ¢ Lenn E. Goodman, ed., Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (Albany, 1992). Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism (New York, 1973). Gershom

of aSymbol from the Biblical Cult (Missoula, Mont., 1976). Leon Yarden, The -~SHMUEL

Tree of Light (London,

1971).

NESHAMAH

YETERAH

HIMELSTEIN

(777 73U3;, additional

soul), according to legend, a higher soul given by God to Abraham,

which

dwelt within

him

and elevated

him throughout the Sabbath. This soul is granted to every person for the duration of the Sabbath (Beits. 16a), and, according to one source, the custom

of smelling *spices during the *Havdalah service at the termination of the Sabbath is meant to comfort individuals for the loss of this extra soul. The kabbalists applied the concept of an additional soul mystically, and in one of the *zemirot ascribed to Yitshaq ben Shelomo *Luria (Yom Zeh le-Yisra’el), the Sabbath is called “an additional soul for the suffering.” e Abraham Danzig, Sefer Hayyei Adam (Jerusalem, 1985). —-CHAIM

PEARL

Gerhard Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1995).

NER TAMID (7% 2; perpetual or eternal lamp), originally, a lamp, prescribed in Exodus 27.20-21 and Leviticus 24.2 as an essential requirement of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and later in the Temple. The ner tamid was to be placed “outside the veil of testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation” and was part of the seven-branched candelabrum. The priests had to ensure that it was kept continually burning, and only pure olive oil could be used for it. The ever-burning lamp was taken to symbolize, among other things, God’s eternal watchfulness over and providence for his people. The account of the origin of *Hanukkah given in the Talmud (Shab. 21b) centers on the miracle by which a single day’s supply of pure oil found in the Temple by the victorious Maccabees burned for eight days as the ner tamid until new oil could be prepared. The eternal lamp was the westernmost branch of the candelabrum and was therefore called “the western lamp” (Tarn. 6.1; Shab. 22b). According to the Midrash (Sifra’ Emor 13), all

seven same wicks until until Since (Meg.

branches of the candelabrum were filled with the quantity of oil each night, but while all the other in the branches of the candelabrum burned the morning, the ner tamid remained alight the next evening, at which time it was refilled. the *synagogue is called a “minor sanctuary” 29a), it became customary, but not obligatory,

to incorporate

a ner tamid

into its design.

At first,

there was considerable objection to the practice of suspending the ner tamid in front of the ark, its place now in most synagogues, on the grounds that this was a gentile custom, and it was felt by some that, as in the Temple, the ner tamid should be suspended on the western wall. It was regarded as highly meritorious to provide oil for the ner tamid. Those who did so are blessed in the Sabbath morning “Mi she-Berakh prayer. Today the lamp is usually electric. ¢

Judah

David

Eisenstein,

Otsar Dinim

u-Minhagim

(New

York,

1917),

pp. 273-274. Carol L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study

NETAN’EL BEIRAV FAYYUMI (died c.1165), leader of Yemenite Jewry. Maimonides lavishes praise upon him in his [ggeret Teiman, addressed to Netan’el’s son, Ya‘agov. In his apologetic work Bustan al-’Uqul (published with an English translation and edited by David Levine [New York, 1908; repr., 1966]), Netan’el

presents a Neoplatonic philosophy of Judaism that owes much to Sa‘adyah Ga’on, Yehuda ha-Levi, and

Bahya ibn Paquda’. Drawing on the [khwan al-Safa of the Isma‘iliyah, Netan’el maintains that God sends a prophet to every people according to its language and level of spiritual development; hence, Muhammad was a true prophet and the Qur’an an authentic revelation for the Arabic-speaking peoples. There is some controversy as to whether Fayyumi is a personal or place name, and Netan’el is often referred to as ibn

al-Fayyumi. ¢ Reuben Ahroni, Yemenite Jewry (Bloomington, Ind., 1986), pp. 61-65. Colette Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 88-93, 424.

NETHERWORLD.

-NORMAN

SOLOMON

See GEIHINNOM.

NETHINIM, the lowest class of Temple servants from the time of Joshua until Ezra. According to one tradition, they were originally the conquered Canaanites (“hewers of wood and drawers of water’) given by David to the Levites to perform menial tasks in the sanctuary along with Gibeonites. Nethinim went into the Babylonian exile and returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra. Though subscribing to the commandments as incorporated into Ezra’s covenant, they were still regarded as inferior, and intermarriage with them

remained

forbidden.

They did, however,

enjoy a special tax exemption, as did the priests and Levites (Ezr. 7.24). They lived in a designated section of Jerusalem (Ne/. 3.26) and in other cities of Judah;

the Nethinim were still known at the time of R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’, while in amoraic times mention is made of a

village of Nethinim. ¢ Magen Broshi and Ada Yardeni, “On Nethinim and False Prophets,” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, edited by Ziony Zevit et al. (Winona Lake,

NETHINIM

535

Ind., 1995), pp. 29-37. Emile Puech, “The Tell el-Ful Jar Inscription and the Nethinim,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261 (1986): 69-72.

-SHALOM

NETILAT NETSIV.

YADAYIM.

PAUL

QARTA’

includes a history of the early church (the Acts of the Apostles), additional epistolary texts (including the Pastoral Epistles and the Catholic or General Epistles),

(Aram.; Guardians of the City),

name adopted by a group of Orthodox extremists in Jerusalem who refuse to recognize the existence or the authority of the State of Israel, in view of the secular nature of its creation and orientation. The group first appeared in 1938, splitting off from *Agudat Israel. The name Neturei Qarta’ originates from an incident in which R. Yehuda ha-Nasi’ sent R. Hiyya’ and R. Ashi on a pastoral tour of inspection. In one town, they asked to see the “guardians of the city,” and the city guard was paraded before them. They said that these were not the guardians of the city but its destroyers, which prompted the citizens to ask who, then, could be considered the guardians. The rabbis answered, “The scribes and the scholars,” referring them to Psalms ITA Y2 Bae. 76s): ¢ I. Domb, The Transformation: The Case of the Neturei Karta (Brooklyn, 1989). Prime Minister's Office, Overseas Division, A Study in Fanaticism: The Neturei Karta Extremist Group (Jerusalem, 1964).

NEVELAH.

both shared traditions about Jesus and competing claims with regard to the meaning of his actions and the events around his ministry. In addition to the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, the New Testament

See ABLUTION.

See BERLIN, NAFTALI TSEVI YEHUDA.

NETUREI

See Carcass.

and an *apocalyptic account of the impending end times (the Revelation to John).

The texts of the New Testament vary in their relation to Judaism. While Luke and Acts explicitly reject the Jewish tradition, and the Gospel of John makes a radical distinction between “the Jews” and the followers of Jesus (who were,

NEW

See PROPHETS, BOOKS OF THE.

CHRISTIANS.

See MarrRANos.

NEW MONTH, ANNOUNCEMENT BIRKAT HA-HODESH.

NEW MOON.

OF THE. See

biblical tradition, however, these New Testament texts

reflect serious tensions between early Christians and their non-Christian Jewish interlocutors. Taken out of their original context, and even sometimes

says the Lord, that I will make

a new

covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.” Christians interpreted this verse to accord with their belief in the abrogation of the Law through the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in *Jesus. From a Jewish perspective, the term is supersessionist, implying that the New Testament has replaced the Old. The earliest texts in the New Testament are not the Gospels, which

when

viewed in that context, the New Testament’s treatment of Jewish leaders, Jewish law, and “the Jews” provides

a base for Christian “antisemitism and the Christian teaching of contempt. Anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament has various aspects. One is Christological—the teaching that God can only be seen in terms of Christ. Another doctrine,

which

teaches

that

the new covenant has replaced the ancient covenant between God and the Jews. The validity of the Old Testament is thus understood as valuable solely as a preparation for the New. There is also the defamation of Jews, branded as deicides, with their guilt extending to all future generations. Modern Jewish scholars have made important contributions to the study of the New Testament, and

See Ro’sH HoDEsH.

NEW TESTAMENT, name given to the specifically Christian holy scriptures, as distinct from the Hebrew Bible that Christians call the *Old Testament. The term is derived from Jeremiah 31.31: “Behold the days come,

of course, Jewish themselves),

the Gospel of Matthew embraces the biblical tradition and regularly frames the ministry of Jesus in terms of biblical prophecy. Whatever their relation to the

is the supersessionist

NEVIIM.

NEW TESTAMENT

record the teaching, death, and

resurrection claims associated with Jesus, but rather the letters of Paul to the gentile churches in Asia Minor, which instruct them in community formation

and in the theology of “the risen Christ.” These letters date from a period only twenty to thirty years after Jesus, and they reflect an already complex selfunderstanding of early Christianity as both Jewish and gentile. The Gospels, which were composed between

forty and eighty years after the time of Jesus, reflect

Christian scholarship has become increasingly aware of its polemic elements. The 1985 Vatican document, “The Common Bond,” states: “It cannot be ruled out that some references in the New Testament, hostile or

less than favorable to the Jews have their historical context in conflicts between the nascent church and the Jewish community. Certain controversies reflect Christian-Jewish relations long after the time of Jesus. To establish this is of capital importance if we wish to bring out the meaning of certain Gospel texts for Christians today.” New Testament scholars have also begun to attend to the influence of rabbinic modes of interpretation upon it, and on the Jewish context in which it took shape. The Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Mark Brettler (New York: Oxford, forthcoming), contains a translated text of each book of the New Testament,

with commentaries and supplementary essays that explain these texts in terms of the Jewish context of their origins and in terms of particular questions that will be of interest to a Jewish audience. ¢ Richard Bauckham, The Jewish World Around the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2010). Gregory Baum, Jews and the Gospels (Westminster, Md., 1961). Norman A. Beck, Mature Christianity (London, 1985).

NIGHT OF WATCHING

536

NEW TESTAMENT Terence L. Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament (Waco, Tex., 2010). David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, 1988). Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York, 1943). Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (New York, 1925). Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology, translated by Edward Quinn (Philadelphia, 1978). Samuel Tobias Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament (Hoboken, N.J., and New York, 1987). Amy-Jill Levine, The Jewish Context of the New Testament: An Essential Guide (Nashville, 2011). Claude Joseph Goldsmid Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels (London, 1909). Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (New York, 1974). -REVISED

BY

MAXINE

L. GROSSMAN

childbirth, defining the stages of development of the fetus as well as the laws governing the halakhic status of children at various stages of their development. Adult status, for males as well as for females, is defined

in terms of the attainment of sexual majority. See also PURITY AND IMPURITY, RITUAL. An English translation of Niddah by I. W. Slotki appears in the Soncino Talmud (London, 1948). ® Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem,

NEW

YEAR.

NEW

YEAR

1958). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Taharoth (Gateshead, 1973). Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic

See Ro’sH HA-SHANAH.

and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender (Stanford, 2000). Hermann

FOR TREES.

Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and

See Tu BI-SHEVAT.

Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992). -~AVRAHAM

NEXT WORLD. NEXT

YEAR

IN JERUSALEM.

See La-SHANAH HA

BA’AH BI- YERUSHALAYIM.

NEZIQIN

(}*?"t);_

Damages),

fourth

order

of the

Mishnah and Tosefta’, dealing primarily with monetary subjects and damages that are legally adjudicated. It contains ten tractates: Bava’ Qamma’, Bava’ Metsi‘a’,

Bava’ Batra’ (these three originally constituted a single tractate

called

WALFISH

See ‘OLAM Ha-ZEH and ‘SOLAM HA-Ba~’.

Nezigin),

Sanhedrin,

Makkot

(origi-

nally the concluding chapters of tractate Sanhedrin), Shevu‘ot, ‘Eduyyot, ‘Avodah Zarah, Avot, and Horayot. Except for Avot and ‘Eduyyot, which have no gemara’ in either Talmud, all have gemara’ in both Talmuds. -AVRAHAM WALFISH NIDDAH (7); Menstruating Woman), tractate in Mishnah order Tohorot, in ten chapters, with related material in the Tosefta’, the Talmud Bavli, and

partially in the Talmud Yerushalmi. In biblical law, *menstruation renders a woman ritually impure (Lv. 15.19-33), as well as halakhically unfit for sexual relations (Lv. 18.19). Niddah deals almost exclusively with the ritual impurity of a menstruating woman, touching only briefly on the prohibition against sexual relations (Nid. 1.7-2.3, 10.8). The rabbinic discussion of niddah focuses on uncertainties regarding the status of a woman’s ritual purity. Normally in halakhah people are presumed to be ritually pure unless and until they know themselves to have been defiled. Inasmuch as emissions from a woman's genital area are often irregular regarding their timing, their nature, and their source, rabbinic halakhah modified this assumption of purity regarding women during their menstruating years. Hence, a menstruating woman is presumed—with respect to the opinion of Shamm/ai

(Nid. 1.1)—to have defiled

food or utensils with which she has come in contact for up to twenty-four hours prior to discovering the menstruation, unless her period is highly regular. The rabbis encouraged women to check themselves regularly and frequently, particularly before conjugal relations or handling sanctified food. Following the biblical equation of the impurity resulting from childbirth with the impurity of niddah (Lv. 12.2), Niddah discusses the halakhic definition of

NIDDUI.

See EXCOMMUNICATION.

NIETO, DAVID (1654-1728), rabbi of the SpanishPortuguese community in London from 1701. Born to

an

ex-converso

family

in

Venice,

he

studied

medicine and philosophy in Padua. Until 1701 he served as member of the rabbinical court in Leghorn. Nieto strongly defended traditional Judaism against neo-Karaite and fundamentalistic trends prevailing among his ex-converso brethren (Matteh Dan [London,

1714]) and vehemently attacked contemporary neoShabbatean

currents

(Esk

dat

[London,

1715)]).

Following suspicions that he shared deistic views identifying God with nature, he clarified in his work De

la divina

providencia

(London,

1705)

that

his

theological view concerning divine providence is in accordance with that of the classical Jewish thinkers and biblical interpreters. Nieto’s book is considered a significant contribution to contemporary antideistic doctrines. ¢ Jakob Josef Petuchowski, The Theology of Haham David Nieto (New York, 1954).

NIGGUN

-NISSIM

(7122;

Yi.

nign),

one

of

several

YOSHA

words

meaning tune; it most commonly denotes one of the wordless melodies first popularized by the Hasidim in the eighteenth century. Table melodies, dance tunes, and marches are the primary genres; different Hasidic sects favor particular forms of each. Adapting kabbalistic traditions from Safed, Hasidism viewed music as the key to unlock the gates of heaven. Some niggunim carry liturgical texts in Hebrew or Yiddish, but the absence of text enables the expression of pure emotion through wordless song. The belief that the expression of joy and religious férvor through music is dearer to God than formalistic prayers contributed to the schism between Hasidim and their opponents in the yeshivah community. ¢

Irene Heskes, “The Music of Hasidism: Melodies of Spiritual Ecstasy,”

in Passport to Jewish Music: Its History, Traditions and Culture (Westport,

Conn,, 1994). Chemjo Vinaver, Anthology of Hassidic Music, edited by Eliyyahu Schleifer (Jerusalem, 1985). —-MARSHA BRYAN EDELMAN

NIGHT. NIGHT

See Day ANd NIGHT. OF WATCHING.

See Ler SHimmuRIM.

NIGHT PRAYERS NIGHT MITTAH.

PRAYERS.

537 See

QeErrat

SHEMAS

‘AL

HA-

on the Talmud (his commentary to the Talmudic tractate Nedarim replaces that of Rashi in standard editions),

NINE

NINTH

DAYS.

See BEIN HA-METSARIM.

OF AV. See TIsH‘AH BE-’AV.

forbidden

for consumption

(Lv. 7.25) and was

burnt on the altar (Lv. 3.3-4). Generally the forbidden fats form a separate solid layer that is surrounded by a skin or membrane, which is easily peeled off. There are, however, some threads of forbidden fat that must be porged out with great skill and care. (The rabbis legislate the porging of 51 out of 121 sinews). Nigqur may be undertaken only by a menaqger who has received practical training from a recognized expert on the subject. It should be performed as soon as possible after the slaughter of an animal to prevent the fats from hardening. The laws of nigqur are found in the Yoreh De‘ah section of the Shulhan ‘Arukh. ¢ I. M. Levinger, Madrikh le-Hilkhot Nigqur (Jerusalem, 1964). Matsav haNiqqur be-'Arts. ha-B. (Bene Beraq, 1982).

NISAN (5°),

first month

of the

a commentary

on the halakhot of Yitshaq

Alfasi, responsa, and a book of sermons written in a philosophic style but antiphilosophic in content. Similarly his commentary on the Torah stresses the superiority of Torah and prophecy over philosophy.

NIQQUR (71?); porging), the removal of forbidden fat (*helev) from meat. The fat of those species of animals fit to be brought as sacrifices in the Temple was

NOAH

religious

year,

seventh of the civil. It has thirty days, and its zodiac

sign is Aries (which the rabbis connected with the paschal lamb). In the earlier biblical books its name is given as Abib (see Aviv), Nisan being derived from the Assyrian. According to tradition, Nisan is the month of the creation of the world, the birth of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, the erection of the Tabernacle, and it will also be the month of redemption. The first day of Nisan was the New Year of Kings, and reigns were reckoned from that date. The fourteenth day of Nisan is the firstborn fast, 15 Nisan is the start of *Pesah (which lasts until 21 Nisan in Israel, until 22 Nisan in the Diaspora), and the ‘Omer period is counted from 16 Nisan. Nisan is a festive month when public mourning is avoided and *Tahanun omitted from the daily prayers. Yom ha-Sho’ah (Holocaust Memorial Day) is now observed on 27 Nisan (the date is connected to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). ¢ Nathan Bushwick, Understanding the Jewish Calendar (New York, 1989). George Zinberg, Jewish Calendar Mystery Dispelled (New York, 1963). —CHAIM

PEARL

NISHMAT KOL HAL. See BirKaT HA-SHIR. NISSIM BEN RE’UVEN GERONDI (c.13151375), leading Spanish Talmudist; also known as the Ran. He was probably born in Gerona but lived most of

* Leon A. Feldman, ed., Perush ‘al ha-Torah, by Nissim ben Re’uven Gerondi (Jerusalem, 1968), introduction.

NISSIM BEN YA‘AQOV BEN NISSIM IBN SHAHIN (c.990-1062), North African rabbinic scholar. He lived in Kairouan, where he succeeded his father, YaSaqov ben Nissim ibn Shahin (died 1006/7), as head of one of the city’s two famous academies. Kairouan was the leading Jewish center in North Africa and was deeply influenced by the traditions of the Babylonian academies. Nissim was in correspondence with *Ha’i Ga’on and was also in close contact with *Shemu’el ha-Nagid in Spain. When his daughter married Shemu’el’s son, he visited Granada and taught there for a time. Nissim wrote extensively, and three of his major compositions are known. His major scholarly work, Sefer Mafteah Man‘ulei ha-Talmud (Vienna, 1847, and in the Vilna [Romm] edition of the Talmud), gives sources for quotations in the Talmud and also provides commentaries on many Talmudic themes. Only part has been preserved. It was written in Arabic and translated into Hebrew. Megillat ha-Setarim is a bilingual (Hebrew and Arabic) miscellany covering many subjects of interest to scholars, such as explanations of the biblical text in the contemporary spirit, expositions of sections of the Talmud and Midrash, responsa, and customs. The original has not been preserved, but it was widely quoted and a subject index has been found (by S. Assaf, Tarbiz 11 [1940]: 229-259). The work for which he is best remembered is Hibbur (Yafeh) min ha-Yeshu‘ah (Ferrara, 1557; Jerusalem, 1969; English translation by William M. Brinner, An Elegant Composition Concerning Relief After Adversity [New Haven, 1977]). This anthology of entertaining stories and folktales was a pioneering work of its kind, the first medieval Hebrew prose example of belles-lettres, and basically it had an ethical purpose, directed to the lay reader. It was written in Arabic but was translated into Hebrew and became highly popular. ¢ Julian Obermann, ed., Studies in Islam and Judaism: The Arabic Original of Ibn Shahin’s Book of Comfort (New Haven, 1933). -—SHALOM

NISSU’IN.

BAR-ASHER

See BETROTHAL.

his life in Barcelona, where he headed a yeshivah and

NOAH (Heb. Noah), hero of the biblical story of the Flood; son of Lamech (Gn. 5.28-29). Noah was a just

was also court physician. He issued many taqqanot that were applicable to all of Spain, and he sent rulings in response to halakhic queries from places as distant as Erets Yisra’el and Syria. His halakhic writings,

and righteous man who “walked with God” (Gn. 6.9). The biblical account reports that he, his family, and representatives of all existing species were saved from the annihilation of all living things by the Flood in

for which he was best known, were characterized by

an ark (see ARK oF Noaun), which

their clarity. They included comments

command. Noah’s first act upon leaving the ark, which

and novellae

he built at God’s

had come to rest on mountains of Ararat (in Armenia)

as the flood

waters

had

receded,

was

to make

a

sacrifice to God. His sacrifice was accepted, and the

blessing of fertility and dominion previously vouchsafed to Adam was now bestowed in a covenant upon him (Gn. 9.1-17). Unlike the heroes of other ancient accounts of floods, such as the Sumerian Ziusudra or

the Babylonian Utnapishtim, for whom escape from the deluge resulted in apotheosis, Noah remained mortal. The biblical tale also stresses the moral dimension of the story; moral corruption caused the eventual annihilation

of humankind,

and Noah was

saved because he was found to be a righteous man (Gn. 6.9). Unlike the other Mesopotamian traditions,

the biblical Flood story concludes with the making of a covenant between God and humanity. Noah was remembered in later tradition as being one of the three prototypes of righteousness (together with Daniel and Job; Ez.

14.14, 20). Talmudic

controversy

over

the

proper evaluation of Noah’s virtue derived from the passage “Noah was a righteous and wholehearted man in his generation” (Gn. 6.9). The rabbis commented that “in his generation” could have either a derogatory ora laudatory implication (San. 108a). He is described as a husbandman, but the story of his planting a vineyard and his subsequent intoxication contributed to the division of opinion among the rabbis as to the strength of his character and virtue. Jewish tradition asserts that humanity as a whole descended from Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gn. 10.1). ¢ Umberto Cassuto, to Abraham

NOBEL, NEHEMIAH

538

NOAH

A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, pt. 2, From Noah

(Jerusalem,

1974), pp. 3-249.

Nahum

M. Sarna, Genesis, The

this ruling ever had practical implications. Modern scholars have speculated on the historical origins of these laws and on their philosophical underpinnings. Louis Finkelstein argued that the laws specify the obligations of non-Jews living under Jewish rule during the Hasmonean period. Hayyim Tchernowitz regarded Noahic law as originating in ancient Hittite law. Saul Lieberman suggested that the Noahic laws reflect the practices of proselytes during the Second Temple period. David Novak argued that, lacking any real evidence for an earlier dating, the Noahic laws should be regarded as having originated in the post-Temple tannaitic period. Others have opined that these laws show that salvation is not dependent on revelation or that there is a universal obligation to establish a legal system. Throughout Jewish history the Noahic laws were of only theoretical interest to Jews. However, in the 1980s the *Habad movement began missionizing to gentiles in an effort to encourage worldwide observance of these laws. In recent years, small groups of gentiles known as the Benei

Noah,

some

of whom

eschew

belief

in the divinity of Jesus, have developed a form of monotheistic religion based on the observance of the seven Noahic laws . Benei Noah have formed ties with some Orthodox Jewish circles, especially Habad, who

encourage them and give them instruction.. ¢ Louis Finkelstein, Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays (New York, 1972). Aaron Lichtenstein, The Seven Laws of Noah (New York, 1981). David

Novak, The Image ofthe Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws (New York, 1983). Herbert N. Zulinski, Noachidische Thoradeutung (Vienna, 1984). Devora Steinmetz, Punishment

and Freedom.

The Rabbinic

2008), pp. 20-39.

Construction

of Criminal Law

(Philadelphia,

—~MARC SHAPIRO

JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 47-67. Claus Westermann, Genesis I-11 (Minneapolis, 1984), pp. 384-494.

-SHALOM

PAUL

NOAHIC LAWS, or Noahide Laws, injunctions given to *Noah and therefore binding upon all descendents of Noah,

Jews

and

gentiles

alike.

The

concept

is

rabbinic, apparently representing the basic rules according to which all people should live. According to or

the Talmud, there were seven Noahide laws, categories of laws, derived from Genesis 5-9.

They are prohibitions against blasphemy, idolatry, sexual immorality (including homosexuality), murder (including abortion), robbery, and eating a portion of a living animal, and an injunction concerning the administration

of justice

(Sanh.

56a). The

last of

these is interpreted by Nahmanides to include the entire range of social legislation and is also the basis of Maimonides’ justification of Simeon and Levi's slaughter of the city of Hamor and Shechem (Gn. 34).

Another Talmudic source (Hul. 92a) counts thirty such laws, but they are seen as derivations from the basic seven. According to Maimonides a non-Jew had to acknowledge the divine source of the Noahic laws in order to be regarded as one of the pious of the world. According to the Talmud, gentiles are subject to the death penalty for violating any of the seven Noahic laws, a penalty more severe than that suffered by Jews. There is, however, no evidence that

NOBEL, NEHEMIAH (1871-1922), Orthodox rabbi and Zionist leader in Germany. A Hungarian-born graduate of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary, he acquired a broad academic education and later studied under Hermann *Cohen in Marburg. After serving the Cologne, Leipzig, and Hamburg communities, Nobel succeeded Marcus Horovitz as communal Orthodox rabbi and av beit din in Frankfurt am Main

in 1910.

Two

of his measures,

restoring

the

‘eruv to permit carrying on the Sabbath and granting women a vote in communal affairs, angered Orthodox secessionists. Unlike most German rabbis of his time, Nobel was an outspoken Zionist from 1897 and also chaired the first Mizrachi (Religious Zionist) conference in Pressburg in 1904. His sermons, lectures, and

personality influenced Franz *Rosenzweig, Martin *Buber, and other young intellectuals. Nobel was elected president of the Union of German Rabbis in 1919, the only Orthodox Jew to be so honored. A collection of Nobel’s addresses and learned articles was published in the volume Hagut ve-Halakhah (Jerusalem, 1969), which also includes a biographical study by Yeshayahu Avi‘ad. ¢

Yehuda

Leib ha-Kohen

Maimon,

Sefer ha-Mizrahi

(Jerusalem,

1946),

pp. 138-139, 141-143, 151. Eugen E. Mayer, “Nehemiah Anton Nobel,” in Guardians of Our Heritage, edited by Leo Jung (New York, 1958), pp. 565-580. Yizhak Raphael, Entsiklopedyah shel ha-Tsiyyonut ha-Datit, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 1971), cols, 19-27.

—-GABRIEL

A. SIVAN

NOTARIOON

539

NOTARIOON (HPAI; Gr. notarikon Lat. notaricum, from “shorthand writer”), representation of a word or phrase by a single letter, usually the initial; also a method of interpreting a word by considering each letter to be the initial of another word, in contrast to *gimatriyyah, a form of interpretation based on the numerical value of a word (each Hebrew letter has a numerical value). Interpretation by notarigon consists of moral and homiletical lessons derived from the reading of a word as composed of initial letters of other words. Thus a rabbinical notariqon explains the word mizbeah (altar) as constituting an *abbreviation of mehilah, zekhut, berakhah, hayyim (forgiveness, merit, blessing, life). Notarigon was also popular among the kabbalists, who, for example, explained the word tesht (drink) in Judges 13.14 as tefillat shikkor to‘eveh, “the prayer of a drunkard is an abomination” (Avgat Rokhel, last section). Sometimes the words

divided up; thus, the name

were

Reuben

(Gn. 29.32) was explained as re’u ben, “see a son” (Pirgei de-Rabbi Eli‘ezer 36). Notariqgon was recognized by the rabbis as one of the thirty-two methods of homiletical interpretation of the Bible. ¢ Matityahu Glazerson, Letters of the Fire: Mystical Insights into the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem, 1991).

NOTHINGNESS (Heb. ayin). The Hebrew term ayin has had a complex, paradoxical history in Jewish mysticism. Job 28.20, “Whence then does wisdom come” (the word whence in Hebrew is me-ayin,

which could be interpreted as “from nothingness”), was understood, in kabbalistic terms, to mean that the origin of Hokhmah, the second *sefirah, is from

ayin; because

of this, ayin became

a, term

for the

highest sefirah, Keter, and the source of all existence.

Some kabbalists identified it with the hidden, eternal Godhead itself. Ayin thus became a term designating true, pure, and eternal existence, unlike the ephemeral and imperfect existence of everything else. In the early Kabbalah, this “nothingness” represents reality. In modern times, the term acquired a central position in the mystical theology of *Habad Hasidism, which postulates that one must turn one’s self into nothingness by disregarding worldly phenomena that are meaningless; by negating them and the physical self, union is made with the ayin in a bond that is the supreme spiritual achievement. ¢ Joseph Dan, “Paradox of Nothingness in Kabbalah,” in Argumentum e Silentio, edited by Amy Colin (Berlin and New York, 1987), pp. 359-363. Rachel Elior, The Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism (Albany, 1993). D. Matt, “Ayin: The Concept of Nothingness in Jewish Mysticism,” in The Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy, edited by Robert K. C. Forman (New York, 1990), pp. 121-150. -JOSEPH

NOVELLAE.

DAN

See HippuUsHIM.

NUMBERS. Several numbers have special significance in the Bible. The most prominent is seven (e.g., seven

days

of Creation;

the Sabbath

as

the

seventh day of the week; the seventh—sabbatical— year; the jubilee year after seven cycles of sabbatical

NUMBERS, BOOK OF

years; the ‘Omer cycle of seven times seven days; the conquest of Jericho, in which seven priests with seven shofars circled the city for seven days, including seven circuits on the seventh day—Jos. 6.1ff.). Other numbers mentioned frequently in the Bible include ten (the smallest number of men

might save

Sodom;

Ten Commandments;

who

the ten plagues of Egypt; the the tithes) and forty (the Flood,

during which it rained for forty days and forty nights; the forty days and nights that Moses spent on Mount Sinai—twice—receiving the Torah; the fortyday period during which the spies spied out the land of Canaan; the forty-year punishment during which the Jews had to remain in the desert; the forty-lash—in

practice reduced by the rabbis to thirty-nine—penalty for various offenses; cycles of forty years of peace in Erets Yisra’el in the Book of Judges). The attribution of numerical values to letters of the alphabet encouraged mystical exegesis and speculation as well as magical practice. The fact that every Hebrew word has its numerical equivalent gave rise to interpretation by *gimatriyyah, a method extensively employed in the Midrash for homiletical purposes. Gimatriyyah is the twenty-ninth of the thirty-two hermeneutical rules of R. Yosei ha-Galili. Another of R. Yosei’s hermeneutical rules that relates to numbers is his twenty-seventh, which states that whenever the same number appears in two different contexts (e.g., the forty days of the Flood and the forty years in the desert), one may draw parallels between the two

events. These methods were developed to extremes in Jewish

mystical

literature

(see SEFER

YETSIRAH),

particularly in the Kabbalah. ¢ Benjamin Blech, The Secrets of Hebrew Words (Northvale, N.J., 1991). Gutman G. Locks, The Spice of Torah: Gematria (New York, 1985). -SHMUEL HIMELSTEIN

NUMBERS, BOOK OF, the fourth book of the Torah. Its traditional name is Ba-Midbar (In the Wilderness [of Sinai]), taken from the opening verse; the rabbis also called it Homesh ha-Pequdim (The Fifth of [the Torah Concerning] Those Who Were Counted), referring to the censuses of the Israelites the book recounts; this is the origin of the Greek title Arithmoi, from which the English name Numbers is derived. Numbers is the direct continuation of Leviticus. A month after the erection of the Tabernacle at Mount Sinai, God orders the Israelites to prepare for the journey to Canaan. The preparations include conducting a census of the Israelites (chap. 1) and the Levites (chap. 3), arranging the tribes for the journey (chap. 2), supplying the Tabernacle with sacrificial implements and ingredients (contributed by the chiefs of each tribe; chap. 7), purifying and dedicating the Levites (chap. 8), and manufacturing silver trumpets for use in mustering the tribes (chap. 10.1-10). Interspersed are instructions concerning the duties of each Levitical family in transporting the Tabernacle (chap. 4), the purity of the camp, atonement for false oaths, the Nazirite, the ordeal of jealousy (see Soran),

the Birkat ha-Kohanim (chaps. 5-6), the Menorah (chap. 8.1-4), and Pesah Sheni (chap. 9.1-14).

Following the pillar of cloud and fire (chap. 9.1523), guided by Hobab, Moses’ father-in-law, and with the Ark of the Covenant leading the way (chap. 10.29-36), the Israelites commence their march. They immediately complain about food and water; God provides amply for their needs but punishes them for their faithlessness (chap. 11). Aaron and Miriam are chastised for questioning Moses’ privileged position (chap. 12). Arriving at the edge of the Promised Land, the tribes dispatch scouts, who report that the Canaanites are too fierce, and their cities too highly fortified, for Israel to defeat. The people, convinced that the land is too difficult to conquer, wish to return to Egypt; for this sin, God sentences the entire generation to die in the wilderness, decreeing that only their children will enter the Promised Land (chaps. 13-14).

Few events during the next thirty-eight years are related; the most significant is the failed insurrection

of Korah and his followers (chaps. 16-17). The process of law giving continues: instructions are received concerning sacrifice, fringes on garments (chap. 15), encroachment on the sanctuary, tithes (chap. 18), and

purification from contact with the dead (chap. 19). The accounts of the deaths of Miriam and Aaron and the story of Moses’ sin, for which he too is condemned to die in the wilderness, mark the end of this tragic

period (chap. 20). The account is resumed in the thirty-ninth year following the Exodus. Approaching the land of Canaan, Israel is forced to fight against Edom and the king of Arad, as well as against Sihon and Og (chaps. 20-21). Finally they encamp on the Plains of Moab

across

the

Jordan

NUSSAH

540

NUMBERS, BOOK OF

from

Jericho,

where

the alarmed Moabites attempt to invoke the curses of *Balaam. Prevented by God from cursing Israel, Balaam blesses them instead (chaps. 22-24). The threat of Midianite apostasy leads to all-out war and the utter defeat of Midian (chaps. 25 and 31). A census of the second generation is conducted (chap. 26), and

instructions are given for the allotment of land in Canaan to the tribes, as well as for the establishment of Levitical cities and cities of refuge (chaps. 27 and 34-36). Joshua is appointed as Moses’ successor (chap. 27.12-23). Two and a half tribes convince Moses to allow them to settle east of the Jordan, but only after

the conquest of Canaan has been completed (chap. 32). More laws are given, including the laws of daily, Sabbath, new moon, and festival offerings, and those

concerning vows (chaps. 28-30); the process of law giving finally completed and the itinerary recorded for posterity (chap. 33), the Israelites are ready for their invasion of Canaan. Bible critics assign most of Numbers, including almost all of the laws and the chronology, to

the Priestly source, but significant portions of the narrative belongs to the epic sources (J and E). Numbers is divided into ten weekly portions, read in the synagogue in early summer, from just before Shavu’ot until shortly before 9 Av. ¢ Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1993). Philip J. Budd, Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 5 (Waco, Tex., 1984). Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 158 (Sheffield, UK, 1993).

Adriane Leveen, Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers (Cambridge, 2008). Baruch A. Levine, ed., Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, vol. 4a (New York, 1993). Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary

(Philadelphia, 1990). Dennis T. Olsen, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch, Brown Judaic Studies, no. 71 (Chico, Calif., 1985). -BARUCH

J. SCHWARTZ

NUMBERS RABBAH, Midrashic work on the book of *Numbers in the medieval anthology *Midrash Rabbah, composed of two distinct sections. Numbers

Rabbah I (chaps. 1-14) is an extensive Midrashic commentary to the annual cycle lections “Ba-Midbar” and “Naso”

(Nm. 1-7), which seems to have been edited in the twelfth century cE, probably in Provence. The author-editor made use of both Talmuds Bavli and Yerushalmi, earlier Midrashic works, and, most significantly, the teachings of *Moshe ha-Darshan. Numbers Rabbah II (chaps. 15-23) is essentially the same text as midrash Tanhuma’ to the rest of Numbers (chaps. 8-36). An English translation of the work by J. J. Slotki appeared in the Soncino Midrash (London, 1939). ¢ Hananel Mack, “Midrash Be-Midbar Rabbah,” Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991. Hermann Leberecht Strack and Ginter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis, 1992). Leopold Zunz, Ha-Derashot

be-Yisra‘el ve-Hishtalshelutan ha-Historit, edited by Chanoch Albeck (1892; Jerusalem,

1974).

-MARC

BREGMAN

NUSSAH

(8)), a Hebrew term that originally meant “removal” and hence “copying” it is now used in three different ways, each conveying the idea of “accepted formula”: to refer to textual variants (Rashi and the tosafists, however, employed the word girsa’ to signify different readings); to distinguish the different liturgical rites of various communities and groups, also known as *minhag; and to denote the nussah ha-tefillah, the traditional manner in which the prayers are chanted as they have been handed down through the centuries. Sabbaths, festivals, and weekdays have unique melodies that distinguish one occasion from the other. Books such as Lamentations and Esther have their own melodies. Various communities have also chanted the Torah and haftarah readings with unique systems of cantillation. See also Music. ¢ Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy; A Comprehensive History, translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, 1993). Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York, 1992). Stefan C. Reif,

Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History

(Cambridge, 1993),

;

-PETER

KNOBEL

O OATH.

See Vows ann Oatus.

OATH MORE JUDAICO, a special oath that Jews had to take when in litigation with non-Jews. As early as the sixth century, Emperor Justinian I legislated that Jews were inadmissible as witnesses against Christians. During the Middle Ages, Jews were permitted to testify under this special oath, which took various forms, very often of a degrading nature. The oath was sometimes accompanied by a humiliating ceremony (for example, standing on the skin of a sow). The model for later legislation was the oath adopted by German courts in 1555, in which the Jewish witness had to call down upon himself all the curses in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, and the plagues of Egypt. Moses *Mendelssohn succeeded in persuading the Prussian government to modify the oath, but it remained in force in some countries until the beginning of the twentieth century. The imposition of this oath was based upon the false allegation that by the *Kol Nidrei formula the Jew absolves himself from all oaths.

ODEL, daughter of Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer *Ba‘al Shem Tov. Hasidic tradition says that he derived her soul, and so her name, from the Torah, by constructing it out of the initial letters of Deuteronomy 33.2: “A

fiery

law

unto

them”

(esh

dat

lamo).

She

is

known principally from Hasidic legends collected in Shivhei ha-Besht and from letters drawn from a genizah of Hasidic forgeries in Kherson. Some sources characterize her as one of her father’s disciples, who gave out magical remedies to the sick; other traditions do not portray her as possessing any spiritual ambition. She married Yehi’el Ashkenazi and was the mother of the renowned Hasidic masters R. Moshe Hayyim Efrayim of Sudylkow and R. Barukh of Medzhibozh. Her daughter Feigeh was the mother of Hasidic

master

Nahman

of Bratslav,

who

was

quoted as having said of Odel: “All the masters knew her to be endowed with divine inspiration; she was a

woman of great intellect.” e Ada Rapoport-Albert, “On Women in Hasidism,” in Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, edited by Ada Rapoport-Albert and Steven Zipperstein (London, 1988), pp. 516-517. Avraham Rubinstein, ed., Shivhei ha-Besht (Jerusalem, 1991), p. 182. -RACHEL ELIOR

¢ Volker Zimmermann, Die Entwicklung des Judeneids (Bern, 1973).

OFANNIM OBADIAH

(Heb. ‘Ovadyah; 6th cent. BcE), prophet in

the kingdom of Judah. The Book of Obadiah, which

provides no information about the prophet, consists of oracles against Edom, describing Edom’s actions during the fall of Jerusalem in 586 and foretelling Edom’s future downfall. Talmudic tradition identifies the prophet as an Idumean proselyte identical with the Obadiah in / Kings 18 who hid the prophets during the time of Elijah (San. 39b). The Book of Obadiah is the fourth book of the

(0°35'8), class of *angels. The term is

derived from Ezekiel’s vision of the divine thronechariot (Ez. 1.15ff.) and originally referred to the wheels that bear the throne. In later literature, ofannim became the designation of an angelic hierarchy, similar to *cherubim, *seraphim, and hayyot. The name was also given to a genre of liturgical prayers inserted by Ashkenazim into the *Yotser prayer on Sabbaths and festivals, describing the angelic praise of God and beginning with the words, “The ofannim and holy hayyot.”

Minor Prophets. The shortest book in the entire Bible,

it consists of one chapter with twenty-one verses describing the guilt of Edom in connection with the fall of Jerusalem. The Edomites not only rejoiced over the destruction of the city, but intercepted the Judahites when they attempted to flee. In a vivid “Day of the Lord” prophecy, Obadiah predicts that the tables will be turned and that Israel will possess Edom. Obadiah shares many affinities with the oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49.7-22. Critical opinion is divided as to whether Obadiah is a single work or a composite of two authors (the second part said to consist of the first half of verse 15 and verses 16-21). e Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah, BLAW 242 (Berlin and New York, 1996). Mordechai Cogan, “Ovadyah: “Im Mavo uFerush; Uriel Simon, Yonah: ‘Im Mavo u-Ferush, Mikra le-Yisra’el (Tel Aviv

and Jerusalem, 1992). R. J. Coggins, Israel Among on the Books of Nahum

and Obadiah;

the Nations:

A Commentary

S. P. Re'emi, Esther, International

Theological Commentary (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids, 1985). Douglas K. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 31 (Waco, Tex., 1987). Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minn., 2000). Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, translated by Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, 1986). —-MARVIN A. SWEENEY

OBLATION.

See MEAL OFFERING.

541

OFFERINGS.

See SAcRIFICES.

OHALOT (MAST; Tents), tractate in Mishnah order Tohorot, in eighteen chapters, with related material in Tosefta’. It has no gemara’ in either Talmud. It discusses the ritual impurity spread by a corpse, which defiles for seven days anything that touches it, as well as whatever is together with it in one tent (Nm. 19.1320). The tractate’s main topic is the delineation of the rules applying to the impurity transmitted by tents. In rabbinic law, this is understood to include any person, utensil, clothing, or food that passes above or below the corpse, as well as persons or susceptible items that are under the same roof as the corpse. Furthermore, the impurity spreads to openings and passages, following the rule that “the manner of impurity is to go out” (Ohal. 3.7). Therefore, the impurity of a sealed grave (Nm. 19.16) is transmitted to anyone who touches it or passes over it. Places where there is suspicion that corpse parts may be found must be treated as impure.

Ohalot 7 brings together a collection of diverse regulations, ranging from the minimum dimensions of a sealed grave to the conditions for a dead fetus in the womb to contaminate and culminates in the permission to abort the fetus in order to save the life of the mother. An English translation of the tractate is in Herbert Danby’s The Mishnah (London, 1933). ¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem, 1958). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Taharoth (Gateshead,

1973).

Hermann

Leberecht

Strack

and

Giinter

Stemberger,

Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

1992).

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

OHEL Ons; tent). Numbers 19.14 states that any human beings or utensils in the same tent with a *corpse contract ritual impurity for a period of seven days (see PURITY AND IMPURITY, RITUAL). Because priests are not permitted to be ritually impure, they must not enter a house where a corpse lies, nor may they enter a cemetery. The term ohel is also used for a structure over a tomb and was especially applied to those structures erected over the graves of outstanding Hasidic rabbis. ¢

Jacob Milgrom, “The Rationale for Biblical Impurity,” Journal of the

Ancient Near East Society 22 (1993):

107-111.

Lawrence

Schiffman,

“The

Impurity of the Dead in the Temple Scroll,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead

pp. 135-156. OHEL

Sea

Scrolls,

edited

by L. Schiffman

(Sheffield,

UK,

1990),

See TENT OF MEETING.

“OLAH.

See BURNT OFFERING.

‘OLAM (a> iy), originally a term with temporal connotation: from unending past to unending future, eternity. Psalms 106.48 praises God from ‘olam to ‘olam (for ever and ever). The word also acquired a

spatial meaning: world or universe. In the eschatological terminology of the late Second Temple period, *“olam ha-zeh and ‘olam ha-ba’ signified, respectively, the present age and the future age (i.e., the messianic dispensation, the kingdom of God, etc.), but the terms later came to mean this world in which we live and, like

the English word hereafter, a more celestial abode of the soul after appellations of God in liturgy and is ribbono shel ‘olam (Lord of the

spatially conceived death. One of the rabbinic literature universe). The title

melekh ha-‘olam (King of the universe), which occurs

in every blessing formula, similarly refers to God as creator, ruler, and master of the universe. e

Ernst S. Jenni, Wort ‘Olam im Alten Testament

(Berlin,

1953). Mark S.

Smith, “Berit am/Berit 6lam: A New Proposal for the Crux of Isa 42:6,” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 241-243. Arthur I. Waskow, “Tikkun Olam: Adornment of the Mystery (‘Repair the World’),” Religion and Intellectual Life

‘OLAM HA-ZEH AND ‘OLAM HA-BA’ (717 diy

OIL, together with grain and wine, is one of the three blessings bestowed by God on Erets Yisra’el (Dt. 11.14). In the Tabernacle and Temple only “pure olive oil beaten for the light to cause the lamp [see CANDLES; MENORAH]

to burn always” (Ex. 27.20) was

permitted for use; among eastern Jews this is still the only oil permitted for the eternal lamp in the synagogue. Rabbi *Tarfon similarly declared that only olive oil could be used for the Sabbath lamps (Shab. 26a), but the accepted ruling is that generally any be used

(Shab.

2). Oil was

used

for the

ceremonial *anointing of high priests and kings and in the purification process after leprosy (Lv. 13.45). Candles have largely replaced oil, though many still prefer the use of oil for the Hanukkah lamp. Oil also formed part of some sacrificial offerings, for example, in the burnt offering and cereal offerings (Lv. 2.4). See

also KINDLING OF LIGHTS. ¢ Martin Goodman, “Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, edited by P. Davies and R. White (Sheffield, UK, 1990), pp. 227-245.

OKHLAH

¢ S, Frensdorff, Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Hannover, 1864; repr. Tel Aviv, 1969). Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, translated and edited by E. J. Revell, Masoretic Studies, no. 5 (Missoula, Mont., 1980).

2 (1985): 109-115.

MO‘ED.

oil may

U17 0%; Jerusalem

Day), the anniversary of the Israeli capture of the Old City of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War, which falls on 28 Iyyar. Officially recognized as an optional public holiday (yom behirah), the Israeli chief rabbinate ruled that, unlike on *Yom

ha-‘Atsma’ut,

the whole Hallel be recited with the accompanying blessing to mark the regaining of access to Israel’s holiest shrine, the *Western Wall. The central event

is a mass thanksgiving assembly at the Western Wall, which resumed its status as the major pilgrimage site for Jews, including many *Haredim. e

Shlomo

Goren,

Torat

ha-Shabbat

veha-Mo‘ed

pp. 432-446.

YONAH

(Jerusalem,

-ARYEH

(4th cent.), Palestinian

amora’.

1981),

NEWMAN

His name

is intimately associated with that of his colleague R. Yosei,

his close

friend

and

business

associate

in the production of wine, with whom he visited the sick and attended weddings and funerals. After R. ‘Ammi

moved

his academy

to Caesarea

(c.350),

the two became coleaders of the Tiberias academy and “Sanhedrin” (R. Yonah was succeeded by his son Mani II). Their halakhic discussions are found in every tractate of the Talmud Yerushalmi, while the

Talmud Bavli singles out R. Yonah as a praiseworthy and

saintly

most famous

Palestinian

sage

(Ta‘an.

23b;

for the

example of his charity, see Y., Pe‘ah

8.9, 21b). Rabbi Yonah

studied with R. Yirmiyahu,

R. Ze‘ira’, and R. Il’ai and was responsible for the development and fixing of basic principles of Talmudic interpretation (cf., Y., Pe‘ah 1.1, 15a). In contrast to R. Yosei, R. Yonah’s treatment

of tannaitic sources

YOSEF HAYYIM BEN ELIYYAHU

804

YONAH often preferred the text of the Tosefta’ to that of the Mishnah. ¢ Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der paléistinensischen Amorder (1892-1899; Hildesheim, 1965). Jacob Nahum Epstein, Mavo’ le-Nusah ha-Mishnah, 2d ed. (Tel Aviv, 1964).

YONAH

BEN

AVRAHAM

-MICHAEL

L. BROWN

GERONDI

(c.1200-

1263) Spanish halakhist and ethicist; also known as Yonah the Pious. A relative of Nahmanides, Yonah

remained in close contact with Nahmanides all of his life. He studied in France, where he became a zealous partisan in the campaign against the works of Maimonides. However, he later repented and, according to a popular but unlikely tradition, planned a pilgrimage to Maimonides’ tomb. Yonah returned to Gerona and lived there and in Barcelona. He then set out for Erets Yisra’el but on passing through Toledo acceded to the request of the community to remain there and establish a rabbinic academy, which he headed until his death. He was noted for his ascetic and moralistic tracts with their stress on social ethics, and he condemned the widespread custom of concubinage. Many of his works display his halakhic skills. These include Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud commentaries and a commentary on Yitshaq Alfasi’s digest of tractate Berakhot. ¢ Abe T. Shrock, Rabbi Jonah ben Abraham of Gerona: His Life and Ethical Works (London, 1948).

YONATAN BEN ‘UZZYEL

((st cent.), tanna’ known as the most outstanding of *Hillel’s eighty pupils. Although no halakhot have been preserved in his name, many of his opinions probably formed the basis for the rulings of Beit Hillel (see BEIT HILLEL AND BEIT SHAMM’al). The Talmud attributes to him a *targum of the Prophets, but the one commonly known by his name dates in its present form from much later (4th— 5th cent. Babylonia). A targum on the Torah (named by scholars Targum *Pseudo-Jonathan) has also been attributed to Yonatan, but it dates from the third or

fourth century, and the ascription appears erroneous. See also BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, JEWISH. ¢ M. Klein, “Introductory Poems R’shuyot to the Targum of the Haftarah in Praise of Jonathan ben Uzziel,” in Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey, edited by S. F. Chyet and D. Ellenson (Atlanta, 1993), pp. 43-56. —-DANIEL

YOREH

DE‘AH.

SPERBER

See YAHRZEIT.

YOSEF

AVRAHAM

to him. Known for his great humility (Ber. 64a; Pes. 113b) and careful piety (Pes. 107a), the Talmud

recounts that he became blind and forgot all his Torah learning, both, apparently, due to a severe illness, but Abbayei and Rava’, his principal students, retaught him (‘Eruv. 10a; Men. 99b). It is said that when he died, so many mourners came to attend his funeral

that the bridge over the Euphrates cracked (Mo‘ed Q. 25b). He taught that he who scorned the sages was a heretic (San. 99b) and that it was of greater merit

to engage (Sot. 21a). Merkavah proverbial

¢ Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der babylonischen Amorier (1913; Hildesheim, 1967). Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tanna'im ve-'Amora'im (1910; Jerusalem, 1987).

of

his

See Basir,

Rabbah,

in halakhic

with

debates,

whom

are called

“the amora’im

he

recorded

hundreds of times in the Talmuds; in Sanhedrin

the two

BEKHOR

SHOR (12th

the biblical Joseph in Deuteronomy 33.17. The author of liturgical poems (piyyutim) and of legal questions addressed to *Ya‘agov ben Me’ir Tam, Bekhor Shor is best known for his commentaries on the Torah and on Psalms. His commentaries on other biblical books seem to have been lost. Following in the footsteps of R. Shemu’el

ben Me’ir (Rashbam),

Bekhor

Shor

endeavored to delineate large literary units within the scriptures, to explain the contextual meaning of many legal texts not in accordance with their treatment in rabbinical literature, and to show that the primary meaning of various biblical verses undermines the Christological interpretations imposed upon them by Christian theologians. The implication is that the scientific study of Hebrew scriptures proves that the natural and logical continuation of them is Judaism and not Christianity. Other characteristic features of Bekhor Shor’s exegesis are his examination of the motives

of characters

in biblical narrative,

his

attempt to provide a rational basis for the divine

Sarah Kamin, Joseph

“The Polemic against Allegory in the Commentary

Bekhor

Shor,”

in Jews and Christians

of

Interpret the Bible,

edited by Sarah Kamin (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 73-98. Nathan Porges, Joseph Bechor Shor (Leipzig, 1908). Yosefa Rachman, “The Process of Speculation in Bekhor Shor's Commentary on the Torah,” Tarbiz 53 (1984): 615-618. Gotthilf Walter, Joseph Bechor Shor (Breslau, 1890).

colleague

engaged

YITSHAQ

cent.), biblical commentator whose name, Bekhor Shor (Firstborn Bull) is derived from the description of

e

HA-KOHEN.

YOSEF BEN HIYYA’ (died 333), Babylonian amora’. He was given the title of “Sinai” (Hor. 13b) because of his encyclopedic knowledge of traditional law. He headed the Pumbedita academy after the

frequently

BEN

L. BROWN

the legal implications of various biblical laws.

YOSEF BEN AVRAHAM.

death

—MICHAEL

YOSEF

Rabbi

BEN

in Torah study than to perform mitsvot He played a role in the development of mysticism (Hag. 13a). For some of his sayings, see Ketubbot 104a and Gittin 45a.

commandments, his attack upon the allegorization of the commandments, and his extensive discussion of

See SHULHAN ‘SARUKH.

YORTSAYT.

He was known for both his aggadic and halakhic acumen, and specialized in biblical interpretation and translation; the *Targum to Chronicles, called the Targum of Rabbi Yosef, is traditionally attributed

17b

of Pumbedita.”

-MAYER

YOSEF

DELLA

REINA.

I. GRUBER

See DELLA REINA, YOSEF.

YOSEF HAYYIM BEN ELIYYAHU AL-HAKHAM (1833-1909), rabbinical authority in Baghdad. He was a popular and influential preacher at a time when the Baghdad community was reattaining a

YOSEF HAYYIM BEN ELIYYAHU

805

position of influence, which had lapsed in the geonic period. His comprehensive literary output consisted of seventy books ranging from the five-volume Ben Yehoiada‘ (1898-1904) on Talmudic aggadah to Huggei Nashim on Jewish law concerning women, and he was the first Jewish religious leader to assert that a girl should celebrate a *bat mitsvah. His responsa, Rav Pe‘alim (1901-1912), reflected the struggle within the Baghdad community between the sages and the wealthy leadership. His volume of homilies, Ben Ish Hai (1898; Jerusalem, 1957), is still studied, and some of the two hundred piyyutim that he composed entered the Baghdad liturgy. ¢ Abraham Ben-Jacob, Ha-Rav Yosef Hayyim: Mi-Gedolei Rabbanei Bavel (Jerusalem, 1971). Abraham Ben-Jacob, Rav Yosef Hayyim mi-Baghdad: Toledot Hayav u-Reshimat Ketavav (Or Yehuda,

1984). -SHALOM

BAR-ASHER

YOVEL

high priest Alcimus, who persecuted the Hasideans and executed Yosei ben Yo‘ezer in a cruel manner. ¢ R. Travers Herford, Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud, Saying of the Fathers (New York, 1971).

persecutions but eventually settled at Sepphoris in Lower Galilee, where he headed the academy. His halakhic preeminence and the respect in which he was held by R. *Yehuda ha-Nasi’ and R. *Shim‘on ben Gamli’el led to his views being accepted in legal disputations (‘Eruv. 46b), and, indeed, he is mentioned more than three hundred times in the Mishnah and *Tosefta’. He is the first scholar of whom it is said that he was privileged to have “Elijah the Prophet reveal himself to him (San. 113a). He frequently engaged in polemics on matters of belief with non-Jews. His original philosophical beliefs included his view that God bears no relationship to space or time: “God is the place of the world and the world is not his place” (Gn. Rab. 68.9). He opposed the view that men were judged on *Ro’sh ha-Shanah, stating that men are judged daily (T., R. ha-Sh. 1.13). He further thought that the *shekhinah, the divine countenance, thrice daily mourns the destruction of the Temple but takes comfort in the prayers and praises of the synagogue (Ber. 3a). ¢ Israel Konovitz, Rabbi Jose Ben Halafta: Collected Sayings in Halakah and Aggadah in the Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem, 1966). -DANIEL

SPERBER

SPERBER

YOSEI BEN YOHANAN. See YoSEI BEN YO‘EZER. YOSEI BEN YOSEI

(4th or 5th cent.), the first well-

known liturgical poet (payyetan) of Erets Yisra’el. Nothing is known of his life. Some of his piyyutim (see PryyuT) have been incorporated into the Sephardi liturgy for Yom Kippur (e.g., Azkir Gevurot—a picturesque portrayal of the Temple ritual of that day) and Ro’sh ha-Shanah

(Ahalelah Elohai Ashirah

“‘Uzzo—about the majesty of the Creator). His compositions are alphabetic, with rhythmic pattern and occasional alliteration, but lack rhyme or meter. e

YOSEI BEN HALAFTA’ (2d cent.), called Rabbi Yosei in the Mishnah and baraiytot; Palestinian tanna; one of the five famous pupils of R. *‘Aqiva’ ben Yosef. He was forced to flee during the Hadrianic

-DANIEL

Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:

A Comprehensive History, translated by

Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia, New York, and Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 238-239 et passim. Aharon Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse: Poems (Jerusalem, 1977).

YOTSER (73%"), the first of the two “blessings preceding the *Shema‘ in the morning service, so called because it opens with the words “Blessed ...” who forms [Yotser] light and creates darkness...” Its

theme is praise to God for creation and for renewing it and restoring light to the earth every morning. The quotation from Isaiah 45.7, with its mention of

creation and also of God’s power to bring darkness, was meant as a polemical rejection of dualistic beliefs in two separate deities of light and darkness (Ber. 11b).

In its present form, Yotser contains the alphabetic hymn probably originating in early mystic circles, El Barukh, a poetic description of the angelic praise of God, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord ...” (see QEDUSHAH). Brief piyyutim are inserted into Yotser, especially on the Sabbath (e.g., El Adon) and festivals; these are generally known as yotserot. Before the conclusion of the blessing, some rites (but not the Sephardi) insert a messianic petition: “Cause a new light to shine upon Zion”; however, some authorities in geonic times opposed this on the grounds that the subject of the blessing is the physical light of creation and not the spiritual light of redemption. The term yotser is loosely applied to all the extra hymns that were introduced into the morning service (the general tendency in recent times is to omit these accretions). e

Ezra Fleischer, The Yozer: Its Emergence and Development (Jerusalem,

YOSEI BEN YO‘EZER (2d cent. BcE), scholar from Zeredah in southern Samaria; president of the *Sanhedrin; disciple of Antigonus of Sokho. Together

5.1,” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1991): 305-324. L. J. Liebreich, “The Benediction Immediately Preceding and the One Following the Recital of

with Yosei ben Yohanan, he constituted the first of the five “pairs” (*zugot). He was a kohen (priest), belonged

The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale, N.J., and London, 1993), p. 386. J. Vellian, “The Anaphoral Structure of Addai and Mari Compared to the Berakoth Preceding the Shema in the Synagogue Morning Service,”

to the party of the *Hasideans, and strongly opposed the Hellenists. Rabbinic tradition has it that in his time

Le Muséon 85 (1972): 201-223.

the first halakhic controversy arose, as to whether or

YOVEL (bai: jubilee), the year of release that occurs at the end of the cycle of seven sabbatical years (see SHEMITTAH) once every fifty years. The laws concerning cultivation of the land and produce during the sabbatical year apply to the jubilee as well, but the main function of the jubilee is to complement

not one places one’s hands on an animal sacrificed during a festival, a controversy

that continued

for

many generations. Regarding the laws of purity and impurity,

Yosei

ben

Yo‘ezer

tended

to be lenient.

According to legend, his nephew was the Hellenized

1984), Reuven Hammer, “What Did They Bless? A Study of Mishnah Tamid

the Shema,” Revue des études juives 125 (1966):

151-165.

Macy Nulman,

YUHASIN

806

NONVENE the laws of redemption, which stipulate that Israelites who have been reduced to servitude must be permitted to buy back their freedom and that those who have been forced to sell their property must be given ample opportunity to regain possession of it; further, that one whose kinsman has been forced into such straits must assist him to extricate himself. The jubilee provides the ultimate remedy: every fifty years all land that has not yet been redeemed reverts to its original owners, and any slaves who have not yet earned their freedom become free. The jubilee and all of the provisions pertaining to it are found in Leviticus 25. The jubilee began on Ro’sh ha-Shanah and its arrival was proclaimed by the sounding of horns on Yom Kippur. The English word jubilee is derived from the Hebrew word yovel, which may mean ram (R. ha-Sh. 26a). The land release preserves

history during First Temple times, and according to the rabbis it was not observed in the Second Temple period at all (‘Arakh. 32b). There are, however,

indications that a fifty-year cycle was employed in the calendar in ancient times; traditions of calculating the

jubilees survived beyond the biblical period. ° Jeffrey A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 155 (Sheffield, UK, 1993). Baruch Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, 1989),

pp. 168-181, 270-274. James C. VanderKam,

ed., The Book of Jubilees: A

Critical Text, 2 vols. (Leuven, Belgium, 1989). -BARUCH

YUDGHAN.

J. SCHWARTZ

See MEssIAH.

to prevent a few individuals, families, or tribes from

YUHASIN (]°011"; pedigrees), the legal consequence of a person’s lineage relating, in particular, to marital status. The child of a regular married couple is permitted to marry any Jew (Qid. 69a). In such cases, status is determined by paternity; thus, the son of a priest and an Israelite will be a priest, and one born to a priest’s daughter and an Israelite will be an

accumulating large portions of land, thereby depriving many of an independent means of livelihood. The Bible provides a theological rationale: Erets Yisra’el

8.1). In the case of a valid prohibited marriage, status is determined by the “tainted” parent. Hence, the child

the ancient,

among

is God’s

tribal division

of the land

the Israelites. The aim seems

possession;

the

Israelites

of Canaan

to have been

are

merely

his

tenants and cannot conduct permanent real estate transactions on his property (Lv. 25.23). The release of Israelite slaves is similarly explained: “For it is to me that the Israelites are slaves; they are my servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt” (Lv. 25.55); thus

they cannot become permanent slaves of each other. The practical implications are spelled out clearly. The price paid, either for a piece of land or an Israelite slave, was to be calculated in accord with the number

of years remaining until the next jubilee. According to the law in Leviticus 25.8-10, the jubilee is the fiftieth year, which means it follows the seventh sabbatical year rather than coinciding with it; rabbinic opinion, however, was divided on this question (Ned. 61a). It is not known whether the jubilee was ever observed

in actual practice,

although

some

similar

institutions did exist in the ancient Near East. In particular, the biblical injunction “you shall proclaim freedom [deror] throughout the land” (Lv. 25.10) recalls the release of slaves in Mesopotamia, called

anduraru. There is no mention of the jubilee in biblical

Israelite (Nm.

1.2, 18; Shulhan ‘Arukh, Even ha-‘Ezer

of a *mamzer and a regular Jew will be a mamzer (Qid. 66b) and the child of a priest and a divorcee will be a

halal, that is, unfit to serve as a priest (Qid. 66b, 77a). A

female halal is not permitted to be married to a priest (Qid. 77a). Children born out of wedlock suffer no legal

impediments under Jewish law and the only legal issue of significance is the establishment of their paternity. Upon the establishment of paternity, the normal rules of yuhasin apply. Where only one parent is Jewish, the halakhah is that the child’s status is determined in accordance with the matrilineal principle. Hence, the child of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is a Jew with the sole proviso that a female may not marry a priest. The offspring of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is non-Jewish and may only enter the community of Israel by means of conversion to Judaism. Reform Judaism in the United States, however, now accepts such a child as a Jew if raised

as a Jew. ¢

Menachem

Elon,

Jewish

Law:

History,

Sources,

Principles, 4 vols.

(Philadelphia, 1994), pp. 1652-1690, 1753-1784. Isaac Klein, “The Marriage of aCohen to a Giyyoret,” in Responsa and Halakhic Studies (New York, 1975), pp. 22-26. -DANIEL SINCLAIR

ZACUTO, MOSHE (c.1610-1697), kabbalist and poet. He studied in his native Amsterdam and in Posen (Poland), and later he moved

to Verona

against Absalom (2 Sm. 19.12) and anointed Solomon as king against his rival Adonijah, who was banished

and Venice,

(1 Kgs.

where he edited kabbalistic books, including Zohar Hadash (1658). In 1666 he supported the messianic claims of *Shabbetai Tsevi. While he favored the Shabbatean emphasis on repentance, he strongly opposed the liturgical reforms practiced by the Shabbateans. Although some of his favorite disciples, such as Binyamin ha-Kohen and Avraham Rovigo, remained loyal Shabbatean believers, Zacuto turned his back on Shabbateanism after Shabbetai Tsevi’s apostasy. In 1673 he became rabbi in Mantua; he never realized his desire to settle in the Holy Land. Besides his literary activities as a poet and a kabbalist, his main contribution was the introduction of Lurianic liturgical practices into Italian synagogues. He wrote the first biblical drama ‘Olam (1874).

literature, Yesod

in Hebrew

¢ A. Apfelbaum, Moshe Zakuth (Lemberg, 1926). Meir Benayahu, Dor Ehad ba-’Arets: ‘Iggerot Rabbi Shemu'el Abuhav ve-Rabbi Moshe Zakut be-‘Inyenei Erets Yisra’el 399-426 (Jerusalem, 1988). J. Melkman, “Moses Zakuto en Zijn familie,” in Studia Rosenthaliana, vol. 3 (Assen, 1969), pp. 145-155. Yohanan Twersky, ed., Dor Dor ve-Sofrav: Antologyah Sifrutit le-Talmidim vela-“Am (Tel Aviv, 1950).

—-NISSIM

YOSHA

1.32-40).

The

descendants

of Zadok

ruled

as *high priests until the time of the Hasmoneans. The sons of Zadok are also mentioned in the *Dead Sea

Scrolls

(especially

the

*Damascus

Document,

also called Zadokite fragments). The community associated with the scrolls argued for the authority of the *Zadokites and understood itself as heirs to the Zadokite priesthood. It has been suggested that the name *Sadducees is derived from Zadok. ¢ Johann Maier, “Von Eleazar bis Zadok: CD V, 2-5,” Revue de Qumran 15 (1991-1992): 231-241. Saul Olyan, “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 177-193. James C. VanderKam, “Zadok and the spr htwrh hhtwm in Dam Doc 5: 2-5,” Revue de Qumran

11 (1984): 561-570.

-SHALOM

PAUL

ZADOKITES, descendants of *Zadok, one of David’s high priests in Jerusalem (2 Sm. 15.24-37), who remained the dominant priestly family in Jerusalem until the Babylonian exile (586 BcE). After the return from exile, the Zadokites regained control of the high

priesthood and retained that office until the deposition and murder of Onias III in the early second century BCE (2 Mc. 4.33-34).

ZADDIK, YOSEF BEN YA‘AQOV IBN (c.10701149), Spanish poet, philosopher, and Talmudist. In 1138 he was appointed dayyan of Cordova, along with

In Ezekiel’s program for the restoration of the Temple, the Zadokites are considered the only legitimate priests (Ez. 44.15-31). In postexilic literature, the Zadokites appear most prominently in the sectarian

Maimon ben Yosef. He composed several liturgical poems and a work on ethics. He is best known for his introduction to philosophy, Sefer ha-‘Olam

texts of the *Dead Sea Scrolls. For example,

ha-Qatan (edited by A. Jellinek, 1854; edited by S. Horowitz, 1903). Written in Arabic in answer

This emphasis on priestly authority and particularly the importance of the Zadokite priests indicates a possible area of dissension between the Qumran group and the Temple authorities, led by the non-Zadokite

is given to “the priests, the sons of Zadok” (5.2b-—3a).

to a student’s questions concerning the meaning of certain

philosophical

terms,

it was

later translated

into Hebrew, possibly by Nahum ha-Ma‘arabi. His central thesis is that the human being is a microcosm (‘olam gatan) of the universe—both physical and metaphysical—and the study of human beings will yield the truths of cosmology and theology. Zaddik’s approach is Neoplatonic, with some Mu‘tazili (see KataM)

and

Aristotelian

elements.

The

work

is

composed of four parts. The first is a presentation of Aristotelian physics and deals with definitions. The second is a study of human beings, based on the concept of the microcosm. The third examines theology, notably God’s unity and his attributes, in the manner of the Kalam Bab al-Tawhid. The fourth division is a vindication of God’s justice in the manner of the Kalam Bab al-‘Adl. * Max Doctor, Die Philosophie des Joseph (ibn) Zaddik (Minster, 1973). Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism (New York, 1964), pp. 144-148. Isaac Husik, A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy (New York, 1960), pp. 125-149. H. Schirmann, “The Poets Contemporary with Moses ibn Ezra and Judah Halevi,” in Mitteilungen des Forschungsinstitutus ftir Hebrdische Dichtung, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1936), pp. 163-174.

-STEVEN

in the

*Rule of the Community, authority in the community

Hasmoneans. e Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration,” Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 137-156. Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (Garden City, N.Y., 1961). Robert A. Kugler, “A Note on

1QS 9.14: The Sons of Righteousness or the Sons of

Zadok?” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 315-320. Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. 16 (Leiden, 1975), pp. 72-75. Geza Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok-Priests-Congregation,” in Geschichte-TraditionReflexion: Festschrift fiir Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Hubert Cancik, et al. (Tiibingen,

1996), pp. 375-384. Cana Werman,

“The Sons of

Zadok,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, edited by Lawrence Schiffman, et al. (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 623-330. -SIDNIE

ZADON.

See INTENT.

ZAKHUR

LA-TOV.

WHITE

CRAWFORD

See ZIKHRONO LI-VERAKHAH.

ZAQEN MAMRE’ (873?) ]P1, elder rebel), a member of the Sanhedrin who refused to concede the correctness of the majority opinion and continued to rule that his own approach—a minority opinion— was correct and should be followed. He was liable for the death penalty for that conduct. However, the elder rebel was not liable for the death penalty if he

BALLABAN

ZADOK

(Heb. Tsadoq), priest; descendant of Eleazar, son of Aaron (/ Chr. 5.30-34). He sided with David

807

merely affirmed the correctness of his own opinion on an intellectual basis but declined to seek that it be considered normative and be practiced. There is a dispute as to whether such conduct is completely permissible or merely not liable to the death penalty. ¢ Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles (Philadelphia, 1994). Hugo Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, Mass., 1965).

ZAVIM

—~MICHAEL

(0°31; Persons with Impure Discharge), trac-

in Tosefta’. There is no gemara’ in either Talmud. Its five chapters deal with the laws concerning men and women who are rendered impure due to genital discharge (Lv. 15). Both normal, healthy discharges and abnormal, unhealthy discharges render one impure, but normal discharges, namely male seminal emissions and female menstruation, create less severe

types of impurity than abnormal discharges. Zavim elaborates the differences among these forms of impurity and their ramifications. With the exception with normal

seminal emissions,

furniture

or implements designed for sitting on or reclining in become primary sources of impurity (i.e., possessing the power to defile others) when a zav has sat on or reclined in them. This law renders the issue of social intercourse and contact between a zav and an undefiled person highly problematic, a matter that is discussed quite extensively in Zavim. The tractate concludes with a presentation of the stages of transmission of various forms of defilement. See also PURITY AND IMPURITY, RITUAL. An English translation of the tractate is in Herbert Danby’s The Mishnah (London, 1933). ¢ Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem,

1958). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Taharoth (Gateshead, 1973). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

1992).

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

ZAYIN BA-’ADAR (7 Adar), the traditional date of *Moses’ birth and death (Qid. 38a; Meg. 13b). In earlier

generations 7 Adar was observed as a solemn day of fasting and prayer. The following day was a day of celebration, which, in medieval Egypt, even took on the character of a carnival day. A special tigqun (anthology of readings) for the day was compiled in 1654 by R. Shemu’el Aboab of Venice, comprising selections

from

the Bible,

Mishnah,

In modern Israel, 7 Adar is designated as a memorial

day for Israeli soldiers killed in war and whose last resting place is unknown. e

Judah

D. Eisenstein,

Otsar Dinim

u-Minhagim

(Tel Aviv,

1975), p. 8.

Mordekhai ha-Kohen, Seder Zayin Adar, Megorot, Minhagot, Selihot u-Tefillot (Jerusalem, 1961). Eliyahu Ki Tov, The Book of Our Heritage (Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 12-28. Yom-Tov Lewinsky, Entsiglopedyah shel Havai u-Masoret ba-Yahadut, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv, 1975), p. 166.

-CHAIM

PEARL

BROYDE

tate in Mishnah order Tohorot, with related material

of a man

ZEBULUN

808

ZAQEN MAMRE’

Midrash,

and

Zohar. In recent times the *hevrah qaddisha’ (burial society) in each community observes the date by using the first part of the day as a time for fasting, reflection, and self-examination. Visits are made to cemeteries,

where petitions are offered for forgiveness from the deceased in case proper respect was not shown at the time of their burial. In the evening there is a festive meal, with appropriate Torah lessons. The occasion is also used for admitting new members to the hevrah qaddisha’. The silver cups used by the burial societies for the 7 Adar banquet are often outstanding examples of ritual art.

ZEALOTS, a Jewish sect active during the last decades of the Second Temple period, who uncompromisingly rejected the Roman dominion. *Josephus, the main source for Jewish history of this period, states that a *census the Romans conducted in Judea in 6 CE generated strong opposition from some Jewish circles, led by Judah of Gamala and Zadok the Pharisee, who, partly for religious reasons (cf. 2 Sm. 24), objected to this attempt to count the Jewish population. Their opposition led to the creation of a “fourth philosophy” (in addition to the *Pharisees, *Sadducees, and *Essenes), whose followers are described by Josephus as similar in everything to the Pharisees, except for their invincible passion for liberty and their insistence that God alone was their leader and master. This movement, whose adherents combined a violent anti-Roman stance with strong messianic expectations, seems to have split into several subgroups, among which Josephus names the Zealots (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ganna’im, “the ones zealous [for God]’) and the Sicarii (from sica, the Latin word for dagger, their favorite weapon). Their activities ranged from guerrilla warfare against Roman soldiers and officials to political assassinations of their Jewish opponents. The various groups of Zealots were deeply involved in the Great Revolt of 66-73

and perished,

in Jerusalem

and on

Masada,

when the messianic salvation they were hoping for failed to materialize. The concept of zeal for the Torah was a rabbinical ideal exemplified by Phinehas (Nm. 25.6-13), who was praised as “zealot, son of a zealot.” ¢ Martin Hengel, The Zealots, translated by David Smith from Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961; Edinburgh, 1989). David M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution:

6-74 C.E.: A Political History Based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia, 1976). E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, Studies in Judaism and Late Antiquity 20 (Leiden, 1976). -GIDEON BOHAK

ZEBULUN

(Heb.

Zevulun),

the sixth

son

born

to

Leah and Jacob and the eponymous ancestor of the tribe whose territory was located in southern Galilee and the Jezreel Valley. In giving Zebulun his name, Leah played on the assonance of the roots z b d (gift) and z b 1 (dwell), saying, “God has given me a choice gift (zevadani . . . zeved);

this time my husband will dwell with me” (Gn. 30.19-20). The tribe of Zebulun extended from the Mediterranean Sea to Mount Tabor in the east, and

included such prominent sites as Jokneam, Nahalal, Shimron, Hannathon and Bethlehem of Galilee (Jos. 19.10-16). The tribe answered Deborah’s call to arms against Sisera (VJgs. 5.14, 15.18) and supported Gideon in his war against the Midianites (Jgs. 6:35).

ZEBULUN

809

Two minor judges—Ibzan from Bethlehem and Elon the Zebulunite—came

from this tribe (VJgs. 12:8-12).

From the reference in Jacob’s blessing (Gn. 49.13), “Zebulun shall dwell by the seashore; he shall be a haven for ships and his flank shall rest on Sidon,” it may be concluded that the tribal territory extended to the Mediterranean, perhaps along the Kishon River bordering the Sidonian colony at Acco, and included a subjugated Canaanite populace (/gs. 1.30-31). In the second and third centuries, the main Torah academies of *Beit She‘arim and Sepphoris were in the former territory of Zebulun. The later aggadah emphasizes the close relationship between Zebulun and his brother and neighbor *Issachar, a paradigm of the wealthy merchant brother supporting the scholarly brother in pursuing his studies undisturbed by the demands of making a living. ¢ Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, 1979). Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1954). Samuel Klein, Erers ha-Galil (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 1-8. —AARON

ZECHARIAH

(Heb.

Zekharyah;

6th

DEMSKY

cent.

BCE),

prophet and priest in the kingdom of Judah; son of Berechiah and grandson of Iddo. Like his contemporary, the prophet *Haggai, Zechariah called upon the postexilic Jewish community to rebuild

the

Temple

in

Jerusalem

(cf.

Ezr.

5.1).

He proclaimed that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed because of the evil deeds of past generations but that repentance would help future generations avoid similar catastrophes. The core of his message appears in a series of eight visions. These emphasize the dual leadership of the community: the royal figure *Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, and the high priest Joshua, son of Jehozadak. Zechariah projects a future day when all nations will recognize the sanctity of God, Jerusalem, and the Jewish people. The Book of Zechariah is the eleventh book of the Minor Prophets. Traditionally Zechariah is considered to

be

many

the

author

modern

of the

scholars

Book

attribute

first eight chapters, which

of Zechariah,

to him

but

only the

can be dated to 520-518

BCE. Basing their views upon differences in form and references to the Greeks in later parts of the book, these scholars suggest Zechariah contains the work of at least two and possibly three prophets. The visions of Zechariah in chapters 1-8 are an example of early apocalyptic literature, in which God reveals to Zechariah his purposes in the building of the Second Temple. The second part of Zechariah (chaps. 9-14) is written in a totally different and obscure style, with strong eschatological content. The portrayal of the king of Jerusalem and the downfall of Israel’s enemies in Zechariah 9-11 is identified as the work of a second prophet, often called DeuteroZechariah. The work of this prophet is often dated to the late Persian or Hellenistic period (4th cent. BCE)

because of its references to the Greeks and a possible depiction of Alexander the Great’s advance through the Phoenician-Israelite region. Deutero-Zechariah

ZEKHER LA-HURBAN

speaks of the punishment of neighboring peoples and the eventual redemption of Israel. The description of the final apocalyptic battle on “the Day of the Lord” in Zechariah 12-14 is attributed to a third prophet called Trito-Zechariah. Chapters 12-14 are dated to the Hellenistic period and portray an apocalyptic scenario of judgment against the nations and the restoration of Jerusalem. ¢ Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 130 (Sheffield, UK, 1992). R. J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Old Testament Guides, (Sheffield,

UK, 1987). Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 and Zechariah

9-14, The Anchor Bible, vols. 25B and 25C (New York,

1987,

1993). David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, The Old Testament Library (London, 1984). Ralph L. Smith, Micah—-Malachi, World Biblical Commentary, vol. 32 (Waco, Tex., 1984). Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minn., 2000). -MARVIN A. SWEENEY

ZE‘IRA’, the name of two scholars (referred to in Babylonian sources as Zera’) born in Babylonia, who studied in Babylonian academies and then immigrated to Palestine, where they spent the latter part of their lives. On occasion, the two scholars are described as arguing with one another (e.g., Men. 40b). The earlier Ze‘ira’ was a rabbi who went to Palestine within the lifetime of R. Yohanan bar Nappaha’ (died 279) and probably died around 300 cE. The more famous of the two, he was primarily a man of halakhah. He belittled the importance of Midrash and referred to works of aggadah as “books of magic” (sifrei gosemim). He was well known for his piety (Hul. 122a) and his asceticism, and often fasted to protect himself from the fires of hell (B.M. 85a).

The latter Ze‘ira’ was a rabbi who lived in the first half of the fourth century cE and was a candidate to head the academy in Pumbedita. However, Abbayei, his colleague, received the position. e

Aaron Hyman,

Mordecai

Toledot Tanna‘im

Margaliot,

ve-'Amora’im

ed., Entsiglopediyyah

(1910; Jerusalem,

le-Hakhmei

ha-Talmud

1987).

veha-

Ge'onim (Jerusalem, 1946).

-DANIEL

SPERBER

ZEKHER LA-HURBAN (]350°9 3} a reminder of the destruction

[of the Second

Temple]),

customs

and regulations that entered Jewish usage intended to serve as reminders of the tragedy of the Temple’s destruction. These were instituted for a number of reasons: to perpetuate the sorrow of the tragedy; to keep mourning within bounds and prevent its excess; to moderate expressions of joy at a time when the Temple lay in ruins and the people were scattered in exile; and to keep alive the memory of the Temple and its service. After the destruction of the First Temple,

four fasts were instituted to commemorate the event and the events leading up to it (see Fasts); observance

of the fasts was strengthened after the destruction of the Second Temple. As a sign of mourning for the Second Temple, the custom arose of reciting Psalm 137 (“By the waters of Babylon. . .”) before the Birkat ha-Mazon on weekdays, and appropriate references to the destruction of the Temple were introduced into prayers. Instrumental music and singing were forbidden on joyful occasions. The rabbis decreed

ZEMIROT

810

ZEKHER LA-HURBAN that Jews should leave one square cubit of one wall unpainted in their homes. When preparing a festive meal, one item was to be omitted in order to make

the feast incomplete. Similarly, when adorning herself with her jewelry, a woman was to leave off one piece

to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20.6). Rabbinic aggadah and liturgical texts accord a unique place in this respect to the lasting merit. of the *patriarchs Abraham,

Isaac,

and

Jacob

(recalled

by Moses

in

as a symbol of the national sorrow (B. B. 60b). While

pleading with God after the sin of the *golden calf

most of these customs have lapsed, a bridegroom occasionally will place a small quantity of ash under his hat during the wedding ceremony as a reminder that even ina moment of personal joy he is to recall his people’s sorrow. For the same reason, it is customary for a groom to break a glass underfoot at the end of the wedding ceremony.

[Ex. 32.13]), although the view was also expressed that even their merits were not limitless (Shab. 55a). Rabbenu *Ya‘aqov ben Me’ir Tam held that even if the merits of the patriarchs could be exhausted, God’s covenant with them was unbounded. Judaism thus

¢

Judah

D.

Eisenstein,

Otsar

Dinim

u-Minhagim

(Tel

Aviv,

1975).

Entsiglopedyah Talmudit, vol. 12 (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 226-236. -CHAIM

PEARL

ZEKHER LI-YETSI’AT MITSRAYIM (O09 3873 meog7d 721; a memorial of the Exodus from Egypt), ordinances and customs connected to the memory of the *Exodus from Egypt. The Bible links many of its laws to the Exodus (Lv. 19.34, 25.38, 26.13; Nm. 15.41). The first of theTen Commandments

lays down the basis for all the other laws with its proclamation, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Ex. 20.2). The liturgy explicitly designates the Sabbath and every festival as “a memorial of the Exodus from Egypt,” and the rabbis taught that the Exodus is to be remembered for all time—even to the days of the Messiah (Ber. 1.5). The Exodus was seen as the pivotal event in Jewish history, and all that followed—the revelation at Sinai, the giving of the commandments, and the

possession of the Promised Land—ensued

from the

Exodus. The Pesah eve service (the Seder) is devoted to the recollection of the wonders of the event, and

the commandment to relate it to one’s children is emphasized with the statement, “whoever amplifies the description of the Exodus is praiseworthy.” e

Judah

D.

Eisenstein,

Otsar

Dinim

u-Minhagim,

(Tel

Aviv,

1975).

Entsiglopedyah Talmudit, vol. 12 (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 199-212. —-CHAIM

PEARL

insists on “original merit” rather than original sin. In the Middle Ages, the notion developed that the merits

of children (a pious life, prayer) can also benefit their departed parents. * Moshe Greenberg, “The Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined,” in Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, edited by Ben Zion Segal (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 83-119. Arthur Marmorstein, in Old Rabbinical Literature (London, 1920).

The Doctrine of Merits

ZELOPHEHAD, DAUGHTERS OF. Zelophehad was an Israelite of the tribe of Manasseh in the time of Moses. He died in the desert, leaving no male offspring, but five daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah,

Milcah, and Tirzah. The daughters presented a legal claim before Moses and the elders for the right to inherit their father’s land holding (Nm. 27). The divine

decision was that “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just,” and they were granted a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen. When the decision was challenged by the kinsmen (Nm. 36), Moses added the clarification that the daughters had to marry within the tribe of Manasseh, thereby ensuring that the land would remain within the tribe. These decisions became legal precedents in the laws of land inheritance. The Samaria ostraca, discovered in 1908-1910 and

dating from the early eighth century BCE, indicates that certain Manassite clans, residing north of Shechem, were called by matronymics referring to the daughters Noah and Hoglah. ¢ Zafrira Ben-Barak, “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East,”

ZEKHOR BERIT (n°73 75>t; “Remember the covenant”), opening words of a number of poems but mainly refers to a penitential hymn composed by

Journal of Semitic Studies 25 (1980): 22-33. Aaron Demsky, “The Genealogies of Manasseh and the Location of the Territory of Milkah the Daughter of Zelophehad,” Eretz-Israel

16 (1982): 70-75. Michael

Fishbane, Biblical

Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985), pp. 103ff. -AARON

DEMSKY

R. *Gershom ben Yehuda (960-1028) and recited in

the Ashkenazi ritual *Selihot on the day before Ro’sh ha-Shanah. It is recited with the ark open and is so highly regarded that the Selihot service of that day is commonly referred to as Zekhor Berit. It is also recited in the Ashkenazi rite during the concluding service on Yom Kippur. ¢ Israel Davidson, Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry (New York, 1970). Ernst Daniel Goldschmidt, Mahazor la-Yamim ha-Nora'im (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 766.

ZEKHUT AVOT (Mia8 D1; merits of the fathers). The traditional doctrine of *merits emphasizes that the pious deeds of parents secure blessings for their descendants as well. This receives expression in the *Ten Commandments, in which God “shows kindness

ZEMIROT (0579731; songs), Among *Sephardim and Italian Jews the term denotes the passages of song that introduce the morning prayers, which are equivalent to the *Pesugei de-Zimra’ of the Ashkenazi prayer book. In the Ashkenazi tradition, the term refers to the

joyous table hymns that may be sung during or after the Sabbath meals. The singing of zemirot, a familiar custom by 1105 (Siddur Rashi; Mahazor Vitry), was influenced by Lurianic Kabbalah and Hasidism. As their Hebrew or Aramaic titles indicate, these zemirot

emphasize the rewards of Sabbath observance, give praise to God, and create a sense of wellbeing at the

family table. Some are by famous poets; others by unknown authors. Included in the group for Sabbath

ZEMIROT

811

eve are Kol Meqaddesh, Shevi‘i, Menuhah ve-Simhah, Mah Yedidut Menuhatekh, *Yah Ribbon ‘Olam (by *Yisra’el ben Moshe Najara), Yom Zeh le-Yisra’el (by *Yitshaq Luria), and *Tsur mi-Shello (prelude to *Birkat ha-Mazon). Two additional zemirot are Tsame’ah Nafshi (by Avraham *ibn Ezra) and Shalom Lekha Yom ha-Shevi‘i (by *Yehuda ha-Levi). A second group, for the Sabbath midday meal, includes Barukh El ‘Elyon, Yom Zeh Mekhubbad, Yom Shabbaton (by Yehuda ha-Levi), Shimru Shabbetotai, Ki Eshmerah Shabbat (by Avraham ibn Ezra), and Deror Yiqra’ (by Dunash ben Labrat). Mizmor le-David (Ps. 23) and *Yedid Nefesh (by El‘azar ben Moshe Azikri) usually accompany *Se‘udah Shelishit). Finally, at the Sabbath’s termination, *Ha-Mavdil, Eliyyahu ha-Navi’ (linking the prophet Elijah with Israel’s messianic redemption), and Amar Adonai le-Ya‘aqov are widely sung. Ashkenazim have a particularly wide range of tunes for their zemzirot. Not all of these hymns figure in the more voluminous Sephardi-Eastern repertoire, which also has zemirot in the vernacular, such as Arabic and Persian. Special booklets (birkonim) have been published containing the best-known examples of zemirot. * Naftali Ben-Menahem, Zemirot shel Shabbat (Jerusalem, 1949). Menahem Ha-Kohen and Benny Don-Yechiya, Shalom le-Vo Shabbat (Tel Aviv, 1977). Abraham Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York, 1932), pp. 80-83, 151-157. Abraham E. Millgram, Sabbath: The Day of Delight (Philadelphia,

1944),

pp.

37-49,

73-82,

92-95,

302-308,

418-437.

Arno

Nadel, Zemiroth Shabat: Die hduslichen Sabbatgestnge Berlin, 1937). Nosson Scherman, Zemiroth: Sabbath Songs with Additional Sephardic Zemiroth (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1979).

ZEPHANIAH

(Heb.

-GABRIEL

Tsefanyah;

7th

A. SIVAN

cent.

BCE),

Judean prophet during the reign of King “Josiah (639-609); son of Cushi, grandson of Gedaliah, greatgrandson of Amariah, and great-great-grandson of Hezekiah (possibly the king of that name). Zephaniah supported Josiah’s (to whom he may have been related) program of religious reform and national restoration, condemned those who identified with pagan perspectives, and called for judgment against Josiah’s enemies. These included Assyria and Cush (Egypt), the major powers who opposed Josiah, and Philistia and Moab, countries into which Josiah hoped to expand. The Book of Zephaniah is the ninth book of the Minor Prophets. It is cast in the form of an exhortation to the people to support the king’s reforms and has two basic parts. The first oracle (1.2-1.8) announces

the

coming of the “Day of the Lord,” which will bring a cataclysm upon the people of Judah for their religious syncretism. Zephaniah’s description of this judgment day is one of the most detailed in the entire Bible.

ZERA‘IM e¢

Shmuel

Ahituv,

Nahum,

Habakkuk,

Zephaniah,

Mikra

le-Yisra’el

(Tel

Aviv, 2007). Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 198 (Berlin and New York, 1991), Adele Berlin, Zephaniah, The Anchor Bible (New York, 1994). Duane L. Christensen, “Zephaniah 2.4-15: A Theological Basis for Josiah’s Program of Political Expansion,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984): 669-682. Arvid Schou Kapelrud, The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah: Morphology and Ideas (Oslo, 1975). J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, 1991), Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, Word Biblical Commentary,

vol. 32 (Waco,

Tex.,

1984). Marvin

A. Sweeney,

“A Form-—

Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 388-408. Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophet, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minn., 2000). Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, 2003).

-MARVIN

ZERAHYAH GERONDI

BEN

YITSHAQ_

HA-LEVI

scholar. He was born in Gerona, Spain, and immigrated to Narbonne, in southern France. There he studied under R. Moshe ben Yosef and R. Avraham ben Yitshaq of Narbonne. Afterwards he moved to Lunel to study under the patronage of R. Meshullam ben Ya‘aqov of Lunel. He engaged in a lifelong controversy with *Avraham ben David of Posquiéres. Their literary quarrels stemmed from basic differences in personality, cultural background, and approaches to source material. Zerahyah wrote a commentary to

(c.1115-1186),

A. SWEENEY

Mishnah

tractate

rabbinical

Qinnim,

which

included

a

critique of Avraham ben David’s commentary; Sela‘ ha-Mahloget, a critique of Avraham ben David’s Ba‘alei Nefesh; and Divrei Rivot, which recorded the

exchange of letters between himself and Avraham ben David over the interpretation of a Talmudic passage. His Sefer ha-Ma’or, completed in the 1180s, was a synthesis of novellae to the Talmud and a criticism of Yitshaq *Alfasi’s code (published in 1552 in the Venice edition of the Talmud). His critique of the Alfasi code was comprehensive and systematic and offered alternative interpretations to Talmudic passages. In his commentaries to the Talmud, Zerahyah introduced the tosafot system, betraying the strong influence of R. Ya‘aqov ben Me’ir Tam. He also wrote a short treatise on the laws of ritual slaughter;

responsa;

religious poems

(collected and published

under the title Shirat ha-Ma’or,

Jerusalem, 1984); and

Sefer ha-Tsava’, describing the methodology

of the

Talmud and the exact definitions of its terms. ¢

Binjamin

Ze’ev

Benedikt,

Merkaz

ha-Torah

bi-Provans

(Jerusalem,

1985). Isaac Meiseles, ed., Shirat ha-Maor: Piyyutei Zerahyah ha-Levi (Jerusalem, 1984). Israel Ta-Shema, Rabbi Zerahyah ha-Levi—Ba‘al haMa’or u-Venei Hugo: Le-Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Rabbanit be-Provans (Jerusalem, 1992). Isadore Twersky, Rabad of Posquiéres: A Twelfth-Century Talmudist, rev. ed. (Philadelphia,

1980).

-SHLOMO

H. PICK

ZERAHYAH HEN. See Gracin, ZERAHYAH.

The second oracle (chaps. 2-3) is an exhortation to

ZERA‘IM

seek the Lord, calling on heathen nations to repent for opposing Josiah, together with a scenario of judgment and restoration for Jerusalem and Israel. Zephaniah was greatly influenced by the prophecies of Isaiah. Fragments from the Book of Zephaniah have been found at Qumran.

ten of whose eleven tractates deal with laws governing agricultural work and produce. These are *Pe’ah, *Demai, *Kil’ayim, *Shevi‘it, *Terumot, *Ma‘asrot,

(0°07; Seeds), first order of the Mishnah,

*Ma‘aser Sheni, *Hallah, *‘Orlah, and *Bikkurim. Its first tractate, *Berakhot, deals with blessings and

prayers.

The Talmud

Yerushalmi

contains gemara’

on the entire order, but the Talmud

Bavli contains

gemara’ only to tractate Berakhot. -AVRAHAM WALFISH ZERUBBABEL, a scion of the Davidic line who served as governor of Judah under the Persian ruler Darius I for at least the years 521-516 BcE. Apparently, in the second year of the reign of Darius I, Zerubbabel was appointed governor of the small province of Yehud (Judah). Along with Joshua ben Jozadak (the

grandson of the last high priest of the First Temple) and the prophets *Haggai and *Zechariah, Zerubbabel led a multitude of exiles, numbering about forty-four thousand people, back to Judah (Ezr. 2). Encouraged

by the prophets, Zerubbabel was able to overcome the economic

and political obstacles, as well as the

popular apathy, facing the project of restoring the Temple; the restoration was completed by Pesah 516 BcE. After this date, there is no record of Zerubbabel;

the usual hypothesis is that he was removed from office after encouraging messianic hopes placed in him by Haggai (2.20ff.) and Zechariah (4.6, 6.12). However, the long genealogy (/ Chr. 3.19ff.) of his descendants, extending down to the time of the Chronicler (c.400-380 BCE) indicates that the family

thrived. Furthermore, regarding his three children— Meshullam,

Hananiah,

and

Shelomith—a

horde

of

seals and bullae from the end of the sixth century BCE mention a governor by the name of Hanan(ia)h and another by the name of Elnathan the husband of a Shelomith. This suggests that the Persian policy continued to be one of appointing a descendant of King Jehoiachin, particularly from Zerubbabel’s immediate family, as governor of the province of Yehud. ¢ Peter Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, 1968). Nahman Avigad, Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 5—6f., 11ff. Sara Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of EzraNehemiah,” Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenchaft 94 (1982-1983): 66-98; pt. 2, 95 (1982-1983): 218-229.

ZERUBBABEL,

BOOK

-AARON

DEMSKY

ZEVAHIM

(8°n31,

Animal

order Qodashim,

the altar, by the priests, and by the owner of the sacrifice together with his fellows. The tractate closes with a survey of the places where the sanctuary was established, culminating with the Temple in Jerusalem. An English translation by Harry Freedman is in the Soncino Talmud (London, 1948). © Chanoch Albeck, ed., Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Qodashim (Jerusalem, 1956). Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, vol. 5, Order Kodashim (Gateshead, 1973). Pinhas Kehati, ed., Mishnah: A New Translation with a

Commentary, Seder Kodashim, vol. 1, Zevahim, Menahot, Hullin (Jerusalem, 1994). Hermann Leberecht Strack and Giinter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, translated by Markus Bockmuehl (1931; Minneapolis,

1992).

-AVRAHAM

WALFISH

ZIKHRONO LI-VERAKHAH (712927 921751; “May his memory be fora

blessing”), honorific phrase added

to the mention of the name of a person held in fond and pious remembrance. It derives from the verse “The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked shall rot” (Prv. 10.7). It is the custom when writing the name of the deceased in Hebrew to add the initial letters of the two words zikhrono li-verakhah. The phrase zakhur la-tov, “May he be remembered for good,” is also used—this form is regularly used when

speaking about *Elijah—and occurs several times in the Talmud.

ZIKHRONOT

(743/921 Remembrances), the second

of three sections of the *musaf service ‘Amidah on Ro’sh ha-Shanah, the other two being *Malkhuyyot and *Shofarot. Each consists of ten appropriate biblical verses, with an introductory paragraph and a concluding blessing. The ten verses in the Zikhronot, all containing the root z k r, refer to God as “remembering” (his mercies, his covenant, etc.). After their recital, the *shofar is sounded (except on

Sabbath). ZIMMUN. ZIMRA,

See BirKAT HA-MAZON. DAVID

BEN

SHELOMO

IBN

AVI. See

DAVID BEN SHELOMO IBN AvI ZIMRA.

OF.See

Book

oF

ZION, originally a Jebusite hill fortress in southern *Jerusalem conquered by David (2 Sm. 5.6-9) and named the City of David. As the city expanded to the

Sacrifices),

tractate

in

north, Zion also denoted the site of the Temple. The

with related material

in

exact location of Zion is a matter of dispute. Already during the Second Temple period various views were held as to the exact location of the biblical Mount Zion. Josephus identified it with the western hill or upper city of Jerusalem. The hill sloping down to Gei Ben

ZERUBBABEL.

Mishnah

ZION

812

ZERA‘IM

Tosefta’ and in the Talmud Bavli. It discusses the laws governing animal and bird sacrifices. A central theme of Zevahim is the requirement of proper sacrificial intent during the four central procedures of an animal or fowl offering: slaughtering, receiving blood in a sacred vessel, bringing the blood to the altar, and sprinkling of the blood on the altar. This emphasis on the importance of proper intent and on the capacity of improper intent to disqualify the sacrifice is typically rabbinic and is absent from the biblical discussion of sacrificial law (Lv. 1-7).

Zevahim further outlines the differences among kinds of sacrifices as regards sprinkling of the blood and the method of consumption of the sacrifice on

Hinnom (southwest of the present Old City wall) has

been identified with Mount Zion for over one thousand years, though scholars agree that the original Zion is actually elsewhere. The identification of the present Mount Zion is of ancient Christian tradition (the site of the Last Supper; later also that of the “Dormition” of Mary); since the Crusader period, the Tomb of David (see Davin, Toms oF) has been located on the hill, and the tradition has been adopted by Jews. Mount Zion became a Jewish pilgrimage site, particularly for Jews

ZION

813

from Muslim lands (notably between 1948 and 1967, when the Western Wall—then under Jordanian rule— was closed to Israelis). Modern scholarship favors the so-called Ophel—the hill of the Temple mount—as the true position.

In the language of the Prophets and Psalms (and in later rabbinic, homiletical, and liturgical usage), Zion was synonymous with Jerusalem. The Prophets speak of Zion to refer to the entire Jewish kingdom (UIs. 1.27) or the people of Israel (Zec. 2.14). In the image of a forsaken spouse, Zion symbolized the fate of the Jewish people in distress (Js. 49.14), while in prophecies of redemption, Zion is depicted as the mother of a reborn Israel (Js. 66.8). By a further extension of meaning, Zion came to denote the messianic City of God (Js. 60.14). The concept of

Zion became charged with an intense religious and eschatological current, fed by the prophetic vision of Zion as the divine seat from which the word of God was to issue forth for the salvation of all mankind (Js. 2.3) and as the source ofjustice and righteousness

used

ZIONISM the

term

Gaon

from

1808-1812,

PARTIES

¢ Arnold Blumberg, Zion before Zionism: 1838-1880 (Jerusalem; New York,

M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, 2008). Jacob Neusner, ed., Israel and Zion in American Judaism: The Zionist Fulfillment (New York, 1993). John J. Schmitt,

“Israel and Zion—Two Gendered Images: Biblical Speech Traditions and Their Contemporary Neglect,” Horizons 18 (Spring 1991): 18-32. A. S. van der Woude, “Zion as Primeval Stone in Zechariah 3 and 4,” in Text and Context, edited by J. W. Claassen (Sheffield, UK, 1988).

new

movement,

have sometimes

been called

“hasten the end” were wrong (see AGUDAT ISRAEL). Soon thereafter a small group of religious Jews founded the Mizrachi religious Zionist movement (See RELIGIOUS figure identified

2007). Elaine Follis, “The Holy City as Daughter,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, edited by E. Follis (Sheffield, UK, 1987), pp. 173-184. Christ]

his

neo-Orthodox Jews, who felt that human atteinpts to

(Us. 33.5). Zion has been a symbol of Jewish restoration

in mourning (cf. Lam. 1.11). Yehuda ha-Levi’s famous elegies addressed to Zion are known as Zionides.

for

“Zionist,” but a preferable term is proto-Zionist. The First Aliyah, beginning in 1881-1882, is usually regarded as the beginning of Zionist settlement. Although Herzl urged Uganda as a temporary home for the Jewish people, subsequently the name has been used solely for the movement seeking the return of Jews to Erets Yisra’el. Zionism began as an overtly secular movement, initially opposed as heretical by most Orthodox and

throughout the ages (see ZIONISM). It is frequently mentioned in the liturgy (where prayers are usually for a “return to Zion”) and personified—both in poetry and Midrashic legend—as a virgin, mother, or widow

Zionism

which advocated the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land. In 1897 he founded the Zionist Organization (after 1960 called the World Zionist Organization) as a coordinating body for the movement. Previous movements of Jews to Erets Yisra’el, for example those inspired by the Vilna

IN ISRAEL).

The

with

most

prominent

the early years

religious

of Zionism

was Rabbi (Rav) Avraham Yitshaq Kook (see Kook FaMILY), the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine.

His writings combined a mystical theology with the belief that secular Jews building up Erets Yisra’el were unwittingly engaged in the divine redemptive process. Almost from its beginning Zionism was riven by ideological controversy. Labor Zionism, composed of a number of competing Socialist groups, became the dominant force in Erets Yisra’el; its paramount leader

was David Ben-Gurion. It was vigorously opposed by the Revisionist movement, founded by Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, who argued for a more militant Zionism. Middle-of-the-road “General Zionists,” such as Chaim Weizmann, later Israel’s first president, were

ZIONISM movement

(Heb. tsiyyonut) denotes the modern of the return of Jews to Erets Yisra’el

(shivat tsiyyon, the return to Zion). *Zion,

a mountain

the dominant force in the movement outside Erets Yisra’el. Upper class Jews often opposed Zionism, fearful of losing their status. Reform Judaism before

just outside the current old city of Jerusalem, has been,

World War II, with some

since biblical times, a synonym

even hostile, finding Zionism to be regressive in comparison to the Reform movement's universalistic ideology; mainstream Orthodoxy also remained cool in the pre-war period. Zionism’s greatest early triumph was the issuance of the Balfour Declaration by the British Government in 1917, paving the way for the British Mandate. Zionists hailed the Mandate’s establishment but shifts in British policy during the 1930's, as Jewish immigration and Arab opposition to Zionism grew, turned the mainstream of the movement from gradualism towards advocacy of an immediate Jewish state, enshrined in the Biltmore program of 1942. The revelation of the scope of the Holocaust confirmed

for Jerusalem

and,

by extension, for Erets Yisra’el. Since the Babylonian exile, Jewish religious thought has been suffused with yearning for the Jewish return to Zion (cf. Psalm 126),

generally identified with divine redemption (the first act of the messiah will be to restore the Jews to their land). This yearning

is expressed

in various

forms,

such as facing Jerusalem in prayer, praying for the restoration of Jerusalem, leaving a portion of a wall undecorated and the bridegroom’s breaking a glass at the wedding ceremony as signs of mourning for the lost Zion. The very air of the Land of Israel was said to make a person wise (B. B. 158b), and many mitsvot could be observed solely in Erets Yisra’el. Some Jews in the Diaspora asked to be interred in Israel after their death, while it was customary to be buried with a sack of earth from the Holy Land. Despite this strong religious fervor, few Jews actually “returned” until the late 19th century. Theodore Herz]

the need

for a Jewish

exceptions, was also cool,

state,

and

also led Jewish

groups heretofore wary of or actively hostile towards Zionism to actively support the movement (except for certain ultra-Orthodox groups, notably the *Satmar hasidim).

ZOHAR

814

ZIONISM With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became the only major 20th century ideology to fulfill its principal goal. It was not, however, retired; rather it was enshrined as the ideology of the

new state. Most of the movement's leaders became the state’s top officials. Its principal organizations, the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Congress, remained highly politicized, though their functions were limited largely to immigrant absorption and to urging Diaspora Jews to make ayin “aliyya.

A new Zionist ideology became dominant among some “national religious” Israelis following the 1967 Six Day War. Developed largely by Rav Kook’s son, Rabbi Tsevi Yehuda Kook, it taught that the Zionist movement and the State were on the verge of bringing the Messiah, as proved by Israel’s seemingly miraculous victory and conquest of the West Bank. *Religious Zionism, which had only a small part in Zionism’s “heroic age” of the 1930's, led by its right-wing vanguard *Gush Emunim, pioneered the establishment of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza so that Jews would control as much land as possible in Erets Yisra’el, in the expectation of the imminent messianic age.

The term “Zionism” is still widely used in a more general sense to indicate support for Israel as a Jewish state. It is employed in that sense by supporters and opponents alike as calls for a “one state”, that is, nonZionist, resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict become more widespread. Beginning in the 1990's, the term “post-Zionist” has been used to describe a disparate group of academic social scientists, primarily Israeli, generally opposed to understanding Israel as a Jewish state. ¢ Gideon Aran, “From Religious Zionism to Zionist Religion: The Roots of

have originated in Mesopotamia, from which it passed to Greek astronomy. It was the Greek Hellenistic version that influenced Jewish ideas and imagery on the subject. The signs are listed in the Hebrew calendar as corresponding to the twelve months of the year, beginning with Nisan. The first Jewish source to mention the twelve signs in their present form is *Sefer Yetsirah, in which they also correspond to the twelve organs of the human body. The relationship of the twelve tribes to the zodiacal signs has also been noted (Yalqut Shim‘oni, Nm. 418). The origin of the signs is unknown; rabbis interpreted them symbolically, thus Mo’znayim (Libra) is the sign of Tishrei, the month of judgment. The zodiac was a favorite theme in Jewish art and was prominent in the decoration of Palestinian synagogues from the fourth to the sixth century. The pattern includes not only the twelve signs but also Helios, the sun god, who is praised by name

in the

magical work Sefer ha-Razim as an angel. Scholars debate the meaning that these zodiac patterns would have had for the ancient Jews who saw them; some argue that they served merely as decoration, while others understand them as a meaningful framing of Jewish cosmic perspectives, Pictures of the zodiac are also to be found in medieval illuminated manuscripts,

in prayer

books,

on marriage

documents,

and on

kabbalistic scrolls of invocation. In more recent times,

they reappeared in the decorations of Polish wooden synagogues. See also ASTROLOGY. e

Steven Fine, Art and Judaism

in the Greco-Roman

World (Cambridge,

2010). Ida Huberman, Living Symbols: Symbols in Jewish Art and Tradition (Ramat Gan, 1988). Ernst Kitzinger, /sraeli Mosaics of the Byzantine Period (New York, 1965). Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2d ed. (New Haven, 2005). Erica Reiner, “The Uses of Astrology,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (1985): 589-595. -REVISED

Gush Emunim” in Studies in Contemporary Jewry, edited by Peter Medding (Bloomington, 1986). Shlomo Avineri, The Making of Modern Zionism:

BY

MAXINE

L. GROSSMAN

Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State (New York, 1981). Bernard Avishai,

ZOGERQA

The Tragedy of Zionism (New York, 2002). Joseph Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs, 188-1948 (Oxford, 1987). Ben Halpern and Yehuda Reinharz, Zionism and the Creation of aNew Society (New York, 1998). Baruch Kimmerling, Zionism and Territory: The Socio-territorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics

eastern Europe who read the synagogue prayers in Yiddish to other women unable to follow the Hebrew text on their own.

(Berkeley,

1983). Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism

Melvin Urofsky, American Neb.,

(New York, 2003).

Zionism from Herzl to the Holocaust (Lincoln,

1995). Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism,

Zionism, and Jewish Religious

Radicalism (Chicago, 1996). Gideon Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology (Hanover, N.H., 1995). Laurence Silberstein, ed., Postzionism: A Reader (Piscataway, N.J., 2008). David Vital, Zionism: the Formative Years (Oxford, 1982). Stephen

Zipperstein, Ahad Ha‘am and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley, 1993). -REVISED

ZODIAC, an imaginary

BY

PAUL

SCHAM

broad celestial belt within

which ancient astronomers visualized the sun, moon,

and planets as passing. It was divided into twelve equal parts, each of which was given a sign representing a zodiacal constellation. These were represented (both in the ancient Near East and in China) by mostly animal signs, hence the Greek term zddiakos kyklos (circle of animals). The signs of the zodiac in Hebrew (Gemini),

are Taleh (Aries), Shor (Taurus), Sartan

(Yi.; DPIDIANT, female reciter), woman in

(Cancer),

Aryeh

(Leo),

Te’omim Betulah

(Virgo), Mo’znayim (Libra), ‘Aqrav (Scorpio), Qeshet (Sagittarius), Gedi (Capricorn), Deli (Aquarius), and

Dagim (Pisces). The concept of the zodiac seems to

ZOHAR, recognized by kabbalists (see KABBALAH) since the fourteenth century as the most important work of mystical teaching; in some circles the book has achieved a sanctity only less than that of the Bible. The Zohar is composed of several literary units, not all by the same author. The largest section, the Zohar proper, consists of a mystical commentary on parts of the Bible, delivered in the form of

discussions by a group of second-céntury rabbis and scholars in Palestine led by *Shim‘on bar Yoh’ai. Most of their reflections and exchanges deal with the inner, esoteric meaning of scripture. Other sections of the Zohar, like the Idra’ Rabba’ and the Idra’

Zuta’ also depict scenes in the life of Shim‘on bar Yoh’ai and his disciples. These sections are in Aramaic. Another section, the Midrash ha-Ne’eman, is written partly in Hebrew and attempts a more straightforward mystical interpretation of biblical passages. The Ra‘aya’ Meheimana’ is a kabbalistic

ZOHAR

815

interpretation of the commandments and prohibitions in the Torah. The Raza’ de-Razin contains material on physiognomy and chiromancy. These and other parts of the Zohar are characterized by an enthusiastic style, theosophical speculation, and mythological imagery. Traditional kabbalists ascribe all or most of these books to the authorship of Shim‘on bar Yoh’ai and his contemporaries. Modern scholarship (notably by Gershom Gerhard *Scholem) has shown that the main part of the Zohar was written toward the end of the thirteenth century by *Moshe de Leén, a Castilian kabbalist who died in 1305. Some parts of the Zohar were written shortly afterward and added to the main work. The Zohar has been described as a mixture of theosophic theology, mystical psychology and anthropology, myth, and poetry. Old gnostic doctrines, mystical traditions, theurgies, popular superstitions, and mythological motifs dwell side by side with echoes of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian philosophic theories about the nature of the cosmos and about the relationship between a transcendent God and a finite world. The manner in which the inscrutable mystery of the Godhead, the *Ein Sof (literally the infinite, but actually signifying the hidden, mystical, divine

nothingness),

manifests

itself in the

divine

creative process is one of the Zohar’s major themes. The doctrine of the *sefirot is the kabbalistic answer to this problem. The sefirot are the ten stages of the divine world through which God descends, from the

innermost recesses of his concealment down to his manifestation in the *Shekhinah. The Shekhinah—the last of the sefirot—is also the heavenly archetype of the community of Israel. When the contrasting forces of the life divine (e.g., grace and stern judgment) are harmoniously balanced, the Shekhinah (conceived in

female imagery) is united with the upper (male) sefirot and the abundance of divine life flows harmoniously into the world. There is a markedly erotic quality to the description of the holy union of the male and female aspects of the deity. When there is a defect in the proper conjunction of the upper sefirot, disorder, chaos, and evil result. The problem of evil occupies a large place in the Zohar. At times, evil is described as a negative but powerful and even demonic reality, resulting from the ascendancy of certain divine qualities (e.g., destructive judgment) over others (e.g., pure grace). The central doctrine of the Zohar is that the harmonious union of the divine life is brought about as well as rent by human action (i.e., by a religious life, good works, and mystical meditations; and by sins and improper thought, respectively). The Torah, for the Zohar, is an essential key to the mysteries of the divine processes. For the kabbalist, it is an actual manifestation of the divine. Hence, the author of the Zohar is less

interested in the literal meaning of the historical events described in the Bible than in the theosophical mysteries that are their inner, and therefore more real, meaning. The basic premise of the Zohar is that

ZUNZ, LEOPOLD

there exists

a complete correspondence between the

lower and upper worlds. Consequently a quickening

from below can arouse a quickening above. Hence, deeds and prayers have cosmic significance. The Zohar was first printed simultaneously in Cremona (15591560) and Mantua (1558-1560). The latter was the basis for later printings. It has been translated into several languages including English, most recently by Daniel C. Matt, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vols. 1-5

(Stanford, 2003-2009). ¢ Y. Lachower, Isaiah Tishby, and David Goldstein, The Wisdom ofthe Zohar:

An Anthology of Texts, 3 vols. (London, 1991). Yehuda Liebes, Studies in the Zohar (Albany, 1993). Gershom Gerhard Scholem, The Book of Splendor: Basic Readings from the Kabbalah (New York, 1963).

ZOKHRENU

—_LE-HAYYIM (09 W151;

“Re-

member us for life”), opening words of a sentence interpolated in the first blessing of the ‘Amidah throughout the *‘Aseret Yemei Teshuvah. Its plea for God to “inscribe us in the Book of Life” is based on the Talmudic concept of heavenly ledgers in which are recorded every person’s fate at this season (R. ha-Sh. 16b). The theme recurs in other High Holy Days’ supplications, notably *Avinu Malkenu and *U-Netanneh Togef. -GABRIEL A. SIVAN ZOROASTRIANISM.

See Duatism.

ZUGOT (N13; pairs), the leading scholars of the five generations following the Men of the *Keneset haGedolah and preceding the tanna’im (see TANNA’), spanning the period of approximately 200 BcE to 70 cE. They are listed in pairs in Avot 1, and, according to tradition, the first was president (nasi’) and the second head of the court (av beit din). The five pairs are *Yosei ben Yo‘ezer and Yosei ben Yohanan; *Yehoshu‘a

ben Perahyah and Nitt’ai the Arbelite; *Yehuda ben Tabb’ai and *Shim‘on ben Shetah; *Shema‘yah and *Avtalyon;

and

historiographic

*Hillel and

symmetry

*Shamm/’ai.

between

There

is a

the three early

periods, that of the zugot, the tanna’im, and the amora’im (see Amora’), each of which is divided

into five generations (cf. Sefer ha-Kabbalah, edited by Gerson Cohen [Philadelphia, 1967], pp. 172, 207 et seq.). ¢ R. Travers Herford, ed., The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers (New York, 1975), annotated text and translation of Avot. —-DANIEL

SPERBER

ZUNZ, LEOPOLD (1794-1886), German scholar; founder of the modern scientific study of Judaism,

*Wissenschaft des Judentums. He studied at the University of Berlin and in 1819 was among the founders of the Verein fiir Kultur and Wissenschaft der Juden, a pioneer group that sought to place research into Hebrew literature on a scientific basis. In 1823 he became editor of the Society’s Zeitschrift fiir die Wissenschaft des Judentums, in which he published some of his early works, including a biography of Rashi. Zunz was the first to employ consistently

ZUSYA OF HANIPOLI

816

ZUNZ, LEOPOLD modern methods of historical and literary research in his study of Jewish works. His purpose was to elucidate the inner relations and mutual influences of various strands of Jewish thought with a wealth of historical and philosophical detail in order to

Poesie des Mittelalters (1855), Der Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes (1859), and Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie (1865) surveyed a thousand years of Jewish religious poetry, listing six thousand poems and over one thousand Jewish poets.

demonstrate their continuity. From

¢ Nahum Norbert Glatzer, Leopold and Adelaide Zunz: An Account in Letters, 1815-1885 (London, 1958). Nahum Norbert Glatzer, Leopold Zunz: Jude, Deutscher, Europaer (Tiibingen, 1964). Solomon Schechter, Studies in

1841 to 1850, he

directed the newly opened Berlin Jewish Teachers’ Seminary. In his advocacy of Wissenschaft des Judentums, he criticized the state of Jewish studies and was the first to lay out a detailed program that covered the historical study of Hebrew literature and culture, including liturgy, law, ethics, and education. His stress

on the need for Jewish statistics foreshadowed the sociological and demographic studies of the twentieth century. He also initiated the use of new types of sources such as community registers and inscriptions

on tombstones. His goal was to have Jewish studies accepted in German academic circles. On religious issues, he was guided by the conviction that true reform must preserve the essential vitality of historic Judaism, which is an original, growing force. His best-known work, Gottesdienstlichen Vortriige der Juden

(1832), traced the historical evolution of the Jewish sermon and showed that preaching in the vernacular was not a modern innovation—which had been forbidden in Prussian law—but an ancient custom. A law forbidding Jews to use German first names moved him to write Namen der Juden (1837), a history of Jewish names,

which showed

that even

in ancient times Jews commonly took first names from their surroundings. His trilogy Die synagogale

Judaism:

Third Series (Philadelphia,

1924), pp. 84-142.

Luitpold Wallach,

Liberty and Letters: The Thoughts of Leopold Zunz (London, 1959).

ZUSYA OF HANIPOLI

(died 1800), Hasidic master.

He and his brother R. *Elimelekh of Lyzhansk were both members of the circle of R. *Dov Ber of Mezhirech. Hasidic legend depicts Zusya and _ his brother traveling the roads together in a voluntary state of exile, symbolizing the exile of the *shekhinah. Zusya is often depicted as a holy fool, victimized and degraded in the eyes of others but cheerily carrying on his devoted service to God as though he had never known suffering at all. Unlike most of the Mezhirech circle, he did not write a book of his teachings. Legend has it that when the Maggid of Mezhirech began to speak, quoting a verse that opened with “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying,” Zusya became so excited at the notion of God’s speaking that he had to be ejected from the room. Thus, he knew no teachings. This may be a way of saying that his charismatic personality, rather than specific knowledge or teachings, was what made him a master. A collection of sayings attributed to him is called Menorat Zahav (Warsaw, 1902). ¢ Torat ha-Rabbi; Rabbi Zusha (Bene Beraq, 1994).

-ARTHUR

GREEN

INDEX A

Aboab da Fonseca, Yitshaq, 5, 177 abomination, 5

Aaron, 1, 261, 513

abortion, 5-6, 478

brother of Miriam, 502 golden calf and, 300-301 as high priest, 346 peace and, 412, 556 Aaronides, 1 Abarbanel. See Abravanel family Abba (3d-4th cent. amora’), 1 eulogy of Huna’, 365 Abba (honorary title), 1 Abba’ Arikha’. See Rav Abba’ bar Abba’, 11 Abba’ bar Aivu. See Rav Abba’ ben Avuha, 523

Abrabanel. See Abravanel family Abraham, 6, 382, 554 Abimelech, king of Gerar, and, 4 binding of Isaac, 62 covenant with God, 191 Genesis on, 286

institution of Shaharit, 668 Ishmael Abraham, Abraham, Abraham

Abrahamites, 409

Abrahams, Abramsky, Abravanel, Abravanel,

Abba’ Guryon, 253 Abbahu,

and, 383-384 Apocalypse of. See Apocalypse of Abraham Testament of. See Testament of Abraham bar Hayya’, 81

1-2, 47, 353

on the ba‘al teshuvah, 97 contribution to Talmud Yerushalmi, 11

Israel, 313, 510, 547 Yehezqe'l, 6-7 Yehuda, 8 Yitshaq, 7-8, 564

biblical exegesis, 133 citing Moshe ben Yosef ha-Levi, 515 criticism of Thirteen Principles of Faith, 266

on son of man, 698 on sound of the shofar, 62 teacher of Abba’, 1

on expulsion of Jews from Spain, 741 influence on Alshekh’s biblical commentaries, 43

Abba’ Mari ben Moshe ha-Yarhi, 2, 40 Abba’ Sha’ul, 2, 444

on resurrection, 624

Abbayei, 2, 47, 715 head of the Pumbedita academy, 591

Abravanel family, 7-8 abrogation of laws, 8-9

Iggerat Bat Mahalat and, 374

Absalom, 9

on lamed vav, 437 Rava’ and, 614

Ahithophel adviser to, 33 and blood vengeance, 147

student of Rabbah bar Nahmani, 605 Yosef ben Hiyya’, 804 Abba’ Yosef (savora’), 652 Abbir Ya‘aqov (Antibi), 55 abbreviations, 2-3

revolt against David, 201

Abu al-Faraj Furgan ibn Asad. See Yeshu‘a ben Yehuda Abu al-Hasan Abd al-Jabbar, 110

Abu ‘Ali Hasan ibn ‘Ali al-Lawi al-Basri. See Yefet ben ‘Ali Abu al-Sarri. See Sahl ben Matsliah

Abdon, 411

abduction. See kidnapping Abel. See Cain and Abel Abiathar, 3 Abib. See Aviv Abi-Hasira, Ya‘agov, 3-4 Abimelech (king of Gerar), 4 Abimelech (son of Gideon), 4, 291, 411 Abitur, Yosef ben Yitshaq ibn, 4, 369 ablution, 4-5 Abner ben Ner, 651 Abner of Burgos (Alfonso de Valladolid), 574 Aboab, ‘Immanu’el, 5 Aboab, Shemu’el, 808 Aboab, Yitshaq, 5, 41

Abudarham, David ben Yosef, 9, 363

Abuhatseira’, Ya‘aqov. See Abi-Hasira, Ya‘aqov Abu ‘Issa al-Isfahani, 9-10, 490 Abulafia, Avraham ben Shemu‘el, 10 influence on Cordovero, 188 Kabbalah and, 413 on language, 42

meditative technique, 479 Sambatyon river and, 646 teacher of Yosef Gikatilla, 292 Abulafia, Me’ir ben Todros ha-Levi, 10 Abulafia, Yosef ben Todros, 10, 515 Abulafia family, 10

817

818

INDEX Abu Sahl. See Dunash ibn Tamim Abu Sa‘id. See Levi ben Yefet academies, 10-13. See also Nehardea academy; Pumbedita academy; Sepphoris academy; Sura academy in Babylonia, 98 relocation to Bagdad, 284, 706 role of Reish Kallah in, 619 Academy for Jewish Religion, 609 Academy on High, 13-14 accents, 14-15

in Bible poetry, 572-573 acculturation. See assimilation Achan, 15, 182 Acosta, Uriel, 15 excommunication, 341 herem and, 258

acquisition, 15-16 within four ammot, 65 acronyms, 2-3 as mnemonic device, 506 acrostics, 16

in biblical poetry, 573 in Lamentations,

437

mnemonics and, 506, 573 Yanna’ai and, 783

Acts of Alexandrian Martyrs, 16 Adadi, Avraham, Adam,

16

16-17, 33, 228, 751

adam, 364

Adam and Eve, Book of. See Book of Adam and Eve Adam Qadmon, 17 Adar (month), 17-18, 155. See also Kallah months; Zayin ba-‘Adar Adarbi, Yitshaq, 713 Adar II (month), 155 Adar Sheni, 18

Adass Jeshurun. See Adass Jisroel Adass Jisroel (Congregation of Israel), 18, 346, 349 Adda’ Bar Ahavah (3d cent.), 18 Adderet Eliyyahu (Bashyazi), 109 supplement by Afendopolo, 22 Adderet Eliyyahu (Guttmacher), 306 Addir bi-Melukhah, 18 Addir Hu’, 18, 310

additional service. See Musaf service additional soul. See Neshamah Yeterah Adel. See Odel Adeni, Shelomo, 18, 76, 504 Aderet. See Rabinowitz-Teomim, Eliyyahu David Adiabene, 18-19 ‘adlayada‘, 19, 593 Adler, Cyrus, 19, 403 Adler, Felix, 19 Adler, Hermann, 20, 342, 465

Adler, H. M., 681

Adler, Natan, 19, 361, 694 Adler, Nathan Marcus, 20608 Adler, Samuel, 232

Adler family, 20 Adonai, 298, 299

Adonai, Adonai, El Rahum ve-Hannun (Amittai), 46 Adonai Be-Qol Shofar (The Lord [Ascends] Amid the Blasts of the Shofar), 20 Adonim. See Dunash ibn Tamim Adon ‘Olam, 20, 460

adoption, 20, 516 Adoption of Children Law (Israel, 1960), 20 Adoshem, 299 “Adot ha-Mizrah (Communities of the East), 20-21

Ahas party, 620 celebration of Mimunah, 496 music among,

158, 520

recitation of Shema‘, 674

veneration of David’s grave, 358 women and, 777 Adret, Shelomo ben Avraham, 21 Abba’ Mari ben Moshe ha-Yarhi and, 2 as chief rabbi, 166 codification of law, 175 communication with Meiiri, 482

hiddushim by, 345 influence on Aldabi, 36

Mena hem ben Aharon ben Zerah, 483 tosafists, 747 Kabbalah and, 413, 414 Maimonidean controversy and, 465

persecution of Abulafia, 10

Levi ben Avraham ben Hayyim, 444 responsa, 623

teacher of Bahya ben Asher, 102 Kalonimos, 416 adult, 21-22 adultery, 22, 666

capital punishment and, 159, 665 as cardinal sin, 690 as major crime in the Bible, 699 Adversus Iudaeos literature, 171-172 Afendopolo, Kalev, 22, 30 Affan, ‘Uthman ibn, 603

Afghanistan, Jewish community in, 284 afigoman, 22, 310, 554

After Auschwitz (Rubenstein), 356 afterlife, 22-23, 205, 449, 626 heaven, 335

postbiblical development, 677 afternoon service. See Minhah

819 Agada der babylonischen Amorder, Die (Bacher), 100

Agada der paliistinensischen Amoriier, Die (Bacher), 100 Agada der Tannaiten, Die (Bacher), 100

Against Apion (Josephus Flavius), 60, 406 agav, 614 aged, 23-24

honor due to, 360 agent, 24, 669. See also brokerage aggadah, 24-26, 493 aggadic midrashim, 494 on Ahasuerus, 32 on angels, 52 Bacher on, 100 definition, 132 Eli‘ezer ben Yosei ha-Galili on interpretation of, 237 ethical teachings in, 254 on Eve, 256 on events during Tishrei, 741 hiddushim and, 345 influence on Church Father, 172

interpretations by Hama, 319 interpretations of biblical texts and anagrams, 49 on life of Moses, 513 Nahmanides on, 523 Rav and, 614 in Talmud Bavli, 715 in Talmud Yerushalmi, 716 Tanhuma’ ben Abba’ and, 720

Yitshaq Napaha’ and, 797 Aggadat Be-Re’Shit, 26 Aggadat Bereshit. Translated er the Hebrew with an Introduction and Notes (Teugels), 26

Aggadat Ester, 26 Aggadat Hazita’. See Song of Songs Rabbah Aggadat Mashiah, 26 Agla’, 26 Agnon, S. Y., 340

agnosticism, 26 agrarian laws, 26-27, 246. See also leget; pe’ah;

shikhhah and the poor, 693 Trani, Moshe ben Yosef di, and, 749

Agrat bat Mahalat, 209 agriculture. See kil’ayim Agrippa I (king of Judea), 27 Agriprocessors, Inc., 227

Agudas ha-Rabonim. See Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada Agudath Harabonim. See Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada Agudat Israel, 28, 619 Beth Jacob Schools and, 125 Breuer, Isaac, and, 151

INDEX confrontation with Mizrachi, 619 controversy on Law of Return, 440 Feinstein and, 270

founding of Alter, Avraham, and, 289 Breuer, Salomon, and, 151 Grodzinski and, 304 Halevy and, 317 Hasidism and, 117, 328 Kahaneman and, 414

Kotler president of Supreme Council of, 433 Neturei Oarta’ — separation from, 535 Yisra’el Me’ir ha-Kohen and, 796

‘agunah/agunot, 28-29, 775 Ben Shim‘on on problem of, 119

evidence and, 257 Koidnover, Aharon, on, 431 Slonik on, 692

Spektor and, 700 synods on, 190

Ahab (king of Israel), 29, 385, 403 cult of Asherah during reign of, 73 Elijah’s opposition to, 238 expansion of Samaria, 644

Aha’ ben Yosef, 523 Ahad ha-‘Am, 29-30, 228

influence on Bergman, 122 Kaplan, 416 Zionism, 565

Aha’i. See Aha’ of Shabha Aha’i ben Huna’ (savora’), 652

Aha’ of Hattim (savora’), 652 Aha’ of Shabha’, 30, 317 She'iltot attributed to, 283 Aharon ben Eliyyahu (Aharon the Younger), 22, 30 Aharon ben Meir, 30 Aharon ben Meshullam of Lunel, 786 Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher. See Ben Asher, Aharon

ben Moshe Aharon ben Moshe ha-Levi of Starosielce, 31 Aharon ben Shemu’el, 31 Aharon ben Ya‘aqgov ha-Kohen of Lunel, 31 Aharon ben Yosef ha-Kohen Sargado, 31 Aharon ben Yosef ha-Levi, 31 Aharon ben Yosef ha-Rofe’ (Aharon the Elder), 32

Aharon Berekhyah ben Moshe of Modena, 32 Aharon ha-Levi of Barcelona, 32 Sefer ha-Hinnukh ascribed to, 657 aharonim (later ones), 32, 389, 627 Aharon of Karlin, 219

Aharon the Great founder of Karlin dynasty, 419 Ahasuerus (biblical Persian king), 32, 250, 251, 592,

729 Ahavah Rabbah and Ahavat ‘Olam, 32-33

INDEX “Mhavat Hadassah” (Shabbazi), 667 Ahavat Hesed (Yisra’el Me’ir ha-Kohen), 795 Ahavat Shalom (kabbalist circle in Jerusalem), 37

Ahavat Tsiyyon (Y. Landau), 438 Aha’y of Shabha. See Aha’ of Shabha Ahaz, 382

Ahijah the Shilonite, 33 Ahimelech, 651

Ahigqar, Book of. See Book of Ahigar Ahithophel, 33

Ahot Qetannah (pizmon, Hazzan), 33 Aish Ha-Torah, 97, 549

Akiva. See ‘Aqiva’ ben Yosef Akiva ben Joseph, 660 ‘akkum, 33, 288 Aknin, Yosef ben Yehuda ibn. See Ibn Aknin,

Yosef ben Yehuda Alami, Shelomo, 33 Alashkar, Moshe, 33-34 Alashkar, Yosef, 34

Albalag, Yitshaq, 34, 564 Albeck, Hanokh, 26, 34, 504

on Mishnah as education device, 503 publication of Genesis Rabbati, 287 on redactor of the Tosefta’, 747 Albeck, Shalom, 34 Albeck family, 34

Albert A. List College of Jewish Studies, 403 Albildah, Moshe, 39 Albo, Yosef, 34-35

Aristotelianism and, 564 citing Moshe ben Yosef ha-Levi, 515 criticism of Tthirteen Principles of Faith, 266

disciple of Crescas, 194 in Disputation of Tortosa, 746 on reward and punishment, 626

three basic dogmas, 193 Alcalay, Isaac, 35

alchemy, 35-36 Alcimus, 36, 326, 330, 409

Aldabi, Me’ir, 36

“Aleinu (prayer), 36, 631 composed by Rav, 614 in Ma‘ariv service, 460

in Minhah service, 497

in ShaHarit, 669

Aleksander Ziskind ben Moshe of Grodno, 36 ALEPH. See Alliance for Jewish Renewal Aleppo codex, 117, 475

Alexander of Aphrodisias, 379 Alexander Yannai, 330, 367, 429

Pharisees and, 562 Shim‘on ben Shetah and, 680

Simhat beit ha-Sho’evah and, 689

820 Alexandrian Martyrs, Act of. See Acts of Alexandrian Martyrs Alfandari, Shelomo Eli‘ezer ben Ya‘aqov, 36 Alfasi, David, 36-37, 444

Alfasi, Yitshaq, 37 commentaries by Aharon ben Yosef ha-Levi, 31 commentary by Yitshaq ben Abba’ Mari, 796 on covering of the head, 192 critique by Avraham ben David, 90 disciple of Hanan’el, 321 Halakhot of, 175

legal compendium commentaries by ri’shonim, 627 commentary by Yehonatan ben David, 786 criticism by Zerahyah ben Yitshaq, 811 used by Shemu’el ben Me’ir, 676 teacher of Ibn Migash, 371 Alfonsi, Petrus, 614 Algazi, Nissim Shelomo ben Avraham, 37

Algazi, Yisra’el YaSaqov ben Yom Tov, 37 Algazi, Yom Tov ben Yisra’el Ya‘aqov, 37 Algazi family, 37 “Al ha-Nissim ([We Thank You] for the miracles), 37, 45, 323, 593, 735 ‘Al Het’ (For the Sin), 37-38, 271, 802 ‘Ali ben Yisra’el, 37

“Ali ibn Suleyman, 37 Aliman, Yohanan, 35, 38 alimony, 38, 217

‘Aliyyah (Ascent), 38-39 ‘aliyyah la-regel. See pilgrimage ‘aliyyah la-Torah, 597 Alkabez, Shelomo, 39 author of Lekhah Dodi, 441

gerushim and, 290 Karo and, 419 Molkho and, 508

student of Taitazak, 713 teacher of Cordovero, 187

Tiqqun Leil Shavu‘ot, 740 Alkalai, Yehuda Shelomo Hai, 39-40

founder of Religious Zionism, 620 allegory, 40 Allemanno, Yohanan. See Aliman, Yohanan Allemanom Yohanan. See Aliman, Yohanan Alliance for Jewish Renewal (ALEPH), 227, 401 Alliance Israélite Universelle, 230, 411, 415

Almemar. See bimah Almoli, Shelomo, 221 Almosnino, Moshe ben Barukh, 40-41 Almosnino, Yosef ben Yitshaq, 41, 371 Almosnino family, 40-41

Al-Mukammis, David. See Mukammis, David ibn Marwan Al-Nakawa, Yisra’el ben Yosef, 41

821 Alon, 649 alphabet, Hebrew, 41-42. See also letter mysticism concept in Sefer Yetsirah, 660, 739 consonantal, 764 Phoenician influence, 565 Alphabet of Ben Sira, 42-43, 450 Alphabet of Rabbi ‘Agiva’, 42, 43, 443 Algabets, Shelomo. See Alkabez. Shelomo Alroy, David, 43, 490 Alshekh, Moshe, 43, 763 altars, 43-44, 729 Al Tehi ka-’Avotekha (Duran), 573 Alter, Avraham Mordekhai, 289 Alter, Yehuda Leib, 289, 328 Alter, Yitshaq Me’ir Rothenberg, 288, 328 Al Tiqrei (do not read), 44 Altmann, Alexander, 515 aluf, 619

Amalek, 593 Amalekites, 44, 638 Gideon and, 291

INDEX Amital Yehuda, 619 Amittai (c. 800 CE), 46

Amittai ben Shefatyah (late 9th cent.), 46 ‘Ammi bar Natan, 46 Abba’ student of, 1

colleague of Yitshaq Nappaha’, 797 as Palestinian amora’, 47 Ammon,

46-47

Ammon

(son of Lot). See Ben-Ammi

Amnon of Mainz, 757 amora’im, 47-48 annotated list by Sherira’, 677 codification of law and, 174 midrahim and, 494 Talmud Bavli and, 715 Amorites, 48, 156, 157

Amos, 48-49 Bethel and, 125

on Day of the Lord as Day of Judgment, 248 as prophet, 583 Amos, Book of, 48, 127

Joshua’s defeat of, 406 Saul and, 651 Amaziah, 48 Amen (So be it), 44-45, 623 American Academy of Jewish Research, 293 American Council for Judaism, 618

Amram ben-Diwan. pilgrimages to tomb of, 348

American Jewish Committee,

amulets, 49, 208

19, 693

American Jewish Congress, 693

American Jewish Historical Society, 19, 575 American Jewish University, 45, 185, 403, 608.

See also University of Judaism American Jewish Yearbook, 19 American Zionist Emergency Council, 688 ‘am ha-'arets (people of the land), 45

Dema’ on buying produce from, 208 haver as opposite of, 332 ‘Amidah (Standing), 23, 45-46, 576

Amram,

33, 512

‘Amram bar Sheshna’, 37, 49, 109, 232

Pesugei de-Zimra in prayer book of, 561 Pittum ha-Qetoret, 569 responsa of, 283, 622

against evil eye, 257 Sandalfon and, 648 anagrams, 49 “Anan ben David, 49-50, 417, 600 Ananites, 49-50

Anatoli, Ya‘aqov ben Abba’ Mari, 50

Anatomy and Physiology Act (Israel, 1953), 85 Anav, Binyamin ben Avraham, 50 Anav, Tsidgiyahu ben Avraham, 50

Anav, Yehi’el ben Yequti’el, 50, 254

on bodily resurrection, 449

Anav, Yehuda ben Binyamin, 50

during festivals, 37 following Shema‘, 673 Ge’ullah in, 290

Anav family, 50 androgynos, 50-51 “Anenu (Answer Us), 51 angel of death, 51, 344 angelology

Keneset ha-Gedolah and, 422 in Ma‘ariv service, 459, 460

in Minhah service, 497, 498

in Musaf service, 518 penitence in, 621

Qedushah and, 596 on resurrection, 623 on Sabbath, 637, 638

selihot in, 661 on Shiv‘ah ‘Asar be-Tammuz, 682

silent prayer and, 687-688 Teffilah Oetsarah substituted to in emergency, 725 word selah in, 661

influence of the Babylonian exile on, 259

in Sefer ha-Razim, 658 angels, 51-53, 509 cherubim, 165-166

Essenes and, 250 identified with host of heaven, 364 in Islam, 384 ofannim, 541 Pharisees’ belief in, 562 Sabbath and, 669 Seraphim, 663

INDEX Anglo-Jewry, 20 Ani Ma’amin. See Thirteen Principles of Faith animals in art, 707

clean and unclean animals, 174

firstborn of, 273 sacrifices of, 640 terefot rending them unfit for food, 732 treatment of, 53, 227 An‘im Zemirot. See Shir ha-Kavod; Shir ha-Kavod (Hymn of Glory) aninut, 53

822 Apocalypse of Elijah. See Elijah, Books of apocalyptic literature. See literature: apocalyptic Apocrypha, 59, 128 Adam story elaborated in, 17 concept of God in, 295 Dead Sea Scrolls and, 204

included in Septuagint, 663 influence on Pirgei de-Rabbi Eli‘ezer, 568 on Raphel, 611 on ten tribes, 752

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Charles), 59

Anna’ be-Koah (We Beg Youl...), 53

Apocryphal Old Testament (Sparks), 59

Anne M. Blitstein Institute for Women, 336

apologetics, 59-60

annos. See yahrzeit anointing, 53-54

of Orobio de Castro, 548 by Troki, 752 use of rationalism in, 613 apostasy, 60-61. See also mumar of Shabbetai Tsevi, 668 under threat of death, 187 apotropos. See guardian approbation (haskamah), 61, 162 Apta, Avraham Yehoshu‘a Heschel. See Avraham Yehoshu‘a Heschel Apter Rebbe. See Avraham Yehoshu‘a Heschel

Ansky, S., 225 anthropomorphism, 54-55

Antibi, Avraham ben Yitshaq, 55 Antibi, Ya‘aqov, 55 Antibi, Yitshaq ben Shabbetai, 55

Antibi family, 55 Antigonus of Sokho, 55, 148, 270 Yosei ben Yo‘ezer disciple of, 805 antimodernism

of Hayyim Soloveichik, 695 of Moshe Sofer, 694

Aptowitzer, Victor, 61, 237, 388

antinomianism, 55, 294

Agamut Millin, 61 ‘Aqavyah ben Mahalal’el, 61

Antiochus, Scroll of. See Scroll of Antiochus Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 55-56, 248 2 Maccabees on suffering of the Jews under, 462

Aqdamut Millin (Introduction), 61, 670, 671 “‘aqedah (binding), 6, 62, 382 as symbolic of giddush ha-Shem, 382, 474

Daniel on persecutions of, 199

desecration of the Second Temple, 727 Hasideans in rebellion against, 326 Hasmoneans in rebellion against, 330 Antiquities of the Jews (Josephus), 92, 350, 406 antisemitism, 56-57, 574 blood libel and, 147

of Catholic Church, 629 Crusades and, 195 development, 170 first use of word, 662 Hellenism and, 339 in Muslim writings, 574 New Testament and, 535 Protocols of the Elders of Zion and, 587 Wandering Jew in, 766

as type of selihot, 661 ‘Aqedat Yitshaq (Arama), 63-64 Aghat, epic of, 198 “Agiva’ ben Yosef, 62-63

allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, 697 on Bar Kokhba’ as the Messiah, 106 Dosa’ ben Harkinas senior of, 218 halakhic discussions with Yehuda ben Bava’, 787 hermeneutics, 342 influence on Theodotion, 63 as martyr, 731 most important commandment,

193

on new laws derived from superfluous words in the Bible, 315 on oaths, 678 on prohibited books, 149, 150

anti-Shabbateanism, 75

redaction of the Mishnah and, 503

anti-Zionism, 57

on Sambatyon, 646

Anusim. See Marranos apiqoros (heretic), 57

in Sefer ha-Bahir, 657 Sifrei Deuteronomy from school of, 687

apocalypse, 57-58. See also Book of Zerubbabel:; literature, apocalyptic

student of Eli‘ezer ben Hurganos, 236

Joel on, 404

Apocalypse of Abraham, 58, 59

Nahum of Gimzo, 525 Tarfon, 721

823 as tanna’, 721 as teacher, 11 of Eli‘ezer ben Yosei ha-Galili, 237

last disciples, 799 of Meir, 481

of Shim‘on bar Yoh‘ai, 679 of Yehuda bar II’ai, 787 of Yosei ben Halafta’, 805 on ten tribes, 752 and washing, 4

INDEX influence of, 564 on Avraham bar Hyya’, 89 on Ibn Daud, 368 on Levi ben Gershom, 444 on medieval Jewish thought, 296 on Sa‘adyah Ga’on, 635 on separate intellects, 379

Aristotelianism, Maimonidean

critique by Crescas, 194 influence on Aharon the Elder, 32

Aquila, 63, 135, 282, 663, 722

Ark, synagogue. See Aron ha-Qodesh

Arabic, 260, 645. See also Judeo-Arabic “Arakhin (Values or Worths; tractate), 63, 253

Ark of Noah, 66 Ark of the Covenant, 66-67, 729 capture by the Philistines, 563 carried onto the battlefield, 766 cherubim on, 165 David and, 200

Arama, 65

Arama, Yitshaq, 63-64 Aramaic, 64

in the Bible, 129 marriage contract in, 423, 424 replacing Hebrew as spoken language, 335 translations of the Bible in (See Targum)

as image of the throne of God, 739 placement of the tablets of the law in, 713

transported from Shiloh to Jerusalem, 727

Arameans, 64-65

Armilos, 67

arba‘ah minim. See Four Species

Aron ha-Qodesh, 67-68, 707, 709 arraby moor (chief rabbi of Portugal), 68, 166

Arba‘ah Turim (Ya‘aqov ben Asher), 21, 175, 780 Beit Yosef as commentary on, 419, 685

commentaries by

art, 68-70 ALEPH

and, 401

Alashkar, 34 David ben Shemu’el ha-Levi, 202, 301

animals in, 707

Isserles, 389

kettubah and, 424 Zodiac as theme in, 814

Sirkes, 690

Ya‘aqov ibn Haviv, 371 influenced by Pisqgei ha-Ro’sh, 74 Jaffe’s Levushim and, 392 Messer Leon, Y., advocating adoption of, 488 as source of halakhah, 316 arba‘ ammot (four cubits), 65

arba‘ kanfot. See tsitsit arba‘ kosot. See four cups arba‘ parashiyyot. See Sabbaths, special arbitration, 65, 173

Katzenellenbogen and, 420 Spektor and, 700 archaeological sites early synagogues, 708 Qumran, 204 Ugarit, 757

archangels, 52. See also Gabriel; Michael; Raphael; Uriel

Archisynagogos, 65 architecture of synagogues, 708-709 Ari. See Luria, Yitshaq

Ariel Ministries, 398 Aristeas, Letter of. See Letter of Aristeas Aristobolus, 65-66, 330, 360 Aristotelianism, 66 doctrine of immortality and, 700

examples of early, 70

Artapanus, 70

_ articles of faith. See Creed; Thirteen Principles of Faith artificial reproduction techniques, 70-71 ArtScroll, 97, 137, 578

Arugat ha-Bosem (Avraham ben ‘Azri’el), 89, 326 “Arukh ha-Shalem (Natan ben Yehi’el) citing Moshe ha-Darshan, 515 Kohut’s edition of, 431 ‘Arukh ha-Shulhan (Epstein), 176, 245 “Arukh ha-Shulhan he-‘Atid (Epstein), 245 “Arvit. See Ma‘ariv Aryeh Leib ben Asher Gunzberg. See Gunzberg, Aryeh Leib ben Asher Aryeh Leib ha-Kohen, 781 Aryeh Leib of Kénigsberg teacher of Aleksander Zisking, 36

Aryeh Leib of Shpola, 71 ARZA (Association of Reform Zionists of America), 618, 757 ARZA Canada, 757 Arzei Levanon, 731

As a Driven Leaf (Steinberg), 701

Asaphites, 71 ‘asarah batlanim, 110 “Asarah be-Tevet, 71-72, 268

824

INDEX “Asarah Ma’amarot (Afendopolo), 22

Asher Heni’ (piyyut), 684

“Asarah Ma’amarot (Fano), 268

Asherites, 73, 291 Ashi, 47, 74-75

ascamot. See taqqanah/taqqanot (regulation) Ascension ofIsaiah, 72 asceticism, 72-73

of Avelei Tsiyyon, 86 of of of of of

Avraham ben Dov, 90 Azikri, 94 Dov Ber of Mezhirech, 219 Eliyyahu ben Shelomo Zalman of Vilna, 240 Karaites, 86

middle path of Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’, 102 opposed by Ba‘al Shem Tov, Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer, 90 Shemu’el, 675

Yitshaq Nappaha’, 798 of Pinhas ben Ya’ir, 568 of of of of

Shabbetai Tsevi, 668 Therapeutae, 737

Todros Abulafia, 10 Tsoref, 755

of Yehi’el Mikha’el, 785 Asefet Zeqenim (Ashkenazi). See Shittah Mequbbetset (Ashkenazi) ‘aseh (do!; positive commandment), 73 “Aseret ha-Dibberot. See Ten Commandments

‘Aseret Yemei Teshuvah (Ten Days of Repentance), 73, 363, 621, 802 “Amidah for, 45, 815

editor of the Talmud Bavli, 715

head of Sura academy, 706 Ashkavah, Ashkenazi, Ashkenazi, Ashkenazi, Ashkenazi,

75, 241 Betsal’el, 18, 75 Eli‘ezer ben Eliyyahu, 75 Shemu’el Yaffe, 495 S. Z., 676

Ashkenazi, Tsevi Hirsch, 75-76

controversy with Ayllon, 93 on golem, 301 influence on Emden, 243

persecution of Hayon, 333 Ashkenazi, Yehi’el, 541 Ashkenazi, Yehuda, 76 Ashkenazi, Yissakhar Berman, 495 Ashkenazi, Yosef, 76 Ashkenazim, 76

cantorial music and, 159 hagiographic cycle on leaders of, 313 musical tradition, 520 recitation of Shema‘, 674 Ashmedai, Ashmodai. See Asmodeus Ashrei (Happy Are They), 77 in Minhah service, 498

in ShaHarit, 669

Asideans. See Hasideans

heshbon ha-nefesh during, 343

Askenazi, Gershon, 690

recitation of Avinu Malkenu during, 87

asmakhta’ (support), 77 Asmodeus (evil spirit), 77, 208, 209, 651

Ro’sh ha-Shanah as beginning of, 631 selihot during, 661 Shabbat Shuvah during, 638 in Tishrei, 741 Ashamnu (We Have Trespassed), 73, 271, 802 Asher, 73, 752 Asherah (Cannanite goddess), 73, 157, 238, 403

Asher ben David, 73-74

emissary of Yitshaq Sagi Nahor, 798 on ethics, 254

Kabbalah and, 413 Asher ben Meshullam of Lunel, 74 Asher ben Sha’ul of Lunel, 74, 497 Asher ben Ya‘agov, 133 Asher ben Yehi’el, 74, 175 on death sentences against informers, 209

ethical will of, 253

flight to Spain, 481 Heller’s commentary to code by, 340 responsa,

623

Asph, 167 Assaf, Simhah, 77 assault, 77-78

Assembly, Great. See Keneset ha-Gedolah Assembly of Jewish Notables (Paris, 1806-1807), 78

Assembly of Masorti Synagogues (England), 778 Assi (3d cent., Babylonian amora’), 78 as Palestinian amora’, 47 Assi (3d-4th cent., Palestinian amora’), 78 Abba’ student of, 1 ‘Ammi bar Natan and, 46

colleague of Yitshaq Nappaha’, 797 assimilation, 78-79, 243 Association of American Orthodox Hebrew Congregations, 405

Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA), lth WS

associations. See hevrah Assumption of Moses, 79, 733

source for Ya‘aqov ben Asher, 780

Assyria, 79-80

teacher of Hayyim ben Yitshaq, 333 Yeruham ben Meshullam, 790

destruction of neo-Hittite kingdoms, 353 Kingdom of Judah and, 408 Assyrian Exile, 80

825

INDEX

astrology, 80-81, 210, 476

asceticism, 72

astronomy, 81 Bashyazi on, 110 Levi ben Gershom and, 444 study of, 231 asufi, 81, 375 asylum, 81-82 in case of accidental homicide, 147, 358, 467 Hebron as city of refuge, 337 Levitical cities and, 447

Hadassi and, 308 Qumisi leader of, 601

“Ateret Zeqenim (Abravavel), 8

Salmon ben Yeruhim and, 643 Toviyyah ben Moshe with, 748 Yeget ben ‘Ali and, 785

avelut. See mourning avenger of blood. See blood avenger ‘averah/‘averot. See also sin as opposite of mitsvah/mitsvot, 505 Averroés

Athaliah (queen of Judah), 82, 408

ideas disseminated by Albalag, 34

athalta’ di-ge'ullah (beginning of the redemption), 82 Israel as, 387

influence, 564

atonement, 82-83

confession and, 182 role of the altar in securing, 44 sacrifices of, 640 Atonement, Day of. See Yom Kippur ‘atseret. See Shavu‘ot

on Del-Medigo, 207 on Levi ben Gershom, 444 on Moshe ben Yosef ha-Levi, 515

Av ha-Rahamim (Merciful Father; prayer), 86, 195 Avi asaf (Eli‘ezer ben Yo’el ha-Levi), 237

Avi Avi (My Father, My Father; poem), 87 Avicenna, 368

atsilut (emanation), 83, 242

Avigad, Nahman, 286

Attah Ehad (You Are One), 83

Avi ha-Rabbanim. See Me’ir ben Shemu’el Avinu Malkenu (Our Father, Our King), 87, 631 recitation during Ten Days of Repentance, 73 Avinu She-ba-shamayim (Our Father, who is in heaven), 87

Attah Har’eta la-Da‘at (It has been clearly shown to you), 83 Attah Hivdalta (You Have Set Apart), 83

Attah Noten Yad, 83-84 Attar, Hayyim ibn Moshe ibn, 84 Attar, Yehuda ben Ya‘agov bin, 84 Attar family, 84

Auerbach, Shelomo Zalman, 724 Aufruf, Aufrufen, 84 Augustine, anti-Jewish polemical work of, 573 Aus Meiner Jugend, Autobiographie (Lazarus), 440 Austrittsgemeinde, 84 Breuer, Salomon, head of, 151

influence of Samson Hirsch on, 349 opposed by Bamberger, 103 Austrittsgesetz (law of secession), 349 Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi, The: Leon Modena’s Life of Judah (Cohen), 507 autonomism, 222 autonomy, 84-85 of Jewish law courts, 114 judicial, 399 autopsies, 85, 478 Av (month), 85-86, 155 avaddon (place of destruction), 86 “Avadim (minor tractate), 86, 499

‘Avadim Hayinu (We were slaves), 86, 310 Avahat Yisra’el, 454

Aviv, 87

Avnei Zikkaron (Firkowitsch), 272 Avner ben Ner (Afendopolo), 22 ‘Avodah (sacred service), 87 ‘Amidat in, 45 on Yom Kippur, 802 ‘Avodah Zarah (Idolatrous Worship; tractate), 87-88, 373,536

Evel Rabbati appended to, 256 Soferim appended to, 694 Tsiddug ha-Din from, 754 “Avodat ha-Levi (Aharon ben Moshe ha-Levi), 31 ‘Avodat Yisra’el (Yisra’el ben Shabbetai Hapstein), 795 Avot (Fathers; prayer), 88

commentary by Bahya ben Asher, 102 Avot (Fathers; tractate), 88, 536

aphorisms in, 587 on authority of rabbinic oral law, 545 Book of Life and, 149

commentaries by Abravanel, 7 Alashkar, 34 Bedersi, 112

introduction by Meiiri, 482

avagq ribbit, 509 av beit din (head of law court), 114, 314 in Sanhedrin, 648, 649

Shemu’el ibn Tibbon, 372 on keter, 423

Avelei Tsiyyon (Mourners for Zion), 86

on levels of old age, 23

INDEX Avot (Fathers; tractate)—(Cont’d)

list of zugot, 92, 815 on study of the Torah, 703 on two kinds of mahaloget, 464 as wisdom literature, 771 Avot de-Rabbi Natan (minor tractate), 88, 88-89, 93, 499

826 Avvat Nafesh, 112 Ayash, Yehuda, 16, 93

ayin. See nothingness ‘ayin ha-ra‘. See evil eye Ayllon, Shelomo ben Ya‘agov, 93, 333 Ayyelet Ahavim (Alkabez), 39 azarah, 93

aggadah in, 25

Azariah, 199, 321

aphorisms in, 587 edition by Schechter, 652

azazel, 93-94 Azazel (demon), 209 azharot (exhortations), 94, 179, 570, 671 Azikri, El‘azar ben Moshe, 94, 254 “Azriel of Gerona, 94, 265, 413 Az Rov Nissim (Then You [Performed] Many Miracles; Tann’ai), 94

as wisdom literature, 771

avot mela’khot, 89 avot nezigin. See torts Avgat Rokhel (Karo), 714 Avraham Abele of Gombin. See Gombiner, Avraham Abele

Avraham Av Beit Din. See Avraham ben Yitshaq of

Azulai, Avraham, 95 Azulai, Hayyim Yosef David, 16, 76, 95

Narbonne

Avraham Bar Hayya’, 89, 254 Avraham ben ‘Azriel, 89, 235, 326 Avraham ben David of Posquiéres, 90

codification of law, 175

controversy with Zerahyah ben Yitshaq ha-Levi Gerondi, 811

correspondence with Yitshaq ben Abba’ Mari, 796 criticism of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, 331, 466

glosses of, 311

hiddushim by, 345 student of Meshullam ben Ya‘aqov, 488

teacher of Avraham ben Natan of Lunel, 91 Yehonatan ben David ha-Kohen of Lunel, 786 Avraham ben Dov Ber of Mezhirech, 90 Avraham ben Eli‘ezer ha-Levi, 90, 207 Avraham ben Eliyyahu of Vilna, 90-91

Avraham ben Moshe ben Maimon, 91, 704 Avraham ben Natan of Lunel, 91, 497

Avraham ben Yitshaq of Montpellier, 797 Avraham ben Yitshag of Narbonne, 91 codification of law and, 175

teacher of Zerahyah ben Yitshaq ha-Levi Gerondi, 811

Avraham ben Yo’shiyyahu Yerushalmi, 91-92 Avraham Gershon of Kutéw, 92 Avraham ha-Levi, 92 Avraham of Kalisk, 484 Avraham Yehoshu‘a Heschel, 92

student of Elimelekh of Lyzhansk, 239

Yehi’el Mikha’el of Zloczéw, 785 Avrahem Jagel of Venice, 161

avrekh (young man), 92 Avtalyon, 92, 115, 815 Avtinas family, 92-93

B

Baal-Anath epic cycle, 757 Ba‘alei ha-Tosafot (Urbach), 759 Ba‘alei Nefesh (Avraham ben David), 90, 811 Ba‘aleit Berit Avram (A. Azulai), 95

Ba‘al ha-Hassagot. See Avraham ben David of Posquieres Ba‘al ha-Levushim. See Jaffe, Mordekhai ben Avraham

Ba‘al ha-Turim. See Ya‘aqov ben Asher ba‘al ba‘al ba‘al Ba‘al

nes (miracle master), 96 geri'ah (master of reading; Torah reader), 96 Shem (master of the [divine] name), 96 Shem Tov, Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer, 96, 96-97

Aryeh Leib of Shpola and, 71, 71 disciples Ya‘aqov Yosef ha-Kohen, 781

Yehi’el Mikha’el, 785 Dov Ber of Mezhirech and, 219 founding of Hasidim, 325, 327

hagiography on (See Shivhei ha-Besht) on importance of hitlahavut in prayer, 352 influence on Nahum of Chernobyl, 525 rejection of asceticism, 90 student of Ahijah the Shilonite, 33

ba‘al tefillah (master of prayer), 97 ba‘al teqi‘ah (master of the shofar blowing), 97 ba‘al teshuvah (master of repentance), 97 Baal worship, 97-98, 565

Canaanites and, 157 Elijah’s opposition to, 238 influence on Yahvism, 98 introduced by queen Athaliah, 82 Jezebel and, 403 Babel, Tower of. See Tower of Babel Babel reference in the Bible, 98 Babovich, Simhah, 456

827 Babylonia, 98-99 autonomy of Jews in, 85 connection of rabbinic circles with Erets Yisra’el, 525 destruction of the Temple, 727

Babylonian academies, 10, 11, 12, 47, 98. See also Kallah months; Nehardea academy; Pumbedita academy; Sura academy Babylonian Captivity and Deutero-Isaiah, The (Kaufmann), 421 Babylonian Exile, 99, 259, 263

Babylonian vocalization, 764 baby naming, 99-100

INDEX

bal tashhit (do not destroy), 103, 227

bamah. See high place Bamberger, Seligmann Baer, 103 Ba-meh Madligin (With what may one light [the Sabbath lamp]?), 103 Ba-Midbar. See Numbers, Book of Ba-Midbar Rabbah. See Numbers Rabbah ban. See excommunication Banet, Mordekhai, 103 banishment, 104

baptism, 104, 404 baqqashah/baqqashot,

104, 661

Bacharach, Ya’ir Hayyim, 100, 281, 544

Bagqgqashat ha-Memim (Bedersi), 112 baraiyta/baraiytot, 104, 504 in Talmud Bavli, 715 in Talmud Yerushalmi, 716

Bacher, Wilhelm, 100, 153 Baddei ha-'Aron (Shem Tov ibn Ga’on), 42

Baraiyta’ de-Ma‘aseh Be-Re’shit, 460

badhan (folk poet and singer), 100-101, 198

Baraiyta’ de-Mele’khet ha-Mishkan, 104

Baeck, Leo, 101, 565, 574

Baraiyta’ de-Niddah,

Bach sJasail58 Bacharach, Naftali, 100

Holocaust theology, 356 last head of Hochschule fiir die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 353 on theology of Judaism, 737

Tosefta’ compared to, 747

104, 799

Baraiyta’ de-Rabbi Pinhas ben Ya’ir. See Midrash Tadshe’ Baraiyta’ de-Rav Adda’ (Adda’ bar Ahavah), 18 Baraiyta’ de-Shemu’el ha-Qatan, 677

Ba'ei Hayyei (Benveniste), 120

Baraiyta’ de-Yosef ben ‘Uzzi'el, 83, 326

Baer, Yitzhak, 101, 352, 402 Ba’er Heitev (Y. Ashkenazi), 76 Baghdad, academies in, 284, 706 Bah. See Sirkes, Yo’elben Shemu’el

Baraiyta’ of Thirty-two Rules, 104-105 Barcelona, Disputation of, 60, 105, 216 censorship of Hebrew books after, 162 Nahmanides in, 523

Bahir, Sefer ha-. See Sefer ha-Bahir

bareheadedness. See covering of the head

bahur (chosen one, unmarried man), 101

Barekhu, 105, 674

Bahur, Eliyyahu. See Levita, Eliyyahu

as doxology, 220

Bahya, Pseudo-, 101-102

in Ma‘ariv, 459

Bahya ben Asher, 102 Bahya ben Yosef ibn Paquda’, 102 on asceticism, 72 citing Mukammis,

518 and ethics, 254 on fear of God, 270 on free will, 279 on God’s attributes, 297-298 influenced by Sufism, 522, 704 influence on Aldabi, 36 on 613 commandments, 179 bailees. See shomerim Bais ya‘agov. See Beth Jacob Schools Balaam, 103 curses turned into blessings, 144, 540 Balaban, Meir, 352, 696 Balfour Declaration Hertz and, 342 Kook, Avraham Yitshaq, and, 432 Religious Zionism on, 82

as triumph of Zionism, 813 Ballaban, Steven, 515

in Shaharit, 669 Bar-Ilan, Meir, 105-106 Bar-Ilan University, 106, 452, 610

compilation and classification of responsa, 623 Bar Kokhba’, Shim‘on, 62, 103, 106 Bar Kokhba’ Revolt, 106 effect on academies, 11

eschatological expectation and, 248 support by ‘Aqiva ben Yosef, 62 Bar Mitsvah, 106-107 blessing at, 109 confirmation as alternative, 183 Baron, Salo Wittmayer, 352, 402

Bar Qappara’, 107, 687 barrenness, 107, 775 Bible on, 167, 581 divorce and, 582 as misfortune, 579 barter, 107-108 Baruch, Apocalypse of (Greek), 108

Baruch, Apocalypse of (Syriac), 108 Baruch, Books of, 58, 59, 108, 108

INDEX Baruch ben Neriah, 108, 394 barukh (blessed, praised), 108 Barukh Adonai Le-‘Olam, 108, 589

Barukh Dayyan Emet (Blessed be the true judge), 108, 621

Barukh ha-Shem (Blessed be the name [of God]), 108-109

Barukh hu’ u-varukh shemo (Blessed be he, blessed be his name), 109, 623 Barukh of Medzhibozh, 109, 524 Barukh She-’amar (Blessed be he who spoke), 109, 561

Barukh Shem Kevod Malkhuto Le-‘Olam Va-‘ed (Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever), 109 Barukh she-Petarani (Blessed Be He Who Has Freed Me), 109

Bar Yoh‘ai. See Shim‘on bar Yoh‘ai Basan, Yesha‘yahu, 457 Bashyazi, Eliyyahu ben Moshe, 30, 109-110 Afendopolo student of, 22 Basir, Yosef ben Avraham, 110, 417 influenced by Kalam, 415

teacher of Toviyyah ben Moshe, 748

Yeshu‘a ben Yehuda, 792 Basnage, Jacques, 351

Basola, Moshe, 110 Bassan, Yeshayahu, 100

bastard. See illegitimacy; mamzer bathing. See ablution; miqveh batlanim (idle persons), 110 Bat Mitsvah, 110-111, 777 introduction, 185, 417, 777 Reconstructionism and, 616

Yosef Hayyim ben Eliyyahu al-Hakham on, 805 bat gol (echo), 111, 633

battei din arbitration and, 65

types of, 114 Battei ha-Nefesh veha-Lehashim (Levi ben Avraham ben Hayyim), 444 Bava’ Batra’ (Last Gate; tractate), 111, 173, 536

commentary by Nahmanides, 182 Bava’ Metsi‘a’ (Middle Gate; tractate), 111, Wise 556

on restoration of lost property, 453 on shomerim, 684 Bava’ Qamma’ (First Gate; tractate), 111-112, 173, 536

Bavli. See Talmud Bavli Bavot tractates. See Bava’ Batra’; Bava’ Metsi‘a’; Bava’ Qamma’

Bayit Hadash (Sirkes), 690

828 beadle. See shammash beards, 112 Becker v. Eilat (Israel), Bedersi, Yeda‘yah ben bedigah (examination), bediqat hamets (search

400 Avraham, 112, 488 112-113 for leaven), 113, 559

Beer, Jacob Hertz, 392

Be'er Mayim Hayyim (Hayyim ben Betsal’el), 333 Be-‘ezrat ha-Shem (With the help of the Name [of God]), 113

begging, 113 Begin, Menachem, 305 Behab (fast), 677 Behak, Yehuda, 26 Behemoth, 113-114

Behinat ha-Dat (Del-Medigo), 207 Beilis, Mendel, 147 Bein ha-Metsarim (Three Weeks of Mourning), 85, 114, 682 Beit Av (Antibi), 55

beit din, 114 arbitration before, 65

Berdugo on role as communal authority, 122 for capital cases, 159 compromise and, 181 fines and, 271

punishments imposed by, 592 Rav and, 614

Beit Din Le-Ba‘ayot ‘Agunot, 610 Beit Beit Beit Beit Beit

El (kabbalist circle in Jerusalem), 37 Elohim (M. di Trani), 749 ha-Behirah (Me'iri), 482 ha-Levi (Yosef Baer Soloveichik), 695 ha-Midrash (Jellinek), 393

Beit Ha-Miqdash. See Temple Beit Hayyim, 114 Beit Hillel and Beit Shamm/’ai, 115, 186, 347 controversies

attitudes toward proselytes, 585 impurity of food, 467 levirate marriage, 793

lighting at Hanukkah, 323 preparation of food on festivals, 116 on Tu bi-Shevat, 678, 755

visiting the sick on the Sabbath, 686 ‘Eduyyot on controversies between, 230 as tanna’im, 721

Beit Hillet and Beit Shamm/ai controversies

shemattah, 678 beit keneset. See synagogue beit midrash (house of study), 115, 229 kloyz, 430 Beit Midrash (school in Jerusalem), 185

beit ‘olam (everlasting house; cemetery), 115

829 Beit Rabbenu she-be-Bavel, 706 Beitsah (Egg; tractate), 115 commentaries by Aharon ben Yosef ha-Levi, 31 Azikri, 94

beit sefer, 115, 229 Beit Shamm/’ai. See Beit Hillel and Beit Shamm/ai Beit She‘arim (Jewish city), 115 catacombs in, 161, 743 Yehuda ha-Nasi’ nasi’ of Sanhedrin, 789 Beit Ya‘aqov (Leiner), 390 Beit Ya‘ar ha-Levanon (Jagel), 392 Beit Yehuda (Ayash), 93 Beit Yehuda (Yehuda ibn Attar), 84 Beit Yisra’el (Yisra’el ben Shabbetai Hapstein), 795

INDEX

Benei Yeshivah, 324 Benei Yisra’el. See Samaritans Benei Zion (Homberg), 358

Beneviste, Avraham, 195 Beneviste, Yehoshu‘a Refa’el, 120 Ben-Gurion, David, 397, 813 Ben Ish Hai (Yosef Hayyim ben Eliyyahu), 805 Benjamin, 119, 609 Benjamin (tribe), 119, 408, 751, 752 Benjaminites, 119

Benjamin of Tudela, 43, 86 Ben Meir, Aharon. See Aharon ben Me’ir Ben Naftali, Moshe ben David, 118, 119 Ben Porat Yosef (Ya‘aqov Yosef ha-Kohen), 781 Ben Shim‘on, Rafa’el, 119

Beit Yosef (Karo), 176, 419, 685 citation of Yeruham ben Meshullam, 790 Sirkes and, 690 bekhor. See firstborn Bekhorot (Firstborn; tractate), 116, 273 Bekhor Shor, Yosef ben Yitshaq. See Yosef ben Yitshaq Bekhor Shor

Ben Ben Ben Ben

Bel and the Dragon, 59, 199 Belasco, Gershon, 574

Bentsur, Ya‘aqov. See Ibn Zur, Ya‘aqov

Belial, 651 belial (wickedness, wicked individuals), 116 belief. See creed; Thirteen Principles of Faith

Benveniste, Yehoshu‘a Refa’el, 120

Belkin, Samuel, 116-117

bells, 117 Belshazzar (king of Babylonia), 117, 198, 729 Belz (Galicia), 117, 328

Be-Motsa’ei Menuhah (At the Going Out of [the Day of] Rest), 117 Be-Motsa’ei Yom Menuhah (Ya‘aqov of Lunel), 117 Ben-Ammi, 453

Benamozegh, Eliyyahu, 117 Ben Asher, Aharon (1802-1872), 419 Ben Asher, Aharon ben Moshe (10th cent.), 118

and accepted text of the Bible, 475 system of vocalization, 764 Ben Asher, Moshe,

118

Sira. See Book of Ben Sira Sira, Alphabet of. See Alphabet ofben Sira Sira, Wisdom of. See Wisdom of ben Sira Sira: Documents of Jewish Sectaries (Schechter), 652 Ben Sorer U-Moreh (rebellious son), 120, 167

bentshn,

118, 120

Benveniste, Hayyim ben Yisra’el, 120 Benveniste family, 120 Ben-Yehuda, Eli‘ezer, 336 Ben Zoma’, Shim‘on. See Shim‘on ben Zoma’

bequests. See inheritance Berab, Ya‘agov, 120 Alashkar, Moshe, and, 34 attempt to reintroduce ordination, 546, 749 Azikri and, 94

Karo and, 419

opposed by Levi ibn Haviv, 371 use of Campanton’s method of study of the Talmud, 156

Berah Dodi (Make haste my beloved), 121 Berakhah. See blessings Berakhah Aharonah (Last Blessing), 121 Berakhah le-Vattalah, 121

Berakhah Me‘ein Shalosh (Blessing Summarizing

Ben Asher family, 118 Benattar, Hayyim. See Attar, Hayyim ibn Moshe ibn

berakhot. See blessings

Benattar, Yehuda. See Attar, Yehuda ben

Berakhot (Blessings; tractate), 121

Ya‘agov ibn Ben ‘Azzai, Shim‘on. See Shim‘on ben ‘Azzai

bencao, 118 Ben Chananja (journal), 454 benedictions. See blessings Benedict XIII, 746

Benei Benei Benei Bene

Akiva, 620 Beteira’ family, 118 Noah, 538 Israel, 118-119, 397, 709

the Three), 121

commentaries by Aharon ben Yosef ha-Levi, 31 Azikri, 94

foundations of liturgy, 497 on ‘olam ha-ba’, 542 Berdugo, Rafa’el, 121-122 bereirah (selection), 122

Be-Re’shit. See Genesis, Book of Be-Re’shit Rabbah. See Genesis Rabbah Be-Re’shit Rabbah (Yeshu‘a ben Yehuda), 792

INDEX Bere’shit Rabbati. See Genesis Rabbati Bergman, Samuel Hugo, 122 berikhah, 586 berit. See circumcision; Covenant

Berit Avraham (A. Horowitz), 361 Berit ha-Levi (Alkabez), 39

Berit Menuhah, 596 Berkovits, Eliezer, 122, 356 Berlin, Hirsch Leib, 405 Berlin, Naftali Tsevi Yehuda, 122-123, 695 biblical exegesis, 133

leader of Volozhin yeshivah, 764

830 on aged, 23 angels in, 51 on animals, 53 on Belshazzar, 117 blindness in the, 146

blood in the, 146 on bribery, 151 on bringing first fruits to the temple, 273 casting of lots in, 453 on censuses, 163 on charity, 165 civil law in, 173

Berlin, Sha’ul ben Tsevi Hirsch, 103, 123 Berlin, Yesha‘yahu ben Yehuda Loeb, 123 Berliner, Abraham, 89, 123, 773

on cleanliness and hygiene, 174 on commandment of personal safety, 198 conflicting attitudes toward art, 68

Berlin Jewish Teachers’ Seminary, 816

on costume,

Berlin Rabbinical Seminary, 123-124, 608, 773 Hildesheimer and, 346

on creditors and debtors, 206 dance in, 197

Hoffmann principal of, 354 Weinberg head of, 768 Berman, Samuel, 720 Bernard de Clairvaux, 195 Bernays, Isaac, 124, 348 Bertinoro, ‘Ovadyah, 124, 504, 646 Beruryah, 124, 230, 321, 481, 776

189

dating, 130 of Genesis, 286 Dead Sea Scrolls and, 204 on dedication of biblical sanctuaries, 206 demons in, 208 Deuteronomic source (D), 210, 211, 428 different explanations of Levites, 446

besamim. See spices

on divine punishment, 216

Besamim Ro’sh (S. Berlin), 103, 123 Besht. See Ba‘al Shem Tov, Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer bestiality, 666

on divorce, 216

Beta Israel, 124-125

on drunkenness, 221

identity as Jews, 397 observance of Sigd, 687

ges as religious leaders of, 598 synagogues of, 709 bet din. See beit din Beth Din of America, 608 Bethel (city), 125 Bethel (god), 125 Beth Jacob Schools, 28, 125-126, 230, 652, 777 Bethlehem, 126

Beth Midrash Govohah, 433 Beth Sar Shalom, 398 Beth Yeshua, 398 betrothal, 126 Qiddushin on, 599

on dowry, 219-220 dreams in, 220

ecology and, 227 on educating children in God’s commandments, 229 on the elders, 236 Elohist (Elohistic) Source (E), 242 on Erets Yisra’el, 246 ethics in, 253-254

eulogies in, 255 excommunication in, 258

on Exodus, 261 exorcism in, 262

fight against polytheism, 509 fire in, 272 first reference to sin, 690 on flesh, 274

Bey, David, 218

formal greetings in, 304

Bezalel, inspiration of, 378, 712 Bezalel ben Uri, 126

freedom of choice in, 278 on Geihinnom, 285

Bialik, Hayyim Nahman, 25, 544 Bibago, Avraham, 126-127 Bibas. See Bibago, Avraham

on giving of the law, 293 on God's relationship to the world, 295 on healing, 478

Bible, 127-131. See also Vulgate

on Hebron, 337 on Hezekiah, 344

accounts of covenants between human individuals, 191 on adultery, 22

on high places, 345 on history of Judaism, 350

831 on Hittites, 353 holy spirit, 633 on hospitality, 363

INDEX salvation as deliverance from concrete sufferings in, 644 on Sarah, 650

on human beings, 364

Satan in, 651

importance of Exodus in, 810

on slander, 691

imprisonment as temporary measure, 375 individual with disabilities in, 215

on slavery, 692 on the sun, 706

interpretation (See hermeneutics) interpretation of written law in, 315 on Jethro, 396

symbolical approach, 40 on Tabernacle, 712 on tekhelet dye, 726

on Jezebel, 403 on Judah (son of Jacob), 408

terms used for the Israelites, 557 text and transmission, 131

on on on on

judges, 411 judicial system, 399 labor, 436 Leviathan, 443-444

literal (peshat) versus exegetical (derash)

interpretation by Abbayei, 2

themes including snakes, 663 on tithing, 741 on treatment of strangers, 701 on truthfulness, 753 two versions of the Decalogue in, 731

use of Aramaic in, 64, 129 use of love in, 453

on marriage between Jew and non-Jew, 381 Masoretic Text, 117, 134

use of term father in, 269 use of Torah in, 743

medieval Jewish-Christian polemic over interpretation of, 133

on vengeance, 762 on virginity, 762

on meditation, 479 on menstrual impurity, 486

on wealth, 768 on women, 774-775

on Midianites, 493

words for prophet in, 583

miracles recorded in, 501 on mourning, 517

Yahvist source (J), 130, 782 Bible, Lost Books of the, 131

name for Hebrew language, 335

Bible commentators. See Bible exegesis

names used for cemeteries, 162 on oaths, 678

Bible criticism, 130 Bible exegesis, 131-134. See also Alshekh, Moshe

on obligation to recite Shema‘, 673 on origin of Babel, 749 origin of sheloshim in, 673 on orphans, 549 on parents, 552 pharaohs mentioned in, 562 polemics against paganism in, 186 polygamy in, 575 prayers in, 576 presupposition of the existence of god, 294 on priesthood, 579

by Abravanel, 7 by Binyamin, 139 by David Kimhi, 427 of Eli‘ezer of Beaugency, 237, 804 by Ibn Ezra, 369 in Judeo-Spanish, 410-411 by Malbim, 468 by Me'iri, 482 by Moshe Kimhi, 427 Nahmanides and, 524 by Philo, 563

Priestly source (P), 581, 712

by Qumisi, 601-602

prohibition of magic, 463 in prompt payment of wages, 766 prophecy in, 583 on prophet Elijah, 238 on rape, 610, 611

by by by by by

references to music, 519 on relation of righteousness and success, 703

by Tanhum ben Yosef, 719 on war, 766

on rending of clothes, 621 retelling of the Exodus in, 261 on righteousness, 627 Sabbath and, 636 on salt, 643

Rashi, 612 Sa‘adyah Ga’on, 635 Salmon ben Yeruhim, 643 Sforno, 666-667 Shemu’el ben Me’ir, 676

by Yeget ben “Ali, 785 by Yosef ben Yitshaq Bekhor Shor, 804 by Yosef Kimhi, 427 Bible readings in the syngagogue. See Haftarah; Qeri’at ha-Torah; Triennial Cycle

832

INDEX Bible text, 134. See also Masorah; Masorah (traditional text)

canon determined in Yavneh, 784 cantillation of and accents, 14 Okhlah ve Okhlah on, 542

order of Septuagint different from Masoretic

after eating one of seven species, 665 Berakhah Aharonah as short form, 121

Berakhah Me‘ein Shalosh as abbreviated form, 121

priests and, 580 thanksgiving in, 735

washing of hands before, 476

text, 663

poetry, 572-573 Shemu’el ben Me’ir’s interest in grammar and syntax, 676 Bible translations. See also Targum Bi'ur (German Bible translation by Mendelssohn),

Birkat ha-Minim (blessing (curse) concerning heretics), 140, 169, 498 ‘Amidat and, 45

composed by Shemu’ ha-Qatan, 676 institution by Gamli’el II, 282

Birkat ha-Motsi’ (Bringing Out Blessing), 140-141,

358, 361, 485

collaboration of Buber and Rosenzweig, 630 as form of exegesis, 132 into Greek

by Aquila, 63, 135, 282, 663, 722

150, 637

salt and recitation of, 644 Birkat ha-Shir (Blessing of the Song), 141, 271, 638

Birkat Birkat Birkat Birkei

by Symmachus, 708 in Italian, 457 Jewish, 134-138

by Buber and Rosenzweig, 153

ha-Torah (Blessing of the Torah), 141, 744 ha-Zan, 140 ha-Zevah (A. Koidonover), 431 Yosef (Azulai), 76, 123

in Syriac, 560

Birkhot ha-Nehenin (blessing for things enjoyed),

by Theodotion, 737 into Yiddish, 136

Birkhot ha-Shahar (Morning Blessings), 141, 145,

141, 145

Biblical and Oriental Studies (Cassuto), 161

241, 669

biblicism, ideology of, 601 Bibli Hebraica (ed., Kittle), 500

Birnbaum, Philip, 578

Bibliography ofthe Writings of Gershom Scholem, 654 Biddui Rabbah. See ‘Al Het’ Bikkurim (First Fruits; tractate), 27, 138, 273 Bilbaz. See Bibago, Avraham

immersion Niddah on, Talmud on, birth control,

Bilhah, 609, 707

birthdays, 143

birth, 141-142

mother of Dan, 197 mother of Naphtali, 526 Reuben and, 624 as tribal mother, 391, 751 bimah (platform, pulpit), 138, 709 processional circuit around, 324 referred to as the seat of Moses, 514

binding of Isaac. See ‘agedah Bing, Abraham,

124, 626

Binyamin ben Moshe Nahawendi, Binyamin ha-Kohen, 93, 468, 807

138-139, 600

biqqur holim. See sick, visiting the Birkat ha-’Arets, 140

Birkat ha-Gomel (blessing of thanksgiving after deliverance from danger), 139, 735, 799

Birkat ha-Hammah (Blessing of the Sun), 139 Birkat ha-Hodesh (Blessing of the New Moon), 139 Birkat ha-Kohanim (Blessing for the Priests), 45, 139-140, 519, 580, 669

Birkat ha-Levanah. See Qiddush Levanah Birkat ha-Mazon (grace after meals), 118, 140, 145, 150, 637, 638

additions on festivals, 37

of mother and, 5, 501 536 478 142-143

birthright, 143, 247, 272

Bishop of the Jews, 143 bishul